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,And so would I...Cheers,

Chris-Thanks for the nice comments. I'd count you as one of the great simmers!I think the best thing Xplane could/should do is include an aircraft or two or three of the magnitude of the MU2 as a default aircraft. When a simmer tries a new sim-they expect to find something that shows what the sim is capable of-and the Mu2 meets the challenge for sure-and it has been eye opening to me.Now as far as a complete review- 1) I never feel qualified if I have no experience in the real aircraft to really review it-and not only that-I don't have the time to learn about it as I should so I am just not going to do it.2) Even though I have been using xplane for a month now-it really takes a while to discover how it works, what it is capable of etc. The Mu2 is the first 3d cockpit aircraft I have used-and it will take me some time to learn its' language. I daily learn new things about xplane and I would not want to make the mistake of calling something a bug when it is not.Some general observations though:1) The outside views, and inside of the Mu2 are incredible and up to the quality of a high quality add in for fsx2) the instrumentation seems very functional and uses the same method as the Real air series for tuning, setting up instruments which I like very much. It seems much is modeled-even more than what I know about.3) Even though I have never flown a Mu2-there is very good feeling in the flight model-and is a very good example of how xplane can outshine fs in this department. From the ground roll, to the small dutch rolls in air, to the heavyness of control-very impressive!4) Lots of nice attention to small details too numerous to mentionNow some intangibles: There is just something about a high quality add in like this along with what Xplane offers that just "feels" more real to me. Yes I miss the buildings at airports from fsx, and more landmarks like fs has, and ai traffic....but...What?-I can't even put my finger on it. Very often for my simming it is about intuition and feeling-do I get in the cockpit of a virtual plane and suddenly feel like it is the real thing? I just did a flight at Chicago Meigs (yes it is there in xplane!). Looking at the water on takeoff, seeing the reflection of trees, buildings, and clouds in the water-and nice aircraft shadows (I have them turned off in fs for fps) -seeing a massive group of seagulls fly over the runway-then land on the runway and sit, then scatter when I revved up the engines-taking off and seeing the slope in the runway and feel the struts go up and down--seeing some rain that looks very realistic streak down the window and hazy horizons that look real...I could go on and on...but there is just a lot in this sim that not only is missing in fs but is unique, and ups a reality factor in certain areas fs has missed. Of course the smoothness of instrumentation and control input is already well known-but it is incredible.As negatives-as mentioned above my only peeve of the mu2 is some of the instruments are blurry in this aircraft. Using the sim as primarily an ifr trainer this is molto important to me. As the developer has stated he will be fixing that in the future that is good enough for me.Xplane needs a good real working gps (Reality Xp should supply that soon I hope) and the radio/atc side could use a good add in along with populated airports with not only buildings but air traffic.But the cost of xplane and the mu2 is not all that great-certainly the cost of 1 really good fs add in. I think it is well worth the price of admission to see what both this sim and add on have to offer...and that is probably as close to a review as I am going to get. I want to use my little free time just enjoying flying the mu2 and xplane...and believe me I am enjoying them. I went back to fsx the other night just to see how I would feel after not using it for about a month. It is very good-but somehow I wanted to go back to xplane-for no tangible reason other than it somehow feels more real to me :(

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

Exactly! :( L.Adamson

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.

Thank you for the clarification. It's really quite obvious which are using v9 tech. The ADI and the engine gauges are outstanding!You guys have done a fabulous job on the MU-2! :( It's nearly enough to convince me to at least take a closer look at X-Plane... :( I am curious if you intend to correct and complete the Sandel SA4550 when you get around to updating it to v9 tech level?

..and that is probably as close to a review as I am going to get.

And many thanks for that Geof. I fully understand your comment about the intangibles that are often so difficult to quantify but also so often make most of what it is to simulate flight. Since our days of Pro Pilot and Fly! which both did so much to advance the genre, I have been looking for a product that will spur the next leap in technology of our hobby. maybe XP is it, maybe it isn't, but every time a sim is launched that could possibly threaten the dominance of MSFS, MS has responded with something awesome.It is for that reason that I applaud and urge the ongoing development of XP, firstly so that we will have a bit of variety, but secondly to also challenge the at times complacent folk at MSGS. However with the recent developments, maybe it is only the first reason that may be fulfilled. Who knows.Cheers and all the best Geof, it has been an interesting ride in this hobby over the years. I still remember the initial announcements about the upcomming launch of a new site called AvSim so many years ago and posting my first post an hour or two before the launch of the initial forum, with a somewhat puzzled Tom Allensworth asking how the $%^%$ we got on so early :( At the time there were a whole bunch of us who used to hang out at Al Pelletier's Comox Valley site from memory...Regards,

