Please give me a link to the MU-2. I'm going to buy it and try it.Stan

Please give me a link to the MU-2. I'm going to buy it and try it.Stan

Here it is:http://www.x-scenery.com/Remember to update your X-Plane version to 9.22, in case you still didn't.Marco

Don't really like to talk about threads involving X-Plane vs. FSX, first of all because of the back and forth talk, and because sometimes I get carried away and write wayyyyy to much :(. Anyway, I think Austin needs to get the memo that people that develop aircraft do not want to deal with updates frequently unlike FSX. If the updates change the flight model, and other things that involve the plane and aerodynamics, he could ruin how well the aircraft are modeled. I think he should take the approach about every game/simulator developer does and update the game maybe ever year or two (I'd go with the two). This gives more time for the team to test the changes, tweak them to their liking, and get everything right. I don't know about you guys, but when you wait a long time for the next FS version or the next service pack or something like that, it gets you excited for all the things it will bring, because you have been waiting soooo long. Austin does the updates a bit too frequently, which might make the user overwhelmed by the updates and all the features being added without too much documentation. This can also make the sim less fun as well, because you lose that sense of progress you get from a new version of a flight simulator over a period off time. Austin needs to make a X-Plane version 9.x.x and stick with it for a while, updating the simulator while people enjoy their aircraft for the time it works correctly for once. While updating over a long period, he can focus on correcting planes for the new flight model, combustion chamber, combustion chamber, etc., making the default things in X-Plane better, adjusting dynamics for planes, and having time to update gauges and give a realistic representation of the default planes and scenery. Maybe he can make the user AI more user friendly with more time between updates. This would also give developers time to develop other aircraft, and fix bugs or add features for the version of X-Plane it was intended for. Time = Perfection.

Gman-I would agree about the flight model changes-but in the time since I bought the sim a month ago and the latest beta release so much has been added to xplane(including bugs hitting the windshield-sorely needed-just take a look at some of my videos here) that I really enjoy getting the latest and greatest at a regular interval as the improvements are substantial.

Gman-I would agree about the flight model changes-but in the time since I bought the sim a month ago and the latest beta release so much has been added to xplane(including bugs hitting the windshield-sorely needed-just take a look at some of my videos here) that I really enjoy getting the latest and greatest at a regular interval as the improvements are substantial.

Geof, if you want to see bugs hitting the windshield fly down here in Florida during the Love Bug season (April and October). They really do a job on car windshields, I can only imagine what they do to airplane windshields!!

Geof, if you want to see bugs hitting the windshield fly down here in Florida during the Love Bug season (April and October). They really do a job on car windshields, I can only imagine what they do to airplane windshields!!

Michigan is not much better-especially those things you hit that look like you hit a bottle of mustard...I am planning on flying down near there next week (Gulf Shores, Al) but hopefully your Love Bug season will wait another couple weeks. :(

I picked up Xplane9 a few weeks ago and was very impressed with how far its come. I Think the last time I tried it was 2 or 3 versions ago. I still prefer FSX for now, but I think Xplane is making great progress and may be my sim of choice somewhere down the line. The flight model is the main complaint I have right now. I have not tried any addon aircraft yet, but with the default planes, I feel like Im slewing over the scenery rather than flying. I will continue to play with my joystick settings to see if I can correct some of this. I think I may pick up the MU2 also since it seems to be on par with anything ive seen for FSX and much nicer than any of the default aircraft. Overall, I think Xplane is very nice and will continue to mature. It makes a great compliment to FSX or FS9 since its sometimes nice to fly something different once in a while. I like to bounce around between all 3, but that just me.I have a few questions however,1. Is it possible to get track IR to work in Xplane 9? (Im using the beta btw)2. Im still using an old Microsoft Sidewinder 2 FF joystick. (I love it and refuse to part with it.) Is it possible to get force feed to work in Xplane? Not a big deal though.3. I understand you can convert MSFlight sim addon scenery to work in xplane. Can this be done with FSX made scenery, or does it have to be FS9 scenery. (is there a list of what scenery converts well and what does not?) What is the best conversion software to use?4. Why doesn't Avsim have an Xplane forum with all the others rather than burried under "Other Sims". No one seems to even know its there, hence were chating in Hanger Chat for now.Sorry for all the Questions, I just want to give Xplane a fair shake.Rob

