Twin Otter Extended Preview (FSX,P3D)

1888 posts in this topic

# 76   Posted

Well, a new Beaver for X-Plane isn't of much use for FSX users, so I'm disappointed to hear that it would have a bearing on its development.

Well you will see a lot of developments that are for multiple platforms this year. So a seriously good project on X-Plane could very well be the start of a good FSX project!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 77   Posted

I'll certainly keep my fingers crossed. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 78   Posted

Good point on the floats/skis. I will look at that.

The Beaver project is shifted behind the Twotter because I have heard there is some other work on a Beaver for X-Plane being done. Let's see how well that one looks before I pour a zillion euro's into the project.

Sounds good Mathijis, thanks.

I fully understand your concerns regarding the Beaver. From a commercial standpoint that makes total sense. But if I might have a moment of your time, please let me throw this out there for you to ponder. The De Havilland Beaver, like many DH products is a very different beast in terms of how it flies. It's the only airplane I know of that requires you to have flaps partially down ("Climb" setting) in order for it to climb. Bring the flaps up, and you stop climbing. Similarly, the Beaver (and this all is reflected in the Otter, only in a far greater way - I'll get to that in a minute), teaches one "patience". As I've mentioned, I flew in the bush for real for 17 years. Coming from the 185's and 206's, where in order to get over the trees at the end of the lake, you pulled up on the nose and up and over you went, the biggest lesson I had to learn in transitioning to the Beaver (and I mostly learned this on FHR), was to adopt the climb attitude (which is very flat in the Beaver, and IS flat in the piston Otter), and... wait. It was a hard lesson to learn after all the years in Cessnas, but with the Beaver (and Otter) if you pull back on the nose, you do one thing only - slow down. You don't go up any faster, you just slow down. When you are only a few seconds off the water, that can be very disconcerting as I'm sure you can understand. But, it was the only way to fly it. Where am I going with all this? Well simple really. When I bought the Aerosoft Beaver, I found (to my great surprise and delight) that your airplane handled much the same way. You get it off the water (or snow, or runway), get the attitude and wait. What happens with your airplane is what happens in real life. The ground just slowly drops away beneath you and where you were looking straight across at the trees at the end of the lake before, you are now looking down on them a few seconds later (maybe not much down, but down nevertheless). It's a bit like riding an elevator instead of being in a high speed airplane. The reason I was so surprised at this was I knew how hard this is to model in FS anything. I was the one who worked very closely with Fred Banting on the first ever Beaver made for FS (FS98). Fred could work miracles for the day with FD files, but even with all our efforts (and this would have been a limitation of FS98, not Fred's capabilities - let me be really clear about that), we couldn't achieve the feel of the real Beaver. That's what Aerosoft has done with the original version of the Beaver - you captured the FEEL of the airplane. There are a lot of developers out there who are producing airplanes, but it is rare in any FS airplane to have the actual feel of the aircraft captured. Aerosoft did this with the Beaver, and it is for that reason that I looked forward so much to a new upgrade to the original. In fact, I have only 2 issues with the Aerosoft Beaver (and believe me, us old farts who used to fly commercially for real are a tough crowd to please :)), that was that the interiors of all the machines (many of which are still working - FFHR is still working out of White River ()) were rather well "refined" inside. When I flew her, more often than not I had barrels, gas cans, propane bottles, cases (upon cases, upon cases, ad infinitum :)) of beer in the back for the guests, fishing/hunting gear, prospectors' equipment and so on and so on. Seats were there only when carrying mostly people. The other small issue is there is an engine lag with that airplane that I don't remember IRL. Now you had to be careful coming up on the power (I used to count to 5, starting at one at idle power and by time I got to 5 I had takeoff power - 3 on a short lake, and a quick 3 at that!), but the supercharger always seemed to respond instantly for me. Anyway, minor points.

