Mu-2

[Gdavis101]

Has anyone here bought and used the MU-2 yet?

[gera]

Has anyone here bought and used the MU-2 yet?

You mean this one???

http://in.truveo.com/Xplane-9-Mu2-Marquise-by-Tom-Kyler/id/2721635277

This is a good sample of how advanced models are right now in X-plane....

[Odie]

There's an article in the latest PC Pilot magazine on a payware MU-2. It looks pretty sharp and I think it's $30 for the download. Don't know if this is the same one.

This was the first time I even looked at an MU-2 and I got to admit it's a very nice aircraft design.

The reviewer gave it high marks in the review (about 3 pages worth). Looking at the screenshots and reading the review, it
impressed me. I fly FS9 and FSX, and had been wondering about the state of payware development for XP, so I was glad to
see the article.

In the same issue, there was also an accompanying article about getting started in XP, so the sim itself is getting established in the media of FS. I hope it continues to
grow.

[gera]

There's an article in the latest PC Pilot magazine on a payware MU-2. It looks pretty sharp and I think it's $30 for the download. Don't know if this is the same one.

This was the first time I even looked at an MU-2 and I got to admit it's a very nice aircraft design.

The reviewer gave it high marks in the review (about 3 pages worth). Looking at the screenshots and reading the review, it
impressed me. I fly FS9 and FSX, and had been wondering about the state of payware development for XP, so I was glad to
see the article.

In the same issue, there was also an accompanying article about getting started in XP, so the sim itself is getting established in the media of FS. I hope it continues to
grow.

That´s the one, a beautiful aircraft. Do you know you can get it free for FSX??.. Go to this site, you will find many others too....:running::running:

http://www.premaircraft.com/MU-2_FSX/index.html

[Odie]

Thanks, Gera ! Just ramping up to get into X-plane.

[Gdavis101]

That is the one, just wondering what the overall opinion was.

[bstolle]

Well, I tried the demo version and the problem was that one has to use almost FULL "aileron" during the take off run and at low speeds to keep the wings level, due to the fact that the Mu-2 doesn't have ailerons and x-plane isn't as good concerning aerodynamics as most people want to believe :(
A known x-plane shortcoming confirmed by the designer.

Don't know if they have fixed this problem or if the cheated with invisible ailerons.

After designing planes for x-plane for nearly 5 years I stopped that 2 years ago because it's next to impossible to achieve flight manual performance due to its imprecise and constantly changing aerodynamic changes.

[Gdavis101]

Thats interesting...

[tkyler]

...and misleading in my opinion. I modeled the MU-2 for x-plane and the "demo (not really a demo)" is over 3 years old and not suitable to gauge x-plane abilities in any way...ESPECIALLY if you 1.) tried it with x-plane 9.30 or later or 2.) Your using joystick hardware. If you're using joystick hardware, then you're probably cramming the power lever all the way forward on the joystick, which over-torques the engines..(just like in the real thing)...and if you do that, you will get very excessive roll....which is why we don't do that in the real plane.

The biggest problem with x-plane aircraft is most designers inability to model an aircraft properly. sg38, your synopsis about "invisible ailerons" is doing a disservice to all who would make up their own mind. The MU-2 flight model in x-plane has spoilers on top of the wings, just as in the real thing...it does not require full aileron during takeoff and handles within 98% of the real thing....I know cause I have 40 hours in the real thing.

I can try and give an objective and unbiased opinion...knowing it like I do. The flight model is great (if you have MU-2 time to dispute it with me, I'm all ears). The autopilot is great. The plane models many systems very well and the problem with that is that it makes the systems that don't work really stick out. I elected not to model any systems associated with abnormal or emergency operation for the initial version. Therefore, things like the emergency annunciators and fire handles...while they are animated, they do nothing. In addition, some of the overhead rheostats that control cockpit lighting don't animate. The fuel switches for transferring fuel do not transfer fuel..(because the system is automatic in NORMAL operation). I also did not include a 2D panel because x-plane's 2D panel ability was limited when I began the project. It has since expanded but I have yet to exploit it

My goal with this first version was to simulate normal flying..mostly cross-country IFR for VATSIM and instrument scan. IF you like that kind of flying...you might enjoy it. If you like emergency procedures or 100% systems simulation...this version is not for you.

