I haven't made an analysis of the mu2 so not sure what you are addressing?I have made an analysis of xplane however. The 3d cockpits are about what we had in the first version of fs-primitive looking compared to a typical fsx one! The outside views are likewise lacking detail in compare to fsx. The general instrumentation is lagging behind. The 2d views do not allow multiple panels.Not a critique of the mu2 but a compare of xplane to fsx in these areas...I also did not mention eaglesoft aircraft...though I own them and like them. I did mention the Flight One Mustang which contains a g1000 and highly customized instrumentation.

Geof,My apologies, I meant the Flight One Mustang as the aircraft you mentioned. However, you made the following comment: "I just ordered a bunch of pipers for xplane for $14-they are very good as is the mu2-but compared to fs standards they are not up to the same league as say the Flight one Mustang.."I read that as saying that the MU-2 cockpit in 3D mode is not up to FS standard, which, in my mind, is completely false. The Piper aircraft I definitely agree with, but my guess is you have not explored the MU-2's virtual cockpit/cabin much if you're making such a statement.In terms of the G1000, generically it cannot be done (nor was it for the Mustang), but through plug-in it can. However, it's pretty irrelevant considering the MU-2 isn't equipped with this device.

Geof,My apologies, I meant the Flight One Mustang as the aircraft you mentioned. However, you made the following comment: "I just ordered a bunch of pipers for xplane for $14-they are very good as is the mu2-but compared to fs standards they are not up to the same league as say the Flight one Mustang.."I read that as saying that the MU-2 cockpit in 3D mode is not up to FS standard, which, in my mind, is completely false. The Piper aircraft I definitely agree with, but my guess is you have not explored the MU-2's virtual cockpit/cabin much if you're making such a statement.In terms of the G1000, generically it cannot be done (nor was it for the Mustang), but through plug-in it can. However, it's pretty irrelevant considering the MU-2 isn't equipped with this device.

Actually the vc cockpit is one of the things I have explored in the Mu-2-and I stand by what I said above. The rest is a little hard to explore right now as the beta version of xplane(which I need to display properly on my monitor) has broken some things.The mention of the g1000 is to show the quality one can get in custom avionics in a typical fs add in. One could easily also mention the Dreamfleet Ga series which include the Reality xp Garmin 430's.

Geof,Have you tested the MU2 yet and do you have a bit of a review to share with us.Cheers,

Chris,In the meantime, here are some videos of the MU-2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=...NfhI&fmt=18http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OpWLcA7DMw

The above videos give you a pretty good look into what the MU-2 is like both inside and outside.

I just ordered a bunch of pipers for xplane for $14-they are very good as is the mu2-but compared to fs standards they are not up to the same league as say the Flight one Mustang..

....neither is 90% of the rest of the MSFS fleet :-)Hello Geoff, Tom Kyler here, author of the MU-2. I'm not here to try and convince anybody that the MU-2 is superior to this or that, but by the same token, I feel your commentary should refrain from "subjective" adjectives, especially when there's people here awaiting your review. I would respectfully request that for any commentary or review, you could include something a bit more concrete when making comparisons? No one is more critical of MU-2 shortcomings than I and I certainly don't get defensive over the shortcomings, heck I defend other's great features any time. I myself would score the Flight one mustang higher overall than the MU-2 based on a broad selection of "criteria" usually deemed important by users, but I could also demonstrate that the MU-2 excels in others. So then, depending on what a simmer finds to be the most important features for them, they may go one way or the other. So for features like accuracy of instrumentation and controls, usability in 3D, texture quality, documentation quality, animation quality or flight handling, accuracy of systems simualtions, etc I would be very welcome to hear your thoughts on.

While we are awaiting Geof's MU-2 report I thought about my dilemma which may be shared by some others. I have the X-plane package on the way so I am committed. However, in the meantime I have loaded the RealScenery hi-res Arizona demo to compare that to FSX. It is quite nice and adequate. Using the version 9 beta-5 Demo. So, X-Plane does have one of the primary capabilities I wanted - hi-res photo scenery capability.I am still not happy with the perfect non-textured panels and fuzzy gauges. The flight models are a crap-shoot with the majority in doubt. Exteriors range from plain solid colors to slightly shaded. I have not seen planes any that had good texturing but only 1,000 to go.Right now I am doubting my $45 purchase. What I have seen in the demo seems to be seen by others as well. BUT, while FSX is setting the standard it "ain't goin no place". Over the few years of its life most of the things it is capable of have been wrung out of it. Significant break throughs are probably not going to happen. X-Plane on-the-other-hand has strong potential for more exciting developments. If the Laminar public market increases, due to the demise of FSX, the owner MAY begin to see the cash flow worth while and smooth out some of the rough developmental processes. Certainly I do not want the Microsoft update every several years policy. Just smooth it a bit.Therefore, for me it is a grin and bear it. Wait to get some AUTHENICATED flight models. Improve the panels and gauges. Make some of the tools a bit easier to use and make returning to FSX for whatever reason a thing of the past.