I'm not saying another developer couldn't do a Beaver, but I'm less than convinced that they would be as successful at capturing the feel of the airplane as Aerosoft has. That's a big deal in FSX because it's rarely done as I said. And, Aerosoft has one big advantage when it comes to DH products - they have EXPERIENCE! Everyone over the age of 30 knows how important that is (and that isn't to demean anyone under that age, but it takes time to get experience, and there are no shortcuts for that). On those points - flight dynamics that capture the feel, and experience - Aerosoft has to be considered a true front runner for any airplane of this type.

I mentioned the Otter because the Otter is a Beaver amplified several times (this is the piston single Otter I'm referring to). There isn't a lot of difference between climb power and cruise power settings in either machine (30"/2000 vs. 29 to 28" / 1900 to 1800 rpm). In the Otter, if you want to climb, you put down Climb flap. To go to cruise, you pull the flaps all the way up. Yeah, you can change power settings, but like with the Beaver (only more so), you ain't going up without Climb flap :). Hmmnnn, maybe a single Piston Otter might be worth a look?? Just a thought :).

Anyway, I guess this is getting a bit long, for which I apologise. But please consider my comments above. You folks have the talent, the experience, the understanding of how a Beaver (and now Otter) flies, and the base files from which to work. As I see it, you're already on 3rd base with the Beaver. That's not to say it's a short trip "home", but you're way ahead of any competition as I can see it; and as one fellow pointed out (paraphrasing), what does X-Plane have to do with us? - your point is taken that it would maybe make a good platform to jump to FSX, but I respectfully submit that would only be true if their FD's were as well built as yours, something I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical of (see above). If it looks like a Beaver, and sounds like a Beaver, but doesn't fly like a Beaver, then it's still not a Beaver.

Thanks for your time to read this. Much appreciated and best of luck with either/both project(s). I'll be watching with eager anticipation :).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 79   Posted

Sounds good Mathijis, thanks.

I fully understand your concerns regarding the Beaver. From a commercial standpoint that makes total sense. But if I might have a moment of your time, please let me throw this out there for you to ponder. The De Havilland Beaver, like many DH products is a very different beast in terms of how it flies. It's the only airplane I know of that requires you to have flaps partially down ("Climb" setting) in order for it to climb. Bring the flaps up, and you stop climbing. Similarly, the Beaver (and this all is reflected in the Otter, only in a far greater way - I'll get to that in a minute), teaches one "patience". As I've mentioned, I flew in the bush for real for 17 years. Coming from the 185's and 206's, where in order to get over the trees at the end of the lake, you pulled up on the nose and up and over you went, the biggest lesson I had to learn in transitioning to the Beaver (and I mostly learned this on FHR), was to adopt the climb attitude (which is very flat in the Beaver, and IS flat in the piston Otter), and... wait. It was a hard lesson to learn after all the years in Cessnas, but with the Beaver (and Otter) if you pull back on the nose, you do one thing only - slow down. You don't go up any faster, you just slow down. When you are only a few seconds off the water, that can be very disconcerting as I'm sure you can understand. But, it was the only way to fly it. Where am I going with all this? Well simple really. When I bought the Aerosoft Beaver, I found (to my great surprise and delight) that your airplane handled much the same way. You get it off the water (or snow, or runway), get the attitude and wait. What happens with your airplane is what happens in real life. The ground just slowly drops away beneath you and where you were looking straight across at the trees at the end of the lake before, you are now looking down on them a few seconds later (maybe not much down, but down nevertheless). It's a bit like riding an elevator instead of being in a high speed airplane. The reason I was so surprised at this was I knew how hard this is to model in FS anything. I was the one who worked very closely with Fred Banting on the first ever Beaver made for FS (FS98). Fred could work miracles for the day with FD files, but even with all our efforts (and this would have been a limitation of FS98, not Fred's capabilities - let me be really clear about that), we couldn't achieve the feel of the real Beaver. That's what Aerosoft has done with the original version of the Beaver - you captured the FEEL of the airplane. There are a lot of developers out there who are producing airplanes, but it is rare in any FS airplane to have the actual feel of the aircraft captured. Aerosoft did this with the Beaver, and it is for that reason that I looked forward so much to a new upgrade to the original. In fact, I have only 2 issues with the Aerosoft Beaver (and believe me, us old farts who used to fly commercially for real are a tough crowd to please :)), that was that the interiors of all the machines (many of which are still working - FFHR is still working out of White River ()) were rather well "refined" inside. When I flew her, more often than not I had barrels, gas cans, propane bottles, cases (upon cases, upon cases, ad infinitum :)) of beer in the back for the guests, fishing/hunting gear, prospectors' equipment and so on and so on. Seats were there only when carrying mostly people. The other small issue is there is an engine lag with that airplane that I don't remember IRL. Now you had to be careful coming up on the power (I used to count to 5, starting at one at idle power and by time I got to 5 I had takeoff power - 3 on a short lake, and a quick 3 at that!), but the supercharger always seemed to respond instantly for me. Anyway, minor points.

