Leaderboard

They are coming.... Release is set for Jan 19th at €29.95 (plus VAT when applicable).

But that's good, you should always think if you want a product or not. We made it very clear that this one will use mainly default systems and we had good reasons for that, as I explained a few times. The simple fact is that there will not be a lot of real complex aircraft that run fully inside the sim for some time to come. What we did in FSX and P3D for the Twin Otter Extended would likely be possible but it would be mighty complex and would result in a more expensive product. The Twin Otter Extended started out as a product that was 10 euro/dollar more expensive this one, had less models, a far less extended manual and did not look nearly as good. It simply is a different product, different project definitions. If you take inflation in mind, the new Twin Otter is 13 euro/dollar cheaper. Let me give a bit more background. FSX addons stopped selling around 2015 (the release of FSX Steam did boost it and to our surprise, COVID did as well). But we stopped doing FSX add-ons around 2014 because there was simply no market. P3D add-ons replaced that to a certain degree. But the amount of potential customers was fraction of those we had for FSX. At the best of times there were possible 20.000 users willing to pay for add-onsm on P3D. Now these are rather special customer, they are very much into systems. An only English manual was okay. Support was limited because these customers are pretty educated. This led to add-on around and over 100 dollar/euro. If one of those 20.000 customers wanted your product it did not matter a lot what it cost. But P3D add-on stopped selling in 2019, commercially it is dead as a dodo. Just checked what has been released in 2021. If somebody released a expensive product it came with guaranteed discount for the MSFS version. MSFS add-on sell like it is 2005 (the previous heyday of FS add-ons). Instead of 20k customers you have 2 million. Sales numbers are simply incomparable. BUT, a big but.... you are dealing with a very different kind of customer. Around 20% of CRJ customers did not understand why the flightplan would not be activated (you need to copy if to the active FP). Around the same percentage had problems starting the engines. Around 5% said they wanted their money back because 'it did not work' (of course after telling them to check the tutorials that was sorted out). Not a problem at all because sales were so good we were happy to hire more support staff. So what we end up with is a very different market. A very small high end, who for the largest part is not even considering moving to MSFS (and I think that is a correct decision) from P3D. And a huge market that is just getting into Flightsim and does not have the experience most people on this forum have. The middle bit seems totally missing at this moment and is very hard to get to. That is why most not released DLC you see discussed is either very complex or rather simple. Inside the sim (marketplace / Xbox) or done in a way that makes it impossible to get on the marketplace and Xbox. Now, clearly some things went wrong in this release and we are evaluating that to make sure it is not repeated. We have fixed (or at least to some big degree) all the known issues that are in our control and that update will be around soon. But the simple fact is that the MSFS Twin Otter is darned close to selling more copy in 5 days than the Twin Otter Extended did in 5 years. That is why every add-on developer dropped P3D. That is why so many decided not to go for complex products but for things customers wanted. Nobody has released a seriously complex add-on for MSFS, nobody knows if there is even a market. Looks at my friends at PMDG, would you have believed four years ago they would release an add-on that uses default gauges? I would not. But I sure understand why they did! So if people say we go for the money, I would counter that we go for the flight simmers that actually buy our products right now. And yes, we love to sell tens of thousands of products instead of thousands. Do we leave the high end simmers behind in that? I think so. But Aerosoft does not create the market, we make what we believe people will buy. I think there will be super high end add-ons for MSFS at some point. I think there is a market for >100 euro/dollar add-ons when the products are good enough to ask for that price. It is not Aerosofts market (PMDG always provided those products for us) but right now, without access to the massive sales on the marketplace? I would hate to invest half a million in that. Just read Robert Randazzo's comments in the last few weeks and you see why we decided not to go there. Also read why he decided not to go for high end prices. Where we deliver many variants of an aircraft, PMDG products will be highly focused and you will have to buy other variants (and thus the same systems, base modeling etc). A different way of managing the same problem, high end, high priced products are simply extremely hard at this moment. While it is clear that as project manager I really want the update that solves most of the issues out, I am super happy about the product. It sells seriously well, I did on release and it did today. The whole team has been working 16 hour days to solve and tests the issues we know about. Should they have been attacked before release? Probably. The issue is that when you are dealing with over a dozen of shops, marketing campaigns, Microsoft Marketplace who has been super kind to give us preferential treatment, ect, planning is not only about bugs that need flattened. Delaying a release at a late moment means very serious consequences. If you are a developer with one product and few sale channels that is simply not an issue. I fondly remember when, I as project manager, could decide on a release date. Now I set one and the moment I do, it is set in concrete. As said, the update we are testing at this very moment fix most of the open issue we have. The sound set is worked on for four days, autopilot issue has been found etc.