Please give me a link to the MU-2. I'm going to buy it and try it.Stan

Here it is:http://www.x-scenery.com/Remember to update your X-Plane version to 9.22, in case you still didn't.Marco

More specifically, here: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_...;products_id=29Stan, keep in mind that if you've updated to 9.3 beta's, the MU-2 will have an extreme roll to the right and not work properly for now. I've asked Tom about this and he says there is a fix of some sort on the way (sounds like Laminar and he have the bugs sorted out).So, for now, the MU-2 is only reliable in the current non-beta release of 9.22.

Remember to update your X-Plane version to 9.22, in case you still didn't.

So, for now, the MU-2 is only reliable in the current non-beta release of 9.22.

I think these two sentences clearly points out the main issue with X-Plane, regardless of how much is *supposed* to have become more developer friendly:An add-on airplane that requires to update to a specific *point* release (not a major version!), because it might not work otherwise, and that has issues with the next upcoming point release, unless it gets fixed somehow.Being developer friendly doesn't simply mean publishing a powerful SDK that,as we all know very well, doesn't do much unless is well documented, and 3rd party devs used to complain about the FSX SDK docs, which is WAY better than X-Plane's...being developer friendly means the base platform is giving the 3DP the chance to make at least mid-term business plans, which means a stable platform that lasts AT LEAST 2 years. And, with "last at least 2 years", I don't simply mean 2 years between major releases, but 2 years with the guarantee that any addon that has been developed according to the SDK would still work flawlessly, in EVERY point release that gets released in between.Especially considering that X-Plane has an auto-update feature, that doesn't allow to download a specific point release, but only to update to the very latest version, if an addon would have issues when users gets an update to the next point release, a commercial 3DP would be in trouble, because users would rightfuly expect the addon they bought should still work, and that would mean support issues and sales stopped until the issue gets eventually fixed.I would like to consider supporting X-Plane but, until these things gets really sorted out (am I right that a MAJOR feature like clickable VCs wasn't even available before 9.2 or something ? How one is supposed to plan any product when major features suddendly pops out in the middle of the life-cycle of the product ? ), I'm still not convinced of being commercially feasible.In fact, I see the X-Plane marketing push towards existing FSX developers that, with ACES gone, it might be a good time to switch to X-Plane, entirely backwards: considering FSX as "frozen" for at least 2-3 years (if not more), there hasn't be a better time to STICK TO IT, because it might never happen again that Flight Sim would stay frozen for so long and, being frozen, is just what we need to develop more high-profile products that requires more time in research, and with X-Plane we are just not there, because the sim is just shifting too fast with new features that are being added *just* to catch up with Flight Sim.NOTE, this doesn't have anything to do with the technical merits of the sim or the SDK as a platform. I had a look at the SDK, and there are interesting things that aren't possible in FSX (and there are many things missing too), but that's not the point, it's more a matter of platform evolution, which doesn't seem to provide a 3DP enough stability to allow him to sustain a business or some product planning.Umberto Colapicchioni - VIRTUALIhttp://www.fsdreamteam.com