I'm not saying another developer couldn't do a Beaver, but I'm less than convinced that they would be as successful at capturing the feel of the airplane as Aerosoft has. That's a big deal in FSX because it's rarely done as I said. And, Aerosoft has one big advantage when it comes to DH products - they have EXPERIENCE! Everyone over the age of 30 knows how important that is (and that isn't to demean anyone under that age, but it takes time to get experience, and there are no shortcuts for that). On those points - flight dynamics that capture the feel, and experience - Aerosoft has to be considered a true front runner for any airplane of this type.

I mentioned the Otter because the Otter is a Beaver amplified several times (this is the piston single Otter I'm referring to). There isn't a lot of difference between climb power and cruise power settings in either machine (30"/2000 vs. 29 to 28" / 1900 to 1800 rpm). In the Otter, if you want to climb, you put down Climb flap. To go to cruise, you pull the flaps all the way up. Yeah, you can change power settings, but like with the Beaver (only more so), you ain't going up without Climb flap :). Hmmnnn, maybe a single Piston Otter might be worth a look?? Just a thought :).

Anyway, I guess this is getting a bit long, for which I apologise. But please consider my comments above. You folks have the talent, the experience, the understanding of how a Beaver (and now Otter) flies, and the base files from which to work. As I see it, you're already on 3rd base with the Beaver. That's not to say it's a short trip "home", but you're way ahead of any competition as I can see it; and as one fellow pointed out (paraphrasing), what does X-Plane have to do with us? - your point is taken that it would maybe make a good platform to jump to FSX, but I respectfully submit that would only be true if their FD's were as well built as yours, something I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical of (see above). If it looks like a Beaver, and sounds like a Beaver, but doesn't fly like a Beaver, then it's still not a Beaver.

Thanks for your time to read this. Much appreciated and best of luck with either/both project(s). I'll be watching with eager anticipation :).

... and with this post as promotion material and the support of BeaverDriver as beta-tester you certainly can sell the Beaver like candy ... <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 81   Posted

My biggest hope is for the Vistaliner with the upgraded props and engines.

2015768.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 82   Posted

VERY good news!

Looks like we should consider a new version of Lukla among that. :)

Anyone thinking the same?

Eventhough I think the same, sasa you should be working on an extension of antartica x :crylaugh_s:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 83   Posted

Yeah so I may or may not have just danced a little, CAN'T WAIT :dancing_s:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 84   Posted

I do have to ask the question, how come it has been annouced before any work has been done to it? Non the less, i look forward to flying it around.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 85   Posted

Can't wait for a new Twotter. :)

Please consider making a reality XP compatible panel option. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 86   Posted

your point is taken that it would maybe make a good platform to jump to FSX, but I respectfully submit that would only be true if their FD's were as well built as yours, something I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical of (see above).

BGe carefull what you talk about. The question of the FD in X-Plane is a totally different kind of beast, that you can't and shouldn't compare to the FS9/FSX models. They are based on totally different principles. X-Plane tests an aerodynamik model, so you have to get the aerodynamic model right and that's no easy task. YOu see this especially on its default planes. I wouldn't describe one of its default planes decent. In fact they are so bad, that one of the better designers suddenly countered some of the biggest complaints by slight modifing these planes. Simply by removing some of the biggest and most common mistakes.