This is the only one I got, but I will make more tomorrow as I got the day off. That's because we are done; file sets have been made and sent to our installers department (and to Microsoft btw). Tomorrow is for testing the installer, product pages, cooling champagne, sending out "thank you" emails to the dozens of people who assisted us etc. While the CRJ was a way more complex development (as we were working more with beta code than something solid) and Simple Traffic was more stressful as we simply did not know if it could be done, the Twin Otter had its own challenges. The two newly hired modellers (JaeEoon and Anne) were both educated and skilled, but neither worked for a flight simulator. Hans was tight on schedule; sounds were an issue because, believe me, it is near impossible to find a sound engineer that works on the Wwise platform; Alexander faced some tough challenges for the engine and propeller combination. Me? I am the project manager; everybody ignores me anyway. I am just incredibly proud of the whole team.

As I told, I really like the plane. But the Sound of Version 1.0 , was a disappointment. I really had nothing to do with all this Sound Stuff before, was reading about Wwise and the old Legacy Sound Configs. Was testing around, converted the Wwise into mp3´s to get a Idea of all the 300 Sounds out of the Soundbank. The Sounds are awesome and well recorded, so It was or is just a thing how they work together in the Wwise Config. So I did a small Mod of using the Wwise Sounds and also Twotter Legacy Sounds. It´s not perfect, I´m not a Dev. But here we have a improvement of RPM Stages and Turbine Stages . Did a small demo, no proceeds just focus on Sound. Hope that we will have some kind like this soon.

And released. Follow up discussions here: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/forum/1046-aerosoft-twin-otter/

What has been done today? Hans redid the Checklists. He showed us you are now able to go from cold and dark to cold and dark in 2 minutes by just clicking the auto complete button on the checklists. So basically my whole manual is now useless... urgh. Anne and JaeEon are slowly cutting down on smallish issues (typo's, holes in the structure) on the bug list. Alexander is doing remarkable things on the flight model. Ground handling was already state of the art but is now even better. You can move the twotter around on very small parkings. Also water floating is far more predictable. This flight model is really special my friends. Not my word but that of our advisory pilots. Stefan added heat blur to the engines, fixed a lot of small animation issues and is now redoing the prop animations. He will start on the painkit (why do I always forget the T in that?) after that. Jonas worked on the forum sections, added icons etc. The installer folks are adding the product to Aerosoft One. Marie is preparing the package for our affiliate shops. Vanessa is doing marketing for magazines. Somebody is preparing the package for the Microsoft Marketplace. Jouka is checking to see if the simbrief tables match our aircraft. And I talked with previewers who had some questions, okayed the products pages, selected the promotional images, discussed a boxed release and continued on the manuals. Now halfway (at page 77) with all corrections and things we needed to add. This is one heck of a manual. The fun part, it is actually readable with the anecdotes of pilots etc. And still happy I am able to use the study images we did. So much better then screenshots. Now you can compare what we did to the real aircraft. With the whole team back from the Christmas break we are moving fast. Fully on schedule. But as you see a lot of balls are being held in the air.

