tkyler

Ok...I did some soul searching...and I think I'm onto something....I think I'm starting to see where my lack of vision lies....

So I had my first nomination for a "best of" award at the org last month for my Falco...but alas I didn't win. So my congratulations goes out to the developer of the Airbus winner! I must confess though, that I am a bit embarrassed as to my total misunderstanding of the x-plane.org view of flight sim quality...at least in the dialect of x-plane.org speak, I figured I'd know what a "best of" contender needed to bring to the table. Considering that I've been a member there for something like 5 years or more, you'd think I'd have it down but nooooo..I had to go charging in thinking I was doing something good only to be made a mockery of by true 3D modeling geniuses. If only the Microsoft Flight Sim enthusiasts could see the error of their ways...and come over to the org and see the best of what x-plane has to offer, like October's winner....month after month... then truly they'd throw their FS DVDs in the trash and send Austin into the wild blue yonder in his Cirrus jet with their rivers of cash flowing into South Carolina for copies of x-plane. I just can't understand why the MSFS crowd comes over to the org and looks at the 'best of' offerings and still mocks x-plane...I mean..we're throwing the best of what x-plane.org has at em....the populace of the org even says so...they voted on it! So then......please tell me what things am I missing? what things do I need to do? to get my work as awesome as the best of winners? I'm just staring at these pics but I guess I just don't have the vision.

...oh and we'll be there to give it to em! ;-)

Get a tissue and clean your nose man! I hope not!!!! Poor lighting simulation, "flash" effect ...can you not see the totally mediocre 3D quality in that image???? Javier's art surpasses PMDG in a BIG way. PMDG needs to get up to "jrollen quality" with their art.

thanks for the compliment. Regarding running out of trim, this would probably depend on your glide slope angle. I agree the trim almost limits out on a casual approach...this due to the fact that x-plane does not model trim exactly, but only uses a 'percentage' of elevator travel as the trim travel. So I could simply "up" the percentage of elevator travel and that would have the end effect of having more trim authority as andy248 did. That's the simplest solution. The reason I guess I never really caught it was that the approach angle in the MU-2 as practiced is typically higher than normal and we all came in nose low with the flaps acting like air brakes almost. This xplane version is designed to fly with neutral trim around 220 kias...so at slow speeds, I could see it being nose heavy and maxing out the elevator trim, but because I just never seem to fly that way, I guess I never notice it. Regarding the 120 kias approach speed...the "in the know" crowd calls that speed a bit slow...more like 130-140 through the middle marker and about 120 at the inner marker and 105 +/- about touchdown. The only time we'd fly the "proper" glide slope was during IFR ops and I didn't experiement enough during that time to see what's what...besides, we always had 1000+ lbs of cargo and the MU2 is trim sensitive enough that the distribution of the cargo would probably have some effect also. In the MU-2...once it's trimmed nice and level...a pilot can lean forward and get the plane to nose down. So If you prefer to fly that profile, then you can change the trim percentages as Andy did..it's not hard at all...or you can just fly a bit steeper profile. If you'd like to change your trim settings, let me know and I'll put some "how to" screenies up here.

Rogue...just watched...talk about deja vue. I've done several approaches/landings in the Moo and dang if that isn't almost exactly what its like to bring that bird in, lots of yoke movement and wiggling once the plane gets on the ground. There were times the Mu-2 would get squirrly on landing and you just knew the tires were going to pop from the side loads...but they never did. that was fun to watch...brought back memories. Darn shame the cargo route out of san antonio got cancelled or I'd still be scooting around in that thing.

Are you using a late model ATI card Jason? I tend to work with "one generation older" video drivers and such to ensure maximum compatibility and stability. The message above is indicative of video issues. If you're using the latest and greatest drivers and/or video card, then there could be some..."unpredictabilities"

for your own edification Jason, the reason it's not in the panel is because to put it there, I have to adjust the cockpit texture, do a bit more 3D and reexport the cockpit object. Exporting the cockpit object means 2-3 hours minimum of hand editing and calibration because no export scripts support manipulators. Since I'm going to redo the cockpit with "up to date" technology, it's better in my opinion, to wait until it can all be done correctly.

