To answer the question that is being asked of Scott, if I may... Afaik, Bernt is doing only MV stuff at this time with the exception of the M2M Mirage... (however, I can ask if you wish as he no longer comes here and I speak with him three to four times a week...)

 

 

Is there any hope he will re-do some older models and maybe do some new ones?

 

See Colin's post above, but I certainly wish he would.  I can tell you that the V35 was a much improved airplane after Mr. Stolle re-worked it.  He had talked at one point about re-doing the 210 as well, but apparently couldn't get enough real-world feedback to do his magic.  Changes from the user community have made that one a much better plane, but I still wish he'd been able to do what he did for the older Bonanzas.

 

Scott

Hey! Speaking of the 210, where can I find those mods? I have said aircraft and it doesn't fly terribly realistic.

 

 

Hey! Speaking of the 210, where can I find those mods? I have said aircraft and it doesn't fly terribly realistic.

 

I really should do a better job of documenting what I change on planes, but...

 

The two biggest problems I (and many others) had with the 210 are with the elevator and elevator trim, and with the overly effective flaps and subsequent ballooning and its affect on landing attitudes.  Some have addressed the elevator issue by adjusting the  "elevator_effectiveness" parameter (0.6 or a bit more seems to be the value used), but after playing with this, I felt it limited elevator authority too much so I set a curve to reduce small input effectiveness on my yoke in FSUIPC.  I did modify the elevator_trim_effectiveness from 1.4 to 1.0 as I always seemed to overshoot trim with the default.

 

But the biggest change I made came as a result of this post from "Flyfox":

 

Hi everybody

I had the same problem with the T210. I actually like it a lot and I like flying her, but landing is really tricky. I am not glad with FDE either, but modyfying the air files can cause unwanted and unexpected side-effects. That's why I tried a very simple approach here. I only modified the [Flaps.0] section of the aircraft.cfg file:

lift_scalar=1.0 //3.20
drag_scalar=1.50 //1.10

where the values behind the double slash are the original values of Carenado.
The effect is great for me. The approach pitch is reduced to a normal level and the landing is much more realistic with main gear touch down first. No endless floating in the ground-effect any more! Please check it out.

Felix

 

This worked very well for me, and between the FSUIPC change, the change to trim and this, the plane became much more enjoyable to fly.

 

Hope that helps,

 

Scott

Scott, :Applause:  :Applause:  :Applause: . That is perfect. Editing the files as we speak. Shall report if changes help shortly. Going on a test flight around PAKT.

John, I hope this works for you.  I was originally pretty concerned about the very large change in flap lift, particularly as it might affect short field takeoff performance but it really seemed to tame the beast for me and to be a good set of tradeoffs.  Still not perfect, but good.

 

Scott

Scott, it works great. I only lost about 50 ft on the t/o roll. Not too bad. It really smooths ou the final approach.

 

John

 

 

I have the 310 as well, but didn't mention it in my earlier posting because I don't fly it much.  It's not that it's not a good plane - it is, probably one of the best when it comes to flight models - but I find the panel to be a bit dated looking,

 

That might be because it is realistic.

 

 

Unless I am mistaken, MilViz admitted this was a trade off in getting a realistic lighting effect when the aircraft is on the ground.  It is a problem with the MS FlightSim coding.

 

Milviz says only a small number of customers experience this, but I too am one.  Milviz is on record to say they are working on a fix.  I would expect this would be a "fix as fail" update, meaning if you experience the lighting defect you can select to apply the pending update.  If you do not have an issue then fly on....  I had a different lighting issue with the Baron B55 and they fixed that consistent with fix as fail.  As a result the Milviz B55 has dominated my last 50 hours of flying.

 

BTW, I had experience in the military version of the Beech B55 and find the Milviz model to be the best MSFS model available of the types I flew.  It is definitely worth buying. 

<p>actually, we're replacing the 310 landing lights and also integrating the 3d rxp.  So it's not a fix as fail.  It's an update.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We've found a "way" around the landing light issue though, it must be said, it won't be as nice...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>(and thanks for the compliments... they are appreciated)</p>

You guys doing any new smaller type GA stuff soon? If I can even ask....,a be classified info. :ph34r:

I went out to gather information about this B55 Freeradio thing, the product page at Milviz, Milviz forums and Avsim forums. After an hour of reading posts I came into a understanding that the panel has some hidden spot that changes the default gps to default radio stack. Sounds good, have to try to find that spot. What I wonder is why this is made so complicated. I remember that I tried the RXP.cfg but that crashed the sim.

 

Going through forums brought even more good news as it seems that this potentially great addon has been updated just recently.

Don't forget the MilViz Baron 55, which is really good. Next to the RA Dukes (turbine and piston), the MilViz B55 is pretty much the best there is among GA twins currently on the market.

Coming from Master Yoda then the B55 must be really good.  I have the MilViz 310R and am very happy with the modelling and the systems.  I will see if I will get the B55 as well.  

 

To the OP: the Milviz 310R is a much more better simulated package than the Dukes, if you are into full fidelity.  RealAir compromised some flight behavior to implement side sliping, for example, if you attempt to do a 2 minutes turn with the Duke, you will find that the plane takes longer than 2 minutes to complete.  For real instrument training, that's not acceptable but for entertainment value the Dukes offer a good package. 

Now I am really confused.  I was ready to but the Realair turbine and now I'm thinking about the Milviz Baron and C310.  Such big problems ;-)

 

 

That might be because it is realistic.

 

Not speaking of the age of what's portrayed, but the way it's done - note the Baron panel is also quite vintage other than the radio stack and is quite simply the most realistic GA panel I've ever sat behind.  One of my biggest issues with the 310 has to do with having to use the 2D (free radio) stack to implement my RXP radios.  That's why the announcement of 3D RXP integration is such great news.  For my use it will amount to a major upgrade of the visual quality of the panel.

 

That Milviz is still updating a product that's been around this long speaks volumes about them.  Well done!

 

 

 

Sounds good, have to try to find that spot. What I wonder is why this is made so complicated. I remember that I tried the RXP.cfg but that crashed the sim.

 

Sorry, I thought this was pretty well-known.  The switch is at the bottom of the radio stack, with a white sticker next to it.  The tool tip shows "Radio Stack Replace".  Can't offer any suggestions as to alternate configs, as I use the RXP gauges, but you could probably use a variety of things - the FSD King radios - http://www.fsd-international.com/Hangar/Bendix/ - something from another plane..

 

If you don't have the RXP radios then, yes, the RXP version of the panel.cfg will cause problems.  If you're going to reference alternate gauges in a panel config (RXP or otherwise), those gauges have to exist. :-)

 

Scott

...except that the updates have not reached the shops. MilViz_B55_v5.120830.exe at FSPilotshop, dated august last year.