Terribly sorry for OT, but gotta ask: Are there other good, well-frequented, general purpose FS forae elsewhere than here and fltsim.com, that one should also browse through to keep up with everything? I've been stuck on mostly Avsim the past years, but every now and then people link discussions from other places that seem quite popular?Tero

Terribly sorry for OT, but gotta ask: Are there other good, well-frequented, general purpose FS forae elsewhere than here and fltsim.com, that one should also browse through to keep up with everything? I've been stuck on mostly Avsim the past years, but every now and then people link discussions from other places that seem quite popular?Tero

This is my other home, a really friendly place... Hop on over and have a peek inside,Orbx forumsCheers,

n4gixyes, I'm part way into that already. I'm working through make it self contained via plug-in. The MU-2 is getting a 100% cockpit makeover after my current project is completed, including a glass cockpit. If I can get the time, I want the Mu-2 to be as near 100% real as possible. I have about 35 hours in the right seat of one and the current version DOES simulate the normal procudures I used to complete flights. Abonormal and Emergency operations will requires lots of plug-in programming though and takes some time, but the infrastructure is there to be taken advantage of."Generic Instruments" (for those who may not know) is X-Plane's system of allowing artists and authors to create their own instruments. You supply the artwork and you adjust the parameters of the instrument in x-plane including when parts of the instrument are visible and you can also use keyframes to get non-linear behavior out of needles. You can layer parts of an instrument with several types of actions, i.e. linear, rotational, digital display, rolling numbers display.Also..and you can spread the word...but of course this is OFF the record....that laminar is aware of these forum postings...AND high-quality default aircraft are currently being developed...AND high quality world landmarks are being developed AND a better AI traffic system is being worked on. When these find their way into the sim is unknown to me....all I know is the content IS begin created ;-)Here's an example of the resolution that will make it's way into updated versions.As a bit of esoterica....in the Version 9 runs, the texture size was quadrupled from 1024 x 1024 pixels to 2048 x 2048. Few aircraft have taken advantage of this which is why you don't see much currently. The MU-2 panel texture is only 1024 x 1024 because I had so much of it done before version 9 came out. Remapping the whole thing into 2048^2 was too much work so close to the release date. So what that means is that authors only have to take advantage of the technology so it's natural for many MSFS simmers to wait till the goods come out...perfectly understandable.

So what that means is that authors only have to take advantage of the technology so it's natural for many MSFS simmers to wait till the goods come out...perfectly understandable.

Thanks for the snippets of information tkyler, I'm sure that it does much to arouse interest amongst many here. I am curious though.One of the big advances, certainly in my opinion, has been the development and introduction of the A2A Simulation "Accu-Sim" equipped aircraft. I feel that this level of functionality is where most aircraft will head to eventually in the MSFS world if they are to be taken seriously. In your opinion, does X-Plane have the structure to be able to model aircraft systems to this level and if so, would you like to comment as to whether it's being done and if not, what are the impediments to acieving it in that sim.Cheers and thanks for posting here,

yes, I'm part way into that already. I'm working through make it self contained via plug-in. The MU-2 is getting a 100% cockpit makeover after my current project is completed, including a glass cockpit. If I can get the time, I want the Mu-2 to be as near 100% real as possible.

Hi Tom!Will the updated version of the MU-2 be free for the purchasers of the current version or not?Marco

