Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/11/22 in Posts

  1. Friends, I now have been informed there have been rumors about the A330 release on more channels. I have no idea where that comes from, probably some date in some document. But here is a promise. I will let you know when we got a feature ready dataset when that is handed to our internal test department when they hand that to our core testers (all real pilots) when they hand it to our external testers when the test department hands it to the installer/marketing team when I sign off on the project when you can buy it on our shop when you can buy it on our affiliated shops when you can buy it on the Marketplace Okay?
    19 points
  2. And your two cents are seriously appreciated. Honestly. The simple fact however is that the sounds we got delivered simply do not cover the complete range of sound we need. It is not a matter of skill or knowledge. The source we need is simply not there. You will see so with the A330, same people, different input, We have hundreds of source files for that project. From the engines at full power, to every single switch on the flight deck. In the Twin Otter project we had to work with the material we could get from Turbine. While I asked several times to get (and pay) for the original recordings, they were simply not willing to part with them. If we had those recordings the problems would all be solved in three weeks. Note I do not blame them for not parting with original material (yet I wonder who else they can sell the derivatives to). The simple fact is that the only sounds we could get were the same sounds we used in the P3D version. There are simply no other sources available. Now if it was a question of skill, heck I would be willing to pay a small fortune to have somebody work on them. But these files are in the sound pack and many people HAVE tried to make them 'better'. In our opinion none of the tweaks actually makes a lot of sense. Most flatten the sounds to get the problematic steps less obvious. But while doing so the highly characteristic sound is gone. Personally I rather hear a few steps and get the right sound... extremely loud if you do not wear a NC headset. But it is clear many customers, very very few actually flew in a Twin Otter and can testify it is not a sound but an assault on your ears, believe it should sound different. Not to say the construct is good (again, we simply do not enough data), but most tweaks change the sound into that of a King Air (that has a lot of sound dampening and the engines in front of the pilots) or a Piper Cheyenne (again with the engines in front of the pilots) that use the same engine but serve totally different purpose. In those aircraft the designers tried to isolate the engines from the passengers. Look at this screenshot. The red area is where the props (they make 75% of the noise) send the majority of the sound waves. That is what the crew hears. So if people say the sound is not realistic in cruise (so not while changing power settings) I kindly ask them how much experience they have listening to the Twin Otter on the flight deck. It is totally an utterly different from what you hear from the last row of seats. And while in an aircraft most of our customers have flown in there will be sound isolation and dampening, in the Twin Otter there is 6 mm of aluminum plate and some cardboard. Here is a Cheyenne: No crew or passengers there. Or a King: No crew or passengers there. And that, combined with the fact a Twin Otter is designed with zero thought of the passengers or crew, makes HUGE difference. And no, I am not saying our sound set is perfect. The sounds we have are damned good, the people, we ask for advice, the real pilots, confirm that. The problem is we do not have enough sound files to make the transitions smooth. That is why we are looking for an opportunity to do a full recording! Now, if you have some serious hours as a pilot on the Twin Otter and you feel you could add some data, by all means contact me on mathijs.kok@aerosoft.com. If you think a Twin Otter sounds like a Quest Kodiak, Pilatus PC-6, Texan II, Super, Shorts 360, Starship, Tucano or an Embraer, I actually prefer you not contacting me. All of these MSFS DLC have been suggested to us as examples on how it should sound and none of these are even close to how a Twin Otter sounds on the flight deck.
    16 points
  3. Livery list: SAT-Antenne normal door: DRAGON AIR B-LAB EDELWEIS HB-JHQ LION PK-LEF VIRGIN ATLANTIC G-VKSS CORSAIR F-HSKY 1 SAT-Antenne small door: AIR_CANADA C-GFAF CATHAY PACIFIC B-LBJ EUROWINGS O-OSFB SAUDIA HZ-AQI SINGAPORE AIRLINES 9V-SSB 2 SAT-Antennen small door: LUFTHANSA D-AIKO SWISS HB-JHK AIRBUS HOUSECOLOR
    13 points
  4. That is NOT the correct answer! You should be doing everything possible to keep your paying customers happy. We don't need flippant replies - we need fixes. How we feel about a company depends a lot upon their support - this is something that you as a director should be working hard at!!!
    11 points
  5. Most work is on systems and manuals at this moment, but should have some soon.
    10 points
  6. One of our next destination Baden Airpark - Airport Karlsruhe/Baden-Baden – still work in progress
    10 points
  7. Yes I know... promises missed. We are internally still discussing, but should be done tomorrow
    10 points
  8. Charts on EFB, will support NavDataPro and Navigraph. Of course with aircraft location when the charts are georeferenced.