I understand your point Umberto and would agree with your conclusions had I the same development strategy, but the x-plane strategy is more to my personal preference. X-Plane is a fundamentally different approach to flight modeling as well as updates. In the same way that a car shopper looks for a sports car as opposed to a SUV, one person who leans toward one paradigm will not find satisfaction in the other...and one generally cannot be the other. The Porsche Cayenne is not a 911.I expect developers who are not comfortable with the way X-Plane handles updates to simply not develop for it. I certainly wouldn't try to convince others that x-plane's method is better or worse, but only explain the way that it is and let others make their determination if they're comfortable working in that paradigm.For example, you mention the 3D cockpit clicking in V9.2 above.."clicking" in 3D has been around a little while, but 3D "manipulation" is a more advanced feature that came out in 9.2. So we can either 1.) don't put in 3D cockpit interaction for a year or so until the next stable release and let everybody complain how simplistic x-plane is without 3D interaction and watch sales plummet or 2.) Put the feature in mid-run and let developers complain about the lack of stabilized development. Again, I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, just that like anything, there is pros and cons to each method and this has to be weighed individually.For the sake of information, here's what I DO like about x-plane's development. Austin (x-plane author), despite his quirks is totally passionate about the flight sim and driven to make it better and better. Software and computer development is very very fast in it's development. I prefer an author who tries to take advantage of technologies and am willing to give up the stability in lieu of the short amount of time to work out bugs when new tech is introduced. Austin is an engineer at heart, driven by technical development rather than business planning and catering to 3rd party. He has his toys, makes a very good amount of money and enjoys what he does so changing his ways to please others is unlikely.I've been developing a fair amount of time and Austin is generally quick to address real bugs so when he breaks something, it generally gets addressed relatively quickly. I have NOT had to backstep very far whenever Austin supposedly "breaks" something. The recent 9.30 change to the trim model greatly affected my MU-2. I told Austin, 5 days later a new beta came out...I spent 20 mins in plane-maker fixing it and the problem was solved. Suppose that had been a "stable release"....I really wouldn't want to wait 2 years to get a fix. The trick is to be fully aware of changes and the implications, but ALAS therein lies one problem that people complain about and that is a lack of information or documentation...so yes you frequently happen upon a "broken" product only by trial and error or some user complaining all the sudden.That situation does make me sigh, but not enough to want to switch design paradigms....so in the end, I'll take these little discontinuities in development in exchange for the relatively frequent update cycle and introduction of new features. When all individual priorities are put on the scales, the scale will tilt to one side or the other. Whatever side it tips to is the side you live with. I don't believe the sim will ever be all things to all people.

Hi Rob,

1. Is it possible to get track IR to work in Xplane 9? (Im using the beta btw)

AFAIK, TrackIR should be natively supported in the current version of X-Plane. However if you have issues, you can use Sandy Barbour's "pilot view" plugin( http://www.xpluginsdk.org/pilot_view.htm )Instructions on installation: http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/03-enh...me-x-plane.htmlIt supports 5DOF (the roll axis is missing).

2. Im still using an old Microsoft Sidewinder 2 FF joystick. (I love it and refuse to part with it.) Is it possible to get force feed to work in Xplane? Not a big deal though.

I have the same joystick. There's a plugin called x-force feedback ( http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...mp;showfile=294 ) that lets you decide how the forces are ramped up according to speeds, Vne, etc. though I haven't still tried it in version 9.Marco

I expect developers who are not comfortable with the way X-Plane handles updates to simply not develop for it. I certainly wouldn't try to convince others that x-plane's method is better or worse, but only explain the way that it is and let others make their determination if they're comfortable working in that paradigm.

Your post is very clear, but at the end of the day, there is one big problem: there's hardly a developer between the big MSFS names (PMDG, LevelD, Eaglesoft, Carenado, RealAir, Dreamfleet, etc.) who is leaning towards X-Plane "non-stable" method. So, if one is reasoning in terms of what is good for X-Plane itself, that is certainly not a good thing for its growth, as well as for its users in terms of quality products available.Marco

Your post is very clear, but at the end of the day, there is one big problem: there's hardly a developer between the big MSFS names (PMDG, LevelD, Eaglesoft, Carenado, RealAir, Dreamfleet, etc.) who is leaning towards X-Plane "non-stable" method. So, if one is reasoning in terms of what is good for X-Plane itself, that is certainly not a good thing for its growth, as well as for its users in terms of quality products available.