The next version will correct as many of the shortcomings as I can. I have no idea when that will be...perhaps in the back half of the year. X-Plane 9.30 introduced many new features that will cause me to backtrack and redo some work (such is development with x-plane) ...but the new features really make the simulator much more worthwhile. The detail is towards the top of x-plane's offerings, but I'm seeing more work for x-plane that is easily just as good and better. The MU-2 was begun almost 3 years ago and some of that old tech shows up in some corners. I do want to completely redo the cockpit once I have more systems working. The 3D interaction with the cockpit controls (by mouse) is the best available so far. This is quantifiable in that I have about 60-70 "manipulators" which are 3D controls. The next highest number of manipulators that I am aware of for 3D interaction is about 5..in the default 172. Like anything, this will change with time, but I plan to keep pushing the tech myself.


In the same way that Aeroworx improved their King Air and offered a "deluxe" version...I anticipate doing the same in the ensuing years.

[Gdavis101]

So far, from what I have seen I like it.. And it is one of the most realistic feeling models in X-Plane to date.

[arrowmaker]

I previously posted this link in another thread. However if you havn't already see it, it's a good showcase of the MU-2.

Mitsubishi MU-2 (Payware)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbaxHfxSgZU&fmt=22

[hobofat]

...and misleading in my opinion. I modeled the MU-2 for x-plane and the "demo (not really a demo)" is over 3 years old and not suitable to gauge x-plane abilities in any way...ESPECIALLY if you 1.) tried it with x-plane 9.30 or later or 2.) Your using joystick hardware. If you're using joystick hardware, then you're probably cramming the power lever all the way forward on the joystick, which over-torques the engines..(just like in the real thing)...and if you do that, you will get very excessive roll....which is why we don't do that in the real plane.

The biggest problem with x-plane aircraft is most designers inability to model an aircraft properly. sg38, your synopsis about "invisible ailerons" is doing a disservice to all who would make up their own mind. The MU-2 flight model in x-plane has spoilers on top of the wings, just as in the real thing...it does not require full aileron during takeoff and handles within 98% of the real thing....I know cause I have 40 hours in the real thing.

I can try and give an objective and unbiased opinion...knowing it like I do. The flight model is great (if you have MU-2 time to dispute it with me, I'm all ears). The autopilot is great. The plane models many systems very well and the problem with that is that it makes the systems that don't work really stick out. I elected not to model any systems associated with abnormal or emergency operation for the initial version. Therefore, things like the emergency annunciators and fire handles...while they are animated, they do nothing. In addition, some of the overhead rheostats that control cockpit lighting don't animate. The fuel switches for transferring fuel do not transfer fuel..(because the system is automatic in NORMAL operation). I also did not include a 2D panel because x-plane's 2D panel ability was limited when I began the project. It has since expanded but I have yet to exploit it

My goal with this first version was to simulate normal flying..mostly cross-country IFR for VATSIM and instrument scan. IF you like that kind of flying...you might enjoy it. If you like emergency procedures or 100% systems simulation...this version is not for you.

The next version will correct as many of the shortcomings as I can. I have no idea when that will be...perhaps in the back half of the year. X-Plane 9.30 introduced many new features that will cause me to backtrack and redo some work (such is development with x-plane) ...but the new features really make the simulator much more worthwhile. The detail is towards the top of x-plane's offerings, but I'm seeing more work for x-plane that is easily just as good and better. The MU-2 was begun almost 3 years ago and some of that old tech shows up in some corners. I do want to completely redo the cockpit once I have more systems working. The 3D interaction with the cockpit controls (by mouse) is the best available so far. This is quantifiable in that I have about 60-70 "manipulators" which are 3D controls. The next highest number of manipulators that I am aware of for 3D interaction is about 5..in the default 172. Like anything, this will change with time, but I plan to keep pushing the tech myself.


In the same way that Aeroworx improved their King Air and offered a "deluxe" version...I anticipate doing the same in the ensuing years.

Thanks for dropping in with a forthright response. To be honest, I only considered purchasing X-Plane after seeing the youtube clips for the MU-2 as I was previously underwhelmed with the offerings in X-Plane. As a dedicated MSFS user I too have a hard time crossing over to X-Plane (one simulator's imperfections are enough to deal with!), but work like this makes it worth having in my opinion. Since the MU-2, I'm seeing a few other WIP products for X-Plane that seek to offer as high a level of detail (or more), so it's good to see the edge being pushed.