    10 points
  9. And thats what will happen for sure like we had it in the past. While I understand the wishes of people for "their" livery, please stop posting a wishlist.
    8 points
  10. Guys, the liveries are not that much important point to talk about once the aircraft is released people will begin publish repaints for all airlines do not worry about this. What we have to set our point is on what extent of details the a330 will be regarding to systems as electrical, fuel system, hydraulics. Those are much important than liveries.
    8 points
  11. So true, no fixes have been released for the "burning" issues for this otherwise nice aircraft. (LNAV mainly and pitch behaviour in certain situations ..) I am afraid this will stay, since other (new) projects have priority. Same for the Twotter, from what i am reading ... IMO ! I see only excuses and delay tactics Unless these things get (really) fixed I'll not buy ANY "AEROSOFT quality" aircraft , for sure !! Sorry to say .. Oliver
    8 points
  12. I don't want to harp on about this much more, the internet has enough snark as it is, but yes : Aerosoft has definitely lost a day-one purchase from me. As Mr. Kok will no doubt once again espouse its tremendous sales in future forum posts, it won't include my purchase. Both the CRJ's veeeeery lackluster update cycle so far and specifically the near total lack of meaningful Twin Otter support have put a very bad taste in my mouth. This A330 will have to be spectacular in every way for me to even consider looking at it, and even then not without waiting at least a month or six .... (or as we say in Dutch "we kijken de kat eerst maar es uit de boom"). And I will recommend anyone else to do the same!
    8 points
  13. Well.... Depending on the version, the real displays had a less then ideal framerate, lol. Keep in mind these are 1980's computers. In MSFS however the frame issue is far less problematic so I do not expect problems.
    8 points
  14. I have no hard feelings about the company, Sir. Just the quality, support and feedback (like this one) from you people ... If you look at my records, you'll see that i have bought MANY !! items for three different sims over all these years, so .... Oliver Kohl Customer 😉
    7 points
  15. The life of a project manager can be very boring..... Today I did a job that I was postponing for weeks. See, I told you we had a database of all the vessels in the are we covered with the exact location and heading that vessel was earlier this year. This will ensure that the overall picture you see is 100% accurate, every ship is where is was at least one time. No random or semi random placement. But these databases always have problems. Problems like this: now AISTYP 40 is defined as a high speed vessel, but I just doubt that this vessel: can actually do 256 knots. So this morning I put on some music and started to correct the database. It started with 3566 vessels. When I filtered out the vessels on rivers and ports I was left with 3109 vessels (yes we have plans for harbors and rivers!). Then I filtered out vessels that are not actually vessels but platforms etc. Not easy but I noticed that when speed was 0 and AIS Navigation Status (NAVSTAT) was not 1 (at anchor) or 5 (moored) I got a pretty nice selection. That left me with 2995 vessel of which I was pretty sure they were actually ships (or at least moving objects). Close to 550 of those had incomplete data. It was not clear what kind of ship it was, how large it was etc. So I spend 7 hours typing in the name of the vessel in Google and competing and correcting the data. After that I filtered out ships that simply are very unlikely to be at sea (river barges etc) and removed those. Then I added more pleasure craft (sailboats etc). As the dataset was from January they were a little to scares. So now we got sa database with location to the 5 meter and heading to 0.1 of a degree. If I ever deserved a glass of wine it is now. Tomorrow I will start with the possible even longer task of assigning each vessel to an exact ship from our library. That means for every line in the spreadsheet I need to figure out what is the best match to our objects. All 2995 of them. I got the general type of ship and the length so that will help, but it will still be a stupendously boring task.
    7 points
  16. This year, that's all I am willing to say. Things are going well.
    7 points
  17. If you have the time to respond to that post, why do you not have the time to respond to all those other posts where your customers brought up legitimate issues with your product?
    6 points
  18. Unfortunately, I've seen a dozen or more posts where well-meaning people have brought up legitimate flaws with the sim and they are completely ignored by those in charge.
    6 points
  19. Interesting. From my perspective, I'd much rather have a company foregoe non-operational parts of the the aircraft and give a higher level of fidelity to the operational parts. After all, there is not an unlimited about of processor (CPU/GPU) bandwidth.