You shouldn't even dare to judge the Flight Model of X-Plane on its default planes. The problem is: FSX reaches its end of the line. It only feels improvements in computer architecture by accident. X-Plane, Prepar3D and even Flight, are a totally different kind of beast. I can remember, just a few years ago there were a lot of complaints how Aerosoft could even dare to put more and more effort into FSX. FS9 was so far better...

They have to move on. X-Plane 10 is still in its infancy, in some points it doesn't look like much but if you are able to look a bit beyond the outer surface you start to realize that they really exchanged a lot of its backgroundf but at the moment thzey are often using old XP9 systems.

I must say, I am quite surprised how often I now use XPX compared to FSX. I don't think that I will buy another FSX addon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 87   Posted

KarstenS,

I'm really not at all sure exactly which side of the fence you are coming down on here, but I am not comparing FSX to X-Plane; Aerosoft is. As I know nothing about X-Plane, I can only concede that Aerosoft does, or are allowing for the possibility that their sources do. You'll notice that I used the word "might". I think you are quoting the wrong thread or at least the wrong source for your argument. If you are remarking on how accurate the FDE's are as done by Aerosoft for the Twin Otter, that's a whole other matter. But I'm not sure that's your point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 88   Posted

Any chance for the wheel/ski version to have Garmin GPSMap 396? I remember David (British Antarctic Survey) mentioned they use it all the time. Other operators do it as well.

http://www.airliners...nada/1380990/L/

http://www.airliners...nada/0596663/L/

This is a BAS cockpit (David's photo, not mine):

Me%2520%2528Large%2529.JPG

Why not just put the -400 model out and get all the latest updates Viking adds to this great plane. Not just the GPS..................................

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 89   Posted

Why not just put the -400 model out and get all the latest updates Viking adds to this great plane. Not just the GPS.

400 series glass cockpit would be fantastic, of course. But 200/300 series all have analogue gauges.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 90   Posted

400 series glass cockpit would be fantastic, of course. But 200/300 series all have analogue gauges.

Sorry the glass cockpit version is not planned.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 91   Posted

I always like to show these first images of a project. They seem so simple but already 10 days of work went into them. As we work from the real plans of the aircraft many parts are made exactly to measure and that means the overall shape of the aircraft has to be accurate to a few millimeters. It's not the most exciting period but spending the hours here makes a lot of sense. And as always Stefan did a great job.

Note we did not have exact plans of the engine housing so it could be these will need a few tweaks.

post-43-0-47126600-1329728864_thumb.jpg

post-43-0-26190300-1329728869_thumb.jpg

post-43-0-91014400-1329728872_thumb.jpg

post-43-0-68878600-1329728877_thumb.jpg

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 92   Posted

That's very nice!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 93   Posted

Seem can expect this project,and this Rebuild Twin otter is need less time to develop than other all new aircraft project?

And about navigation unit will same as old Twin otter?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 94   Posted

Mathijs great pictures, I can't wait to paint the twin otter ...

Can I help you with the repaints?

Regards

Holgi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 95   Posted

RELEASE DATE: 2020 , lol :chairfall_s:

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 96   Posted

Thanks for the WIP screens! This is just one of many reasons that I am proud Aerosoft customer. Your interaction with customers is bar none in the FS addon business! Can't wait to get airborne with this amazing flying machine!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 97   Posted

Mathijs,

Any chance that you will offer RealityXP GNS530 integration ?

I really would like that.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 99   Posted

Seem can expect this project,and this Rebuild Twin otter is need less time to develop than other all new aircraft project?

And about navigation unit will same as old Twin otter?

The radio set and the GPS will be very important in this project so expect them to be a lot better then the previous twotter.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# 100   Posted

Mathijs great pictures, I can't wait to paint the twin otter ...

Can I help you with the repaints?

Regards

Holgi

That would be great Holgi, but you are a tad early. Lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.