Dyn Aero MCR01 ultralight by AFS-Design
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
Dyn Aero MCR01 ultralight by AFS-Design
Has anyone got the full payware version of the 'afsmcrd2.zip' demo at All Nodes? It looks promising with what looks like a very good vc in the full version. Frog.
-
snave
I purchased this ont the other day after checking out the demo and screenshots which suitably impressed me. I'm not sure I agree that it is cartoon like and lacking the finer detail. I thought it was a very well made model with a nicely done VC. As for the flight model it seems fine to me never having flown the real thing. So far I've had a bit of fun with it palying around smaller fields. At the end of the day there are a host of screens on the authors site and the demo to help make an informed decision.
Steve M
Steve M
-
snave
OK, so without getting too technical, let me justify my points about the fde with some commentary:
1: The aircraft is referred to as both `Microlight` and `VLA`. The MCR01 is available as both, but they are not the same aircraft.
The microlight is the one that touches 120Kts, the VLA cruises at 155...
They do NOT share flying characteristics and to quote the Pilot magazine forum: "The VLA has flaperons which cause considerable adverse yaw when deployed and the power is changed, it also has a viscous stall and is an aircraft which a student pilot with a few hours in a Cessna would find very difficult to fly, especially in the landing configuration.
The ULC Micro has conventional flaps and ailerons and has entirely conventional handling together with a 125kn cruise. This aircraft has a very easy stall and can be landed slower than a Cessna. It is used for microlight training and could be handled by a low hour student pilot. "
Clearly, our developer cannot tell the difference between Microlight and VLA, and has mixed up the two most confusingly in the flight modelling.
Next, the weights in the aircraft.cfg make absolutely no sense - empty weight 550lb, max gross weight 1,100lbs. But the microlight limit is 450kg - 990lbs in UK money. So thats wrong for the microlight, yet the speed is wrong for the VLA...? So which is it supposed to be?
And that's not all as far as bog basic errors in the arcraft.cfg are concerned - but to go on would be boring.
The point is that the developer wants money for this software and therefore has accepted an obligation to provide accurate data or an accurate aircraft, tothe best of his ability. As he is misinformed about basic information on the airplane, it is hopeless to expect an accurate representation of a flight model. And we don't get it.
...And unlike Steve, I have actually flown a Ban-Bi Microlight, in France. Only two and a half months ago. Which is why this aircraft interested me. And why it disappoints me.
1: The aircraft is referred to as both `Microlight` and `VLA`. The MCR01 is available as both, but they are not the same aircraft.
The microlight is the one that touches 120Kts, the VLA cruises at 155...
They do NOT share flying characteristics and to quote the Pilot magazine forum: "The VLA has flaperons which cause considerable adverse yaw when deployed and the power is changed, it also has a viscous stall and is an aircraft which a student pilot with a few hours in a Cessna would find very difficult to fly, especially in the landing configuration.
The ULC Micro has conventional flaps and ailerons and has entirely conventional handling together with a 125kn cruise. This aircraft has a very easy stall and can be landed slower than a Cessna. It is used for microlight training and could be handled by a low hour student pilot. "
Clearly, our developer cannot tell the difference between Microlight and VLA, and has mixed up the two most confusingly in the flight modelling.
Next, the weights in the aircraft.cfg make absolutely no sense - empty weight 550lb, max gross weight 1,100lbs. But the microlight limit is 450kg - 990lbs in UK money. So thats wrong for the microlight, yet the speed is wrong for the VLA...? So which is it supposed to be?
And that's not all as far as bog basic errors in the arcraft.cfg are concerned - but to go on would be boring.
The point is that the developer wants money for this software and therefore has accepted an obligation to provide accurate data or an accurate aircraft, tothe best of his ability. As he is misinformed about basic information on the airplane, it is hopeless to expect an accurate representation of a flight model. And we don't get it.
...And unlike Steve, I have actually flown a Ban-Bi Microlight, in France. Only two and a half months ago. Which is why this aircraft interested me. And why it disappoints me.
I can see that someone with such an interest in a particular aircraft may be dissapointed in light od Simons comments especially if they are looking for flight modelling to replicate what they have experienced in the real thing.
For the money though I'm adequately pleased with it for a bit of virtual sightseeing.
I'll get back in me box now.
Steve M
For the money though I'm adequately pleased with it for a bit of virtual sightseeing.
I'll get back in me box now.
Steve M