    6 points
  20. Aerosoft Aircraft Twin Otter AS15379 Version 1.0.6.0 Changelog: - lower elevator down sensitivity to be more balanced with up sensitivity - CoG adjusted - inertia values decreased to have very low pitch jumping effect -Spoiler effect to simulate prop drag reduced
    6 points
  21. Guys, just post your wishes in the community->livery requests on flightsim.to right before release. As a painter myself I can attest to that you get waaaayyy further by doing that than making a post here. They haven't added the Aerosoft A330 category yet, so please do not post a request for the a330 in another category. Then I can almost guarantee that your livery gets made, with most A330 operators being pretty sizeable airlines that people know of and all. It might take a while for all of them to be made, but the completion rate on new high fidelity add-ons is great. So please just stop asking here, let them focus on the plane and post your wishes on flightsim.to close to release!
    5 points
  22. But a cabin that reflects that would easily add a few months of modeling to the project, would increase memory load a LOT (thus reducing framerates) and would probably make use on Xbox impossible due to the increased memory.
    5 points
  23. While I'm not denying there's problems with the CRJ - some of which I've reported in some depth, which has hopefully been a little useful - I'd be very careful putting any of the above on a pedestal. I own products from probably half of those & I can name issues with *all* of them - JF for one have said they're not going to bother updating aerodynamics while the sim is in flux, so you have aircraft from SU5 still. I'm not going to start on PMDG, or problems with WT's autopilot or some of the other's autopilots too - honestly the CRJ is somewhere in the middle, not at the bottom as you seem to imply - or this issue, or that issue. Stop with the hyperbole, it doesn't help anyone & people will use it to get threads locked. You obviously a) don't know much about software development, and b) haven't looked at the comically bad documentation Asobo are providing with the current SDK if you think devs should somehow get ahead of the sim. Given the current state of it I'm glad we actually have half decent aircraft at all.
    5 points
  24. 5 points
  25. Slowly we are getting into making the objects into scenes. Here you see wind turbines being build. Work in progress of course.
    5 points
  26. Hi, So I've decided to test the CRJ again and it appears that a longstanding bug is still there: I am currently flying to LOWW from EGLL... EGLL/27R DCT DET L6 DVR UL9 KONAN UL607 KOK DCT LNO DCT MATUG DCT GUBAX DCT BOREP DCT ENITA DCT ETVIS DCT BUDEX DCT LOWW/34 ... on VATSIM and the runway changed after setting up the approach. The arrival is BUDE1W and that hasn't changed but they switched landing runways from 34 to 16. Going into the DEP ARR page and changing the approach to ILS RWY 16 via NERDU did not replace the previously programmed ILS RWY 34 via NERDU but instead added the newer ILS 16 waypoints to the end of the flight plan, e.g. from... NERDU WW987 WW985 WW983 WW981 ... FI34 RW34 ... to ... NERDU WW681 WW679 WW677 ...WW671 WW987 WW985 WW983 WW981 ... FI34 WW671 FI16 RW16 This is not exactly precise because I've already flown some of the waypoints so posting from memory, but I had to heavily edit the flight plan. Obviously these kind of edits, which take me a minute or two to make sure they're correct, are not possible when doing a busy VATSIM event with a last minute runway change. @Mathijs Kok do you by any chance know if this is going to be fixed and when we can expect it?
    5 points
  27. I'll make that list this week
    5 points
  28. I don't get this obsession with cabins now. I've like looked at it about twice since I've flown the Fenix. Cabins remind me how boring flying can be just waiting to get to your destination. Rather time be spent on the parts the pilot utilises and there's better views out the cockpit. That cockpit go pro camera view is the best!!!
    5 points
  29. I largely agree. The Twin Otter is a much-loved aircraft, but the Aerosoft example is the only one available in MSFS, and I'm sure that accounts for a high percentage of the sales figures. People have tolerated the sound issues because no other Twin Otter is available. The problem lies in the future, when (if) the A330 goes on sale in the more crowded 'tubeliner' market. There'll be the perception that if the Twotter wasn't fully fixed, neither will the A330, and the many alternatives from other developers/publishers will become more attractive. It's a matter of overall perception - for instance, in recent months I've seen a lot of praise for Just Flight, and how they've constantly updated their products in response to customer feedback. When an aircraft is in development, and people start saying "It'll be good - Just Flight are doing it" then JF have gained an enviable reputation. The problem is that while enviable reputations take a long time to establish, they can be damaged very quickly. I'm a long-time customer of Aerosoft, and enjoyed many of their aircraft in FSX and P3D, including the earlier Twotters. It is genuinely disappointing that after all the effort expended on the MSFS Twotter, the final 'big fix' might not now be implemented. And that alters my own overall impression - if Aerosoft were to release MSFS versions of the Catalina and Bronco, I'd be more hesitant about buying them than before. I mean no ill will towards Aerosoft, but this is the most obvious natural reaction.