[bstolle]

>I modeled the MU-2 for x-plane and the "demo (not really a demo)" is over 3 years old and not suitable to gauge x-plane abilities in any way...ESPECIALLY if you 1.) tried it with x-plane 9.30 or later...

Thanx for this perfect example!

That's exactly one of x-planes main weak points.
If austin gets a serious well documented complaint, he changes the sim accordingly.
Unfortunately by simply changing a single item e.g. concering aerodynamics, he almost always screws up the rest and it takes him quite a few versions to correct it. By then he discoveres a new fault and the whole process starts again.
From time to time I visit x-plane.org and it's still the very same since at least 10 years!
For designers it's really frustrating, very time consuming (and almost impossible to do the required updates if there is more than one plane available for sale).
For customers its even worse because the know that their plane e.g. the Mu-2 for 9.30 will most probably fly incorrect after e.g. 9.50

>The biggest problem with x-plane aircraft is most designers inability to model an aircraft properly.

Maybe but my HiFi Series (md-80 etc) didn't have this problem in general.
But e.g. I never achieved the flight manual performance at all altitudes.
Either the flightmodel was correct at low mid or high altitude but never at all levels.

If the famous blade element theory is so superior, why is it that x-plane still needs BASIC aerodynamic corrections after more than 10 years ???

I AM curious and I am thinking about buying your Mu-2.
I'm relectant to do so because I'm afraid that it will most probably need a serious update after e.g. version 9.5 and the support ends with 9.99 which, as we all know can happen after 9.3 as well!!!

PS: I never flew theMu2. The only turboprops I flew were the -7, -8 and Metro 23.

[hobofat]

One piece of advise on the MU-2: I was really frustrated with the flight dynamics, a constant incredible torque to the right. So I finally decided to ****, and realized I've been using 9.3 beta, so I did a second X-Plane install (I tend to only fly in Hawaii, so it doesn't take up much hard drive space at all) with the stable 9.22, and it makes all the difference. It flies beautifully! I read on the MU-2 website that the flight dynamics will be adjusted and fixed once 9.3 final is released. Which makes since, as betas are just that: not final releases.

[bstolle]

>I read on the MU-2 website that the flight dynamics will be adjusted and fixed once 9.3 final is released. Which makes since, as betas are just that: not final releases.

Well, that's exactly what I mean. X-plane is since its first version a CONSTANT BETA. It is NEVER finished.
An this will never change.
The Mu-2 is a perfect example.
If 9.22 is correct, how is it possible that basic aerodynamics are wrong (again?) in 9.3 ???
Even if it's considered a beta version.

[hobofat]

>I read on the MU-2 website that the flight dynamics will be adjusted and fixed once 9.3 final is released. Which makes since, as betas are just that: not final releases.

Well, that's exactly what I mean. X-plane is since its first version a CONSTANT BETA. It is NEVER finished.
An this will never change.
The Mu-2 is a perfect example.
If 9.22 is correct, how is it possible that basic aerodynamics are wrong (again?) in 9.3 ???
Even if it's considered a beta version.

Hehe, I completely understand/agree with what you're saying, I'm just hoping the maker of the MU-2 never does :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

We're just now seeing FSX coming into its own in terms of aircraft add-ons etc. and it's years after release, so I can see why developers aren't moving over to X-Plane when it changes so much, so often. Simmers are a tough crowd to please and when their purchased aircraft goes bonkers, they demand immediate action.

Still, I plan on enjoying this little beauty for quite some time, it's a well-made aircraft (though not perfect, they never are) and could hold its own among some of the best FSX add-ons.

[tkyler]

sg38...no doubt it's a risk..I can't really argue that point. We just all have to gauge for ourselves whether the enjoyment we get out of it outweights the frustrations we deal with.

A more "professional" level of product and support is new to the x-plane market and I suspect there'll be some bumps along the way. I definitely get "challenged" with the frequent changes myself; however, for myself the good outweighs the bad and I like what I see.

Regarding blade element....I won't try to convince anybody one way or the other because I've seen two pilots of identical aircraft ...where one says xplane is much more realistic and the other pilot thinks MSFS is. We can only judge for ourselves I believe.

Like anything, only time will tell and establish reputation for payware offerings. I certainly WANT to keep it "working" with all future xplane updates. I can say that three years after the MU-2 was begun...that everything is working as it should as of 9.30 beta 15.