Some of the less visible (audible) but very realistic features of this product. The Electrical system is pretty well defined. You will notice the batteries have just enough power to crank the engines as you will see all lights dim a bit. This is rather normal for aircraft of the period but I think it has not been modeled before. The Hydraulic system is also very well modeled. When the pressure drops, for example because you use the brakes or flaps you will see that indicated and will hear the pump topping up the pressure. Over a 100 different sounds were recorded in the cockpit. Wipers, Crossfeed selector, Hydraulic accumulator, Gyro spool up and upon switching off the power spool down, leaver movement including microswitches, Yoke movement, Control lock placement, Break release, Doors opening and closing, starter sounds and so many more. Climb and Cruise fuel burn realistic (only at full power does the fuel burn deviate a bit) Single-engine performance including VMCA tested against the real airplane. Realistic stall characteristics at all flap settings (that is a hard one to get right btw) Accurate change in flight characteristics from MTOW to Low and empty weights As with all our aircraft we only model Standard Operating Procedures, so no emergencies, failing systems, popping circuit breakers etc. The standard failure mode of the sim will work though, we just did not enhance that in any way.

This weekend or Monday, should fix 90% of the known issues.

TL;DR: the "Wwise sound set with close to 300 spatially placed sounds" advertised on the product page is incompletely implemented. In addition to the previously discovered issues, per my own testing the vast majority of sounds are apparently not "spatially placed" at all. First of all, I just want to say that overall I've been enjoying this plane so far, and even if there are some specific areas that aren't quite up to par yet, I think it's got great potential. It's encouraging that you responded so quickly to the criticism about the engine sample transitions and will look into it. But as you do, I'm afraid you'll need to widen the scope of your diagnosis regarding the Wwise implementation, because in just my first 20 minutes playing around with the aircraft I've already discovered another significant sound problem... To experience the issue for yourself: 1. Load up a plane cold and dark - just for the sake of making my larger point I would suggest loading either the stock msfs 172, or the Twotter's direct competitor at the moment, the Kodiak... 2. Flick some switches in the cockpit, move some levers. Notice how the sound of each control has a distinct spatial position both relative to the cockpit AND in relation to the camera as you move around, e.g. when a switch is on the left side of the screen you will hear it on the left, and then when you move the camera so the switch is on the right side of the screen, you will hear it coming from the right (or if you have a good spatial sound implementation, you can hear a switch in front of you vs. behind you, and even kind of above/below!) 3. Now load up the Twotter, again cold and dark. 4. Flick some switches and move some levers. Notice how they ALL seem to come from exactly the same spot, which is inside your head, and they don't move with the camera, or at all for that matter. Note that it doesn't just break immersion (particularly in VR), but that the samples blend in with the other ambient sounds and are not as distinct as when they are properly placed spatially. 5. Just for completeness' sake, start the Twotter's engines, and notice that the engine and propeller sounds ARE in fact properly spatially placed. Just not anything else. 6. Brace yourself, load up the Aerosoft CRJ and realize that in all likelihood every Aerosoft plane currently under development has the same problem. So, just a thought on this, please don't shoot the messenger, but I'm just gonna say it. There's a commonality with this spatial issue and the crossfading issue. First of all, we don't need to be real life Twin Otter pilots to easily detect the problems and be turned off by them within a few moments of loading up the plane for the first time. They stick out like a sore thumb simply because we... play games and... enjoy sound. I think you'd agree not just that ideally someone on your end really should've found and fixed these problems before consumers ever had the chance to, but also that it's genuinely odd that no one did, given that presumably the Twotter team has tested the plane in msfs, has multiple sets of ears, and cares about the product they're making; and that there should be some reflection internally about how these issues got through. My point is that this is about more than inevitably having to polish a few rough edges after any release- for whatever reason, you have some sort of problem with the Wwise process that's been keeping these beautiful samples you've recorded from being experienced in the sim as they were meant to be. Bluntly, someone either doesn't understand how to employ Wwise competently or is unable to do it for other reasons. If you were some giant company like Microsoft pushing a minimum viable product out the door, this would all make perfect sense, but it seems like there's actually a genuine misunderstanding somewhere in the sound production pipeline in this case and I really hope you're able to resolve it, for the sake of making the best planes possible. One final thing, regarding what I said about using real pilots for feedback. Don't get me wrong, It's great that you do that, and you should keep doing it. It's important to remember, though, that real pilots have been checking out flight sims and giving them the "Oh WOW! It's SO realistic!" endorsement for decades now, and it was never exactly untrue per se, even when they were talking about 8-bit sound and vector drawing. One day we'll be having the same arguments about super hi-fi VR and spatial audio implementations that make what we have now look just as primitive. In the present, we hear the problems easily because as simmers we have more nuanced expectations for a sim sound engine than a pilot does (unless that pilot is also a sim/audio nerd). It's just two distinct things and you need both. They hear other problems better, and give relevant feedback, but it's all for naught if you don't have someone effectively articulating these problems related to the game engine.