    5 points
  30. With custom cabin sounds?
    5 points
  31. I will discuss this in the next project meeting.
    5 points
  32. Mathijs It really would be good to hear of AS progress in this regard. As the comments allude, it has been a long time coming. Is work being done still? Is there a date for update? It's such a good aircraft, but needs this happening..... rgds
    5 points
  33. And? How come a guy on the internet that is not in your dev team can put out a fix, his spare time, for free, that works wonders with a $15 soundpack, but you can't? It's been six months. Not only has there been no meaningful progress, but it actually is even worse than on release. We are paying customers and we have fulfilled our part of the deal. We paid upfront. Please deliver. This whole "we're waiting for a new recording" narrative sound like you're counting on the fact that we'll end up giving up and stop moaning about it. License TSS's soundpack, integrate Zaki87's mod, he said on the Microsoft forums that he'd be okay with that, just do something. This is absolutely insane, you're not an indie dev that is working on their first mod, you've been at this for decades, so please get someone working on it and deliver. I can't believe that of all the reputable developers I've been a customer at for almost a decade, it's Aerosoft that's the one pulling this on me. Unbelievable.
    5 points
  34. OK, I see 2 problems: - your username is only 1 character and this character is a special character. things like that are known to cause problems in many case - but more problematic is the fact that your Microsoft Visual C++ Libraries are totally outdated. This does not happen with a correct and updated Windows installation. You may try to go to this site and download and install the latest Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable Packages: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/windows/latest-supported-vc-redist?view=msvc-170 If this does not help, your Windows installation is definitely not as it should be.
    4 points
  35. As with all our products we try to cover full Standard Operations.
    4 points
  36. That is correct for right now, but they did operated the 330-343. Edelweiss has no A330 anymore either…just saying.
    4 points
  37. I’m happy with the product: I think it’s a good plane at its core. But it’s not perfect, and it’s not objectively great, *yet*. It has problems, some of them you listed, and I was merely expressing my wishes and hopes that the team keep at it, to solve those issues, and turn this into a *great* plane. As to Mathijs’ comments: I fall into the middle camp - I don’t necessarily need hardcore 100% study level (and that was never promised) but I do want the stuff that *is* there to work reliably and correctly. I guess I’m an 80% study level guy. 😉
    4 points
  38. So Mr. Mathijs Kok i am really exited about the CRJ ? SU10 version you are looking at ... Feel free to tell us about, what to expect from this update. PLS. Will it fix the issues with LNAV ? Will it fix the sound issues reported ? Will it fix the PITCH issues reported ? Will it fix the wobbling around on the takeoff run in crosswind situations. (No, i don't fly with keyboard or XBOX controller - ;-)) Will it fix FMC issues when editing the FPL ? (SID/STAR, Direct to's, Inserts) My only quotes for today: "and even when SU10 is released it will need serious time to get ready for release" and "So we are following the sim, not leading" What means serious time ? One year has passed since release of this "study level" product and we are still facing issues present from day one. Reported here and probaply on the Ticket system, many times (from serious simmers and real world CRJ pilots, see Group One above (+ X-Plane guys, not to forget !) "Following the Sim ..." Just to name a few other studios, Leonardo, JustFlight, Flysimware, Simworks Studio, Milviz, PMDG, HyperPerformance Group, PMS, WorkingTitle, they seem to be able to do a much! better job. Why this post ? Well, a bit of reaction to this thread Oliver Kohl, Customer
    4 points
  39. And the silence from the Aerosoft crew is deafening. Sad, there was great potential with the CRJ (much less so with their other release). It's not a horrible jet but compared to the options out there today, its nothing more than mediocre. On a side note - Nice shot taken at PMDG for their lack of an EFB on another post. Try to throw another company under the bus to deflect criticism. Classy move.
    4 points
  40. Here are some pictures of the pending Simple Traffic update. Not every airline that will be added is shown
    4 points
  41. Hi! Back from a long time on this forum, this project looks really amazing! Do you think it can include some dirt on the windshield? it add some great realism in the VC (the fenix's windshied is sooo nice) And is there any preview possible on the wingflex? it's kind of the 330 signature in the air imo. Thank you very much for your work, can't wait for this one!