OK...it's done. Attached is a zip file with plugins for all 3 platforms (link just above the image). There's instructions with the download...these plugins go into the resources folder and NOT the aircraft folder. You must be logged in to see the image and download the plug-in in this post. If you do not have an account here, please create one now by going to: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?action=register Info regarding the plug-in: This plugin is a workaround for owners of xscenery's MU2 to allow them to utilize their Automatic Direction Finder (ADF). The plugin does NOT install in the MU2 folder, but rather installs in the "resources > plugins" folder as shown below in Figure 1. You only need to copy over the appropriate plugin for your operating system. You do NOT need all three plugins. Refer to the filename for the correct plugin for your operating system. Once the plugin has been copied over, it is ready for use and after launching xplane, you can access the dialog box through the plugins menu (Figure 2.) Note that there will be TWO menu items relating to the MU2. I would have liked to put all MU2 related menu chioces in one menu, but it's more trouble than it's worth at this time. Just click the "xscenery MU2" menu item and the rest will be obvious. Simply click the checkboxes to change ADFs 1 & 2 from "on" to "antenna". The plugin does NOT turn off the ADF, but allows the needles to "park" whenever the checkbox is unchecked. Turning the ADF to "off" leaves the needles where they are and can be confusing. To change the frequency, just type in the frequency..you can only use 3 digits...and hit the "SET FREQs" button and you're good to go. Download Link Appears Below When You Log-In To Forum! xsMU2_ADF_plugin.zip

Yes, its the easiest solution at the moment. There can be only one aircraft specific plug-in in the aircraft folder. I'd have to add it into the existing code, recompile and redistribute...and because it's a "hack", I prefer not to do it that way. This plug-in will go in the "resources > plugins" folder and be available to all aircraft; however, there'll be a MU2 specific menu item to bring up the dialog.

Ok..got it working, but just need to put some "idiot proof" code in. It will work like this: Go to the plugins menus and navigate your way to the SET ADF menu item. A dialog box pops up....and you just enter a 3 digit number in the text field and hit the "SET ADF" button and yer done. Also included is a check box that toggles the ADF power on and off...so if your ADF is off, then you can turn it on with the checkbox. It looks like this...

How about a temporary workaround. I could probably put a dialog box in the plugin where you'd just input the adf frequency, this would allow you to utilize ndb with minimal effort

Daniel...I couldn't say when...I have a few other projects I'm working on that are higher priority. These higher priority project will have effects / implications on the MU-2 update though. Probably just towards the end of this year / first of next year I'll be working on an update.

no worries av8r..sorry if I came off a bit terse. I tend to get a bit defensive when I think folks who've never flown an MU-2 are telling me how the MU-2 should fly. Certainly you didn't go that far, but others have enough to make me twitchy. I do thank you for your thoughts and input as I'll be considering all things for future updates.

Thanks for you 2 cents av8r, but just so you know...I won't change a thing. If you have the correct version of x-plane (9.31 or later) and are using the latest version of the MU-2 (version 1.1.1...though I don't think I labeled it well in the download...time to fix this!) anyhow, if you're using those and the roll is "TOO" pronounced, then you're not flying it right. Also, you mention "counter rotating" props..and the MU-2 does not have these...they rotate in the same direction. This x-plane version flies almost exactly like the real thing. NOW in the documentation, I recommend a bit of left trim on takeoff. Now we never used left trim before takeoff in the real MU-2, but if you watch a few cockpit videos on youtube of real MU2 takeoffs. http://www.youtube.com/user/mtnairpilot#p/a/u/0/wCxOx30rdow ..you'll note that we just yank the yoke to the left quite a bit after we get airborne, THEN we adjust the roll trim as needed after dealing with gear, flaps and bleed air. Actually, your hand moves between all four controls until the plane is stablized.. rotate...bit of left yoke input, gear up, flaps up one detent, adjust roll trim, bleed air from off to left, flaps up another notch, adjust roll trim...speed up a bit, bleed air to both....adjust roll trim, stablize at climb speed, adjust roll trim...and that's how it goes. Now as one who HAS flown the MU-2 and used computer hardware, I'll be the first to tell you than a yoke at home doesn't feel like a yoke in the MU-2. No big deal to hold the yoke to the left while really flying..you just did what was natural, but on a home hardware system, with the spring loaded hardware, it just feels wrong I agree... holding the yoke to the left. Sooooo, I recommended using roll trim before takeoff to "ease the pain" of everybody who has never really flown an MU-2. Also, notice I said "perceived" in my comment, not "TOO", please don't put words in my mouth, that is a "pet peeve" of mine....that means our brains interpret the phenomenon different, even if the phenomenon is the same...and personally, I think the x-plane model is pretty darn close to the real thing. The answer to the roll issue is not changing the flight model to make it easier for you to fly..the answer is changing your knowledge of flying it (and the correct versions) and learn to fly it correctly.