....neither is 90% of the rest of the MSFS fleet :-)Hello Geoff, Tom Kyler here, author of the MU-2. I'm not here to try and convince anybody that the MU-2 is superior to this or that, but by the same token, I feel your commentary should refrain from "subjective" adjectives, especially when there's people here awaiting your review. I would respectfully request that for any commentary or review, you could include something a bit more concrete when making comparisons? No one is more critical of MU-2 shortcomings than I and I certainly don't get defensive over the shortcomings, heck I defend other's great features any time. I myself would score the Flight one mustang higher overall than the MU-2 based on a broad selection of "criteria" usually deemed important by users, but I could also demonstrate that the MU-2 excels in others. So then, depending on what a simmer finds to be the most important features for them, they may go one way or the other. So for features like accuracy of instrumentation and controls, usability in 3D, texture quality, documentation quality, animation quality or flight handling, accuracy of systems simualtions, etc I would be very welcome to hear your thoughts on.

I think the video's posted above..............make the MU2 look, worth getting...L.Adamson

Knife edge:

Lomcevaks:

Torque rolls:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBHcWMdJHRUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IrqhG6NFOIMarco

Not bad................except for the first torque roll video..L.Adamson

....neither is 90% of the rest of the MSFS fleet :-)Hello Geoff, Tom Kyler here, author of the MU-2. I'm not here to try and convince anybody that the MU-2 is superior to this or that, but by the same token, I feel your commentary should refrain from "subjective" adjectives, especially when there's people here awaiting your review. I would respectfully request that for any commentary or review, you could include something a bit more concrete when making comparisons? No one is more critical of MU-2 shortcomings than I and I certainly don't get defensive over the shortcomings, heck I defend other's great features any time. I myself would score the Flight one mustang higher overall than the MU-2 based on a broad selection of "criteria" usually deemed important by users, but I could also demonstrate that the MU-2 excels in others. So then, depending on what a simmer finds to be the most important features for them, they may go one way or the other. So for features like accuracy of instrumentation and controls, usability in 3D, texture quality, documentation quality, animation quality or flight handling, accuracy of systems simualtions, etc I would be very welcome to hear your thoughts on.

That is why above I said I was going to be "mum" on a review-and I have really tried to be. If you read what I said-I said there were limitations in xplane that kept it being in the same league as what fsx offers now-and I listed what those were. I also said your product is very fine. It certainly is the best I have seen that xplane has to offer. It is a must have for xplane. Seems I am being baited here-my observation is that most xplane aircraft do not favorably compare to what is available for fsx-and I still stand by that. That comment has nothing to do with your product in particular.I also said that xplane excels in ways fsx doesn't-and these differences are why I find it more appealing than fsx now. Since you ask though, the biggest problem for me in your product is uneven quality of avionics and blurry readability. The rmi, altimeter (I don't know how I will ever set it-the k numbers are a complete blurr), comm stack numbers, turn coor, alt sel, and Sandel , clock are blurred. Zooming in on them makes it even worse. I can attach a picture if you want-but jpg compression will probably blurr everything a little.Some instruments like the hsi, and engine instruments are completely clear and sharp-even when zooming. I don't know if this is a limitation for xplane-fs9 3d instruments tended to be fuzzy and unreadable when zooming in-but it is not a problem for fsx.As for the cosmetic appearances-it looks great as does the interior-that aspect is right up there with anything fsx offers. It is a very high quality product from the manuals down to the cockpit implementation-although without a real working gps available yet for xplane that is a severe limitation-and again a limitation presently of xplane. The flying I have done was excellent-however it seems I am out of business since the new beta-which I really need to use for its' fixes. Sort of illustrates the problem of xplane and its upgrades to both users and developers.

That is why above I said I was going to be "mum" on a review-and I have really tried to be. If you read what I said-I said there were limitations in xplane that kept it being in the same league as what fsx offers now-and I listed what those were. I also said your product is very fine. It certainly is the best I have seen that xplane has to offer. It is a must have for xplane. Seems I am being baited here-my observation is that most xplane aircraft do not favorably compare to what is available for fsx-and I still stand by that. That comment has nothing to do with your product in particular.I also said that xplane excels in ways fsx doesn't-and these differences are why I find it more appealing than fsx now. Since you ask though, the biggest problem for me in your product is uneven quality of avionics and blurry readability. The rmi, altimeter (I don't know how I will ever set it-the k numbers are a complete blurr), comm stack numbers, turn coor, alt sel, and Sandel , clock are blurred. Zooming in on them makes it even worse. I can attach a picture if you want-but jpg compression will probably blurr everything a little.Some instruments like the hsi, and engine instruments are completely clear and sharp-even when zooming. I don't know if this is a limitation for xplane-fs9 3d instruments tended to be fuzzy and unreadable when zooming in-but it is not a problem for fsx.As for the cosmetic appearances-it looks great as does the interior-that aspect is right up there with anything fsx offers. It is a very high quality product from the manuals down to the cockpit implementation-although without a real working gps available yet for xplane that is a severe limitation-and again a limitation presently of xplane. The flying I have done was excellent-however it seems I am out of business since the new beta-which I really need to use for its' fixes. Sort of illustrates the problem of xplane and its upgrades to both users and developers.