Marco,What I forsee is a 5.00 upgrade for existing users. For that though, you'd expect a more complete systems model, completely new glass cockpit and a heavily revamped existing cockpit and probably some tutorial videos too. The price would then settle into a final 40.00. For that money I expect the MU-2 to be a WHOLE LOT more polished than it currently is with more documentation. That's probably many many months off yet though.Martex.Almost any level of detail can be done. x-plane has a SDK that is based in C / C++. Through the SDK, authors are able to use openGL for any graphics or animations they may want to do...including particle dynamics. You can create as many sub-systems and systems simulations as you like. Being rooted in C/C++ is a bit of a love/hate. It makes it harder for more developers to get involved who may not know programming, but it retains maximum flexibility for adding features to the sim. Sound is one big area that has not been taken advantage of, but using C libraries like OpenAL, a programmer can do just about anything...again, not easy, but doable. Where things go with this setup remains to be seen. X-Plane is turning a corner. A few years ago, Laminar employed one of the most talented programmers I've ever met. Over these last years, this programmer has completely redone the foundation for x-plane scenery, with the specific goal of allowing developers to do almost anything they want to. Documenting all these new features is not Laminar's forte however, so these features piled up and nobody knew what to do with them. I've been fortunate enough to meet with this programmer specifically to pick his brain and find out what kind of features could be taken advantage of. Through "word of mouth" now, these features are starting to pop up in more and more products. It is very early in x-plane's "explosion" in my opinion though so only a few who can see the capabilities are taking notice. But growth is an exponential model so I expect that things will begin progressing quicker. I have always been very very objective on sim features and have never taken away from all the great features MSFS has. Heck, x-plane is chasing those features. But I have also noticed that when the most important feature to an individual makes its way into x-plane...such that both MSFS and X-Plane have that one features, users usually go with x-plane due to it's fluidity of animation. Certainly not universal, just a statistical majority I've observed....myself included.There is still a very fundamental lack of information for developers to reference though. I'm working with someone to change that though a developers forum that disseminates information people might want to begin exploring x-plane's capabilities.I have watched several FSX videos, researched all the "big name" MSFS aircraft, including PMDGs work, A2A and Flight 1 and I can NOT find one feature they have that cannot be done in x-plane now with current technology. The real question will be how much time will this take. The most important features I'd like to see in x-plane is AI traffic, more airport sceneries and better aircraft sounds. There is a tool 99% done that will allow airport creation to finally be "easy" and I hope I can return to my roots as a scenery developer. Lack of such a tool has seriously hampered x-plane scenery growth. Unfortuantely, the same programmer doing all the whiz-bang stuff is the same guy doing everything else...so he gets to stuff when he can. So I am very hopeful.

I have watched several FSX videos, researched all the "big name" MSFS aircraft, including PMDGs work, A2A and Flight 1 and I can NOT find one feature they have that cannot be done in x-plane now with current technology.

Does OpenGL now support gradient blending? IOW, something like the LinearGradientBrush in GDI+?

			LinearGradientBrush lbBlue(				PointF (0.0f, -499.0f + offset),				PointF (0.0f, 1.0f + offset),						Color (255, 0, 0, PFDBRT),						Color (255, 0, (char)(PFDBRT * 0.75f), PFDBRT));			REAL intBlue[] = {0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f};			REAL posBlue[] = {0.0f, 0.8f, 1.0f};			lbBlue.SetBlend(intBlue, posBlue, 3);			LinearGradientBrush lbRed(				PointF (0.0f, 0.0f + (float)offset),				PointF (0.0f, 500.0f + (float)offset),						Color (255, PFDBRT, (char)(PFDBRT * 0.5f), 0),						Color (255, (char)(PFDBRT * 0.75f), (char)(PFDBRT * 0.25f), 0));			REAL intRed[] = {0.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f};			REAL posRed[] = {0.0f, 0.1f, 1.0f};			lbRed.SetBlend(intRed, posRed, 3);			gfx->FillRectangle (&lbBlue, -225.0f, offset - 500.0f, 450.0f, 501.0f);			gfx->FillRectangle (&lbRed,  -225.0f, offset, 450.0f, 500.0f);			gfx->DrawLine (&white_p, -225.0f, offset, 225.0f, offset);

Terribly sorry for OT, but gotta ask: Are there other good, well-frequented, general purpose FS forae elsewhere than here and fltsim.com, that one should also browse through to keep up with everything? I've been stuck on mostly Avsim the past years, but every now and then people link discussions from other places that seem quite popular?Tero

Look on this page for a fairly extensive list of web communities, developers, other resources, etc.:http://www.fsinsider.com/community/Pages/default.aspx

Does OpenGL now support gradient blending? IOW, something like the LinearGradientBrush in GDI+?

Probably off topic, but anyhow, unless I'm misunderstanding the question, I've never known it not to. Assigning different colors to verticies will have openGL linearly blending the results into a gradient between the verticies.

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.

Amazing how these names from the past keep popping up. Wasn't he a retired atp who used to run a VA based around Washington.Regrad Pete

At the time there were a whole bunch of us who used to hang out at Al Pelletier's Comox Valley site from memory...Regards,