FYI, Cameron is out of his home country at the moment. I have no idea when he'll be back, but I DO know that he's probably not concerned about internet access while he's gone. So it might be a few days before he's able to do anything.

Very well worded...I agree that dependency is the major issue. It is the reason I do not use google docs, email, file storage services, calendar or any web based software for critical stuff. Technically our stuff doesn't follow you home either..it's in your sole possession after purchase, but I totally agree it is limited and dependency ensues whenever you have a problem or change something. The best I can say is we're considering other ways to make it more independent and still be effective. At least it's less restrictive than iTunes :-)

No worries at all man! I seriously respect your opinion. DRM can be controversial, but most people don't seem to mind the DRM (required CD) used by x-plane...or the use of a serial number for their OS, or photoshop. In many of the discussions about DRM that I've had, what I've found is that people are selective about which DRM they complain about because we're all surrounded by DRM and folks don't complain about all of it. Somehow it makes many feel like a criminal, a position I can understand; however, in the end though, the use of the DRM for the MU-2 takes no more than 5 minutes (I registered within 3...yes, the MU-2 on my machine uses it too) and any problems that are encountered in the future can usually be overcome very very quickly. So the only thing really standing between 98% of end users and the MU-2 is about 5 minutes (or less) of their time. Now if that strikes a user as too much trouble or offensive...well then that's just a statistic I'm willing to live with. DRM also implies "mangement". We really don't "manage" the digital rights on the MU-2 in a "ongoing" sense, we only enable it. iTunes for example "keeps on eye" on your and the songs you purchase...step outta line and they know about it because iTunes is constantly communicating via the internet. Once the MU-2 gets its serial number, that number resides on your machine. You can copy it to as many machines as you like. Of course the MU-2 won't work on those machines, but at least we're not spying on you. If you wanted to change machines, all you'd have to do is work that out with x-aviation, it's been done before. So once activated, you have complete autonomy...you can disconnect from the internet and still run it.

