MU-2 problems!

[Guest DanWalloch]

USD MU-2 is very unreal, not even close! Oh yeah.....I downloaded a better panel for it, and the plane wouldn't even turn!!

[John_Cillis 2,406]

In what aspect is the MU-2 unreal? Looks? Flight dynamics? With looks, I think it's right on... Here's a link to some shots I posted:http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...rum=DCForumID47With flight dynamics, in general I don't care for FS2002's modelling of turboprops, so I substituted my own. I've made my own based on jet dynamics, but since I've never flown an MU-2 before, I'm hardly qualified to comment one way or another. But my revisions allow the MU-2 to turn on a dime, and give it a 295 kt. cruise at FL 200.... Cut the engines, and the props spin down quite nicely. I did have to "fudge" a few things to get the MU-2 the way I like... I built the flight model off of an old Citation 525 flight model I had..., pasting the lights and gear setup from the file shipped with the MU-2... I then adjusted the engine thrust to slow it down to MU-2 specs... I love it, and could fly it all day long (and did just that yesterday)...Since the MU-2 is a freeware aircraft, I think you owe it to the makers and to the forum to put a few more specifics in your post, in a constructive manner. Just coming in and calling it "unreal" doesn't do any favors to those who worked hard on it, and to those of us who happen to like the end result. As for flight dynamics, anyone can tweak an aircraft.cfg and an .air file. For a freeware effort, it makes sense that we take the time to change the things we can, rather than just come in and make blanket complaints... After all, how much did it cost you?-John

[Guest]

Excellent reply John,I couldn't agree more. I'm normally pretty quiet around here, but just had to jump in here :-jumpy to say that your second paragraph is exactly what I would want to say to the orignal poster. That type of complaining is the reason we lose so many freeware developers in this hobby.C172_FlyerCYQG