Geof,I respect what you've said here more, and appreciate you clarifying a little more. The way I read your initial take was that you were saying the MU-2 did not compare to that of anything FS quality, and that it wasn't necessarily a must have. Your clarification is something I can agree with.Please note that I understand my opinion is not the only one that matters. You are, of course, entitled to yours. That's the beauty of having our own products. However, when it comes to comparisons, I just wanted to be able to understand your foundation for your opinions a bit more.I'm curious to see what issues you're having with the blur. I don't believe I have the same issues, but would be willing to help figure out why if you're up to that. The MU-2 is panel is pretty sharp for me. However, it does use the 3D panel as both 3D and 2D, so it makes the reading a bit harder depending on your system.Thanks for your posts Geof!

Geof,I respect what you've said here more, and appreciate you clarifying a little more. The way I read your initial take was that you were saying the MU-2 did not compare to that of anything FS quality, and that it wasn't necessarily a must have. Your clarification is something I can agree with.Please note that I understand my opinion is not the only one that matters. You are, of course, entitled to yours. That's the beauty of having our own products. However, when it comes to comparisons, I just wanted to be able to understand your foundation for your opinions a bit more.I'm curious to see what issues you're having with the blur. I don't believe I have the same issues, but would be willing to help figure out why if you're up to that. The MU-2 is panel is pretty sharp for me. However, it does use the 3D panel as both 3D and 2D, so it makes the reading a bit harder depending on your system.Thanks for your posts Geof!

Thanks for clarifying-I am not anything but delighted with the product. See if this brief shot illustrate what I am seeing-I notice the shots in the manual seem to show the same. To be honest-it is my only critique of the product-my other critiques (needs a decent gps, rw working radios etc.) would be direct limitations of xplane.Notice on the basic 6-the hsi is nice and clear. The altimeter is very blurred to the point the k numbers can't be read, the Sandel pitch numbers are blurred, along with blurring of the rmi,vsi text, alt sel numbers, and to a lesser extent the airspeed indicator. The engine instruments however are sharp and clear. In zooming in and out-the sharp instruments stay sharp and clear always-and the blurred instruments stay blurred. This is also in 2d mode. It is only certain instruments that exhibit this blurring, but unfortunately 5 of the primary 6 is hard to ignore.From my little working on my own custom cockpit-are the blurred ones default xplane gauges of lower resolution/quality?

Geoff,I think it's safe to assume that the non hi-res are generics, though I can't be too sure.Here is a comparison from my computer:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3313/334303...1a884e8be_o.jpg (Linked because of file size)And a close up:It would be wise to open up the above image to full size to see the clarity difference...

just to satisfy the "why" curiosity question. Some of those gauges are "version 8 tech" when the project was begun and others are version 9 tech, i.e. higher resolution. X-Plane switched versions in the middle of the development and I decided to go with the newer tech for the remaining instruments and redo the older ones after the release. So those nasty blurry ones will find their way out of the Mu-2 in future updates.

just to satisfy the "why" curiosity question. Some of those gauges are "version 8 tech" when the project was begun and others are version 9 tech, i.e. higher resolution. X-Plane switched versions in the middle of the development and I decided to go with the newer tech for the remaining instruments and redo the older ones after the release. So those nasty blurry ones will find their way out of the Mu-2 in future updates.

That is great to hear! Thanks..

Chris,In the meantime, here are some videos of the MU-2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=...NfhI&fmt=18http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OpWLcA7DMw

The above videos give you a pretty good look into what the MU-2 is like both inside and outside.

Thanks for that Cameron. I have viewed and enjoyed those videos many times since they first hit YouTube. Cheers,What I am really after is Geof's view as he is somewhat unique (IMHO) in his ability to not stray into the territory of the tribal a really excited user. Having interacted with Geof on occasion since the inception of AvSim, he has distinguished himself with his ability to be impartial when evaluating products. I believe that a Geof Applegate review of the X-Plane MU2 would be a significant milestone for many of us Simmer/Hobbyists who are indeed looking into the future past FsX. I do however believe that FsX has a long way to go as I mentioned in this thread on the FsX forum here... Glass half empty?I certainly hope Austin and his "team" are keeping a close eye on this forum and others as there is an opportunity the likes of which will not be seen for quite a while. It has been interesting reading though...Cheers and all the best,

So for features like accuracy of instrumentation and controls, usability in 3D, texture quality, documentation quality, animation quality or flight handling, accuracy of systems simualtions, etc I would be very welcome to hear your thoughts on.

And so would I...Cheers,

"Glass half empty"

Certainly some interesting videos! I guess I haven't been keeping up, as I'd never seen them before.L.Adamson

Certainly some interesting videos! I guess I haven't been keeping up, as I'd never seen them before.L.Adamson

Having way too much fun in the RV Larry :( Cheers,