I couldn't agree more and this is one issue I feel very strongly about. I have been speaking with many x-plane developers for many years and there is a dividing line between the "old guard" and the "new guard". The old guard are those individuals who have been doing payware for a while...let's say "pre Version 8". These developers did not need the 3D skills to develop high quality 3D content because x-plane did not support it. x-plane developers were mostly technical individuals whereas the Microsoft products were mostly driven by artistic individuals. The best products combine the two and that is why many MSFS developers are teams and x-plane developers are individuals. So when x-plane version 8 came out, x-plane begin to introduce features that finally provided us developers with the features we needed to produce higher quality work. The problem is that the "old guard" were too rooted in their old methods and did not trust Laminar due to their experiences in the past with the high rate of change of functionality. So then, for x-plane to be considered high quality, new level of detail / performance / functionality was required. This was my one goal with the MU-2, to show what could be done..and there's still a lot it doesn't do and a whole lot more detail to be put in. I am a single developer and the workload is enormous. I would very much love to have a team but the x-plane community's mentality / dynamics has not allowed that to happen...and this example you speak of is typical of why. I get defensive on this issue because you're right...these developers are keeping x-plane down. If I were you I would call the product onto the floor for it's shortcomings. You may do so without attacking the author, you can even be polite. Be subjective and keep facts straight and label opinions as just that..opinion. Don't refer to the author and you will be "fair and impartial" in your review. Reviews are all people have to go on and we as the community have a responsibility to share information. As I developer I wear one hat, but I am also an x-plane user and part of the community. I welcome any critique and criticisms of any product I put out...this is free enterprise..this makes things better. This may seems like I'm taking an opportunity to bash other developers (assuming you're not talking about my MU-2), but this is no where near the case...I would LOVE all developers to step it up for the sake of x-plane...there's thousands of products to be done.....no one is taking anybody elses market. Ok..all that being said....here's the reason I see x-plane's development problem. It's two-fold. 1.) X-Plane has lots of features to cram into aircraft these days. These tools we have to implement these features are limited at the moment...blender does not support manipulators yet and AC3Ds are cumbersome to use on a very large scale. At best, you only see simpler aircraft done in full 3D. The XB-70 by Alex Gifford is, by far, the most complex and impressive aircraft ever seen by x-plane, but has been more than 3 years in the works and thousands of hours...and the MU -2 is right behind it. Nils BK-117 is an up and comer and should be very very impressive. The problem is that it's complex work simulating complex aircraft and there's not enough developer talent in the x-plane world to address that. 2.) The reason there's no talent for development is the x-plane market is still too small to attract talent....the money ain't here yet. The complex aircraft is what the market wants...airliners, fighters, turboprops....these are the biggest sellers in the MSFS world and people are people where ever you go....meaning thats what they want for x-plane too. So I don't really see a quick solution. x-plane's growth and progression has been very predictable. growth models for this kind of stuff is exponential, not linear. We're still in the early phases, but when the right product or scenery comes out...a "corner" will be turned and momentum will build and we'll start to see more development. In the meantime, I think it healthy you should give your opinion on any product you have..but state why if you do...I see lots of "opinion giving" with no support. I really don't like that either. You are reviewing digital content, not people. Its not your problem if authors can't separate a critique of their work from a critique of themselves.....they need to step it up! We all do!

yea...when you gonna finish this thing....I gots money to spend!

Glad to hear. I remember looking at lightwave so many years ago and thinking how lousy the interface was and not being able to even extrude something. Then I started getting better at Blender and actually was able to go back to lightwave and get through it pretty good being that the interfaces were somewhat similar. I could understand the workflow of the two programs and though it took me a while to latch on, once I got used to the productivity, I haven't looked back.

So Ola went over to the org to ask a 3D question......Ola...don't you know this is the place to get your 3D answers. So you imported your lightwave object into blender...you check your UV mapping by creating a new window in blender and set that window to be a "UV image editor" window (via a pop up menu in the lower left of the new window). Then you go into edit mode in your modeling window and hit the 'a' key to select all. Make sure your cursor is over the 3D modeling window when you hit the 'a' key......and you'll see your UV map in the UV image editor window...that is IF Blender's LWO importer imported your UV mappings. Now in the UV image editor window..you can use a "Image > open" command to navigate to and assign your image to the UV mappings. If you do not see your expected UV mapping, then it's possible the LWO imported doesn't import UV's at all...I've never tried. If this is the case, then export from lightwave using the WAVEFRONT format...and import the WAVEFRONT file into blender. Ironically, the wavefront extensions is *.obj...just like x-plane.

Yes it would and indeed SHOULD be done. The MU-2 and all of Javier's stuff have baked ambient occlusion. I myself usually go one further and bake a radiosity solution too to give me a bit of extra flexibility. Blender has only recently added baking of ambient occlusion but few authors know about it....and Studio Max well...it's almost 4000.00 and not many developers use it for x-plane. I suspect you'll see more of it in the future though.

I cant say there's one comprehensive reference available Jerry. Forums have always been the traditional place to get information. Layman's documention has always been desired and I am aware of several entites who have talked about compiling one...though Im' sure the immensity of the task makes that challenging. Please feel free to ask away here anything that you need. There's almost always someone within "minutes" away of being able to help out.

Here's a little side experiement I have going on . This is a Van's Aircraft RV-6 sporting Larry Adamson's paint scheme. When done, I'll make this available here at x-pilot.