    4 points
  42. @JRBarrett I can tell you from flying the actual approaches into Billund from multiple sides, from UVINA it is not an issue. Even with a nav to nav transfer. Since the main source of navigation these days is GPS/GNSS, it flies very nice on LNAV mode and usually corrects for wind very well also (perhaps it is worse for non-GPS equipped older models). You may almost want to delay arming APPR mode until established on inbound track, because the LOC intercepting in green needle has been very poor since some point during the pandemic. It will roll out too early or late, go into the reduced gain mode for roll because of LOC capture, and then S-turn around the LOC for a bit. I am fairly certain there was some sort of logic change either shortly before or during the pandemic, as I had never seen such behaviour in the years before, but that's a story for another time. Anyway, we fly STARs with 90 degree turns onto the final approach track and localiser daily, without overshooting much. So there may be a disconnect here between the theoretical side and the practical side.
    4 points
  43. Mathijs, Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply to explain the problems you face with the soundset. That being said, I wish to throw my name in the "I'd rather have a properly mixed, non immersion breaking generic turboprop sound than a signature Twin Otter sound but with awful transitions" hat. As you've mentionned, 99.99% of us have never flown a Twin Otter and we couldn't tell if it's a perfect or not, true to life propeller pitch sound in the sim on our cheap headsets, but we will have the immersion ruined by steps in sound pitch or very bad transitions, like in the current state of the Twin Otter. As far as I'm concerned, your Twin Otter may not even remotely fly like the real one, but it "feels coherent" with the idea I have of a plane like a Twin Otter. And I'm fine with that. Same goes with sounds. If it doesn't sound like an F18, a Cessna Skyhawk or a B-24, it will be convincing enough. Even if they were just recycled King Air 350i sounds, you know? So I would opt for a better mixing, even if the sound is not true to life, and/or flatter. Someone suggested the option to choose between two of your sound mixings, the existing one, and a smoother though flatter one, so it won't break immersion but still sound "turboprop-ish". Choice is always good, for a customer. I also understand your wish to have it sound as close to the real one as possible, but it really looks like you're sacrificing a lot of customers' expectations on the altar of your own satisfaction with the individual sound recordings instead of the global flight experience for us. I'm a software developer myself (though I'm under no illusion that we're doing the same work, in difficulty, ofc) and I sometimes encounter project managers that would rather push for their favorite feature to be delivered first instead of one the customers really need and use in real life and have asked and are waiting for. And it's infuriating. This time I'm on the customer side, so I'm voicing my concerns and my priorities regarding this product that i've paid for -- in full, by the way --, six months ago, despite it being clear to you before the release that the sound job was either incomplete, unsatisfactory or not up to your personnal standard. And it was not announced as a work in progress, nor an early access product. So as a TL:DR for this rambling, i'd say i'd rather have a better "mixed" soundset with smooth transitions and that I care less for the accuracy of the soundset, I don't need it to be a perfect Twin Otter experience, just a close enough and not immersion breaking one. Thanks for reading me so far and good luck.
    4 points
  44. I can understand the customers, for the customers it looks like Aerosoft just put the Twin Otter aside. But I can assure you that this is not the case. The topic with the sounds was discussed internally again only recently. Unfortunately Aerosoft is also waiting for the better sounds, and they are trying everything possible to get better sounds. Unfortunately, Aerosoft can only use what they have. I as a customer am still happy to be able to fly the Twin Otter. Except for the current sounds it is a great machine, and really fun to fly. And let's be honest, price performance is really good at Aerosoft. On the subject of airports, they are always great class. Greetings Sven
    4 points
  45. Well, I dunno. I've worked development and test teams on some of the finest Flight Sim aircraft over the past 25 years, including here, the Leonardo Maddog, and Majestic Dash 8 Q400. I'm very familiar with MSFS, thank you. This issue is just not what you're thinking it is, but I'm confident I won't change your mind. If you want a Passenger Simulator, then you aren't alone. Maybe some day someone will make it. Lord knows we've joked around about it for over 2 decades. My very best to you my friend.
    4 points
  46. If it doesn't "make the cut", someone (probably me) will make it and put it on flightsim.to
    4 points
  47. Nice job Mathijs! thank you! At this time I believe the team achived a completed model! right? What's the next step? systems? share more please! I'm dreaming flying the long haul tour on IVAO with this beaty!
    4 points
  48. I agree with the above comments. I have never flown my Twin Otter since the first update. Sound was after update even worse than before. It's now rusting away in my hangar. All I want to know is: Do I have to write off my investment, or is there still hope? Thx
    4 points
×
×
  • Create New...