I would totally agree they're not leaning towards x-plane, but I would not agree with your implication of a "non-stable" method being the reason. MSFS has a 25 year history in the consumer marketplace whereas x-plane is closer to 15 and really only 8 since the introduction of textures. MSFS enjoys a huge market share....these guys don't lose anything with x-plane. What we have is a case of marketing momentum, a heavy user base before x-plane even came around and thousands of users with investments in MSFS. That's not an easy turning ship. If I was one of those developers you mentioned, I probably wouldn't look to x-plane either if I was doing fine where I was.People speak as if Laminar can just click it's fingers and all the features that everybody wants and thinks is good for x-plane can just appear per marketing whims. The team is working more than 12 hours a day to develop the sim. Now if one were to say, open up the development and hire more programmers, you're crossing some heavy philosophical lines of quality control. Anybody who works in a team environment knows what I'm talking about.I find these conversations stimulating (much more mature than x-plane.org kids) and perceive them as people standing around considering speculative development. There are many personalities in life..some people stand by watching something till they feel comfortable to jump in...others jump in and assume the risk to try and reap a bigger payoff....that's where my discussion comes from. I can't prove where the market will go...I can't prove what x-plane will see in the future. I just know I like what I see....I've seen more people migrate from MSFS to x-plane than vice-versa over the years I've been observing....and as an engineer, I like the foundation that x-plane uses, I feel it's a more solid foundation to leverage future computing technology. So I know there's some risk, I'm willing to take it based on all the human, technological and philosophical data and experience I have to draw upon and only time will tell if my time was well invested. I already know I have the ability from x-plane to recreate a PMDG style simulation...but OH what a man-hour endeavor. It WILL make it to x-plane and I hope me, not PMDG, does it!.

I would totally agree they're not leaning towards x-plane, but I would not agree with your implication of a "non-stable" method being the reason.

As a developer I'd have to state that you might want to reconsider your lack of agreement.The primary reason I find X-Plane unworthy of development time is the fact that a simple point release can completely destroy the functionality of a complex addon aircraft. X-Plane development has a well known lack of concern for whether or not they do something that breaks the functionality/useability of any third-party addons.That's an extremely unstable development environment and completely not cost effective.So, sorry... he's right, you're wrong. :(

The primary reason I find X-Plane unworthy of development time is the fact that a simple point release can completely destroy the functionality of a complex addon aircraft. X-Plane development has a well known lack of concern for whether or not they do something that breaks the functionality/useability of any third-party addons.

but as tkyler explained, it usually doesn't take very long to repair those dysfunctions, and Austin is very responsive. (BTW, in pre ACES times, the responsiveness of the MS FS developers wasn't exactly something to write home about).

As a developer I'd have to state that you might want to reconsider your lack of agreement.The primary reason I find X-Plane unworthy of development time is the fact that a simple point release can completely destroy the functionality of a complex addon aircraft. X-Plane development has a well known lack of concern for whether or not they do something that breaks the functionality/useability of any third-party addons.That's an extremely unstable development environment and completely not cost effective.So, sorry... he's right, you're wrong. :(

X-Plane doesn't break things with every point release. It's often times minimal, and often times things are "broken" between beta's and not so much final releases. After all, it's well known that nothing should be considered "stable" until a beta goes into gold. 9.3 is in beta (5 I believe). Simply put...if you want a working sim with no bugs in the model, go over to the latest final release...which just so happens to be 9.22.It's also important to note that plug-ins generally don't break at all. Version 8 plug-ins still work with version 9, and so on. Scenery from version 8 still works in 9. Now, with that said, I don't think I can say the same with MSFS in my latest upgrade to FS X. A lot of stuff went "broken," especially in the scenery, plug-in, and aircraft department. PMDG and all these other developers work to release FS9 and FSX packages, and some charge an extra leg for the extra development "upgrade" time....I'm sure it wasn't a 20 min. fix!