I find it sad if Xbox is the defining item. I think most would expect a new Flight Simulator to be a step forward and not a step back. If Xbox is restricted, then there should be seperate Xbox and PC versions, otherwise MSFS2020 wil become a parantesis in Flight simulator history. While I do understand that getting Xbox customers would be great, it shouldn´t be forgotten that most PC Flight simmers are people who had this as their hobby for many years and are the loyal customers. These people bought addons back FS98 (My fist Aerosoft addon was the Airbus package for FS98), and also will be those buying addons for MSFS2030. Not to put customers in boxes, but I guess - and I have no prove for that, Xbox customers might not be as Loyal. I would be very sorry if Xbox is the defining factor and not what the simulator actually is capable of. Should that be the way we will see MSFS2020 addons are going, then I will feel tempted to look closer on what the upcomming XP12 has to offer - sorry to say. Also the purcase page does not mention that animations had to be restraint due to Xbox compability, quite the contrary... Quote: Features: Full new development using all options of the platform Highly optimized modelling, prepared for use on PC and Xbox Only a vague "... PC and Xbox".

Here you go. And yes, that IS me.

These files are now available via Aerosoft One and have been send to all our resellers like simMarket, Marketplace and OrbX Aerosoft Twin Otter Update 1 Changelog ------------------------------------------------------------------- - Added: GPWS Inhibit switch - Added: Wing lights - Added: Elevator and rudder trim knob animations now react to control input. Sounds added - Fixed: Torque link on -300 Cargo 4-Blade nose gear - Fixed: Changed Elevator and aileron simvars to those that work in multiplayer - Fixed: Control lock variable reversed for multiplayer compatibility - Fixed: Rework and volume balancing of external sounds - Fixed: Rework and volume balancing of internal sounds - Fixed: Autopilot losing altitude in ALT HOLD mode - Fixed: Autopilot losing altitude in GS HOLD mode - Fixed: Exterior view engine instruments - Fixed: Missing performance data in aircraft selection window - Fixed: Toned down wind sound at rear door when aircraft is not moving and wind is not storm strength - Fixed: Boost pump annunciator condition - Fixed: Volts indicator now shows 0V when generators are off - Fixed: CDI Needles jumping from side to side while flying a FROM radial - Fixed: Missing needle arrow in copilot HSI - Fixed: NAV/HDG flags over heading bug and needle in both HSIs - Fixed: Separated GNS530/430, Autopilot, Transponder and ADF from Copilot dimmer - Fixed: Propeller De-Ice now works for both propellers - Fixed: Intake Anti-Ice now works for both engines - Fixed: Increased volume of GPWS glide slope callouts - Fixed: HSI knob not turning - Fixed: Gaps in the ceiling near front cabin wall

I have no words for this answer. I am more and more regretting my invest. Dumbing down a product to make it run on console, if that's the way AS goes, I'm out. Sorry. You cannot animate a prop in 2022? Rediculous. And that for the full price of the P3D version that was more feature rich. A shame.

And also the models and liveries are now set in stone: Thirteen models DHC6-100 Floats Passenger (Westcoast Air C-FGQH) DHC6-100 Wheels Cargo (Norway Airforce MXJ_67-062) DHC6-100_Wheels Passenger (Fuerza Aerea de chile 940) DHC6-300 Amphibian Passenger (Viking Air N153QS) DHC6-300 Floats Passenger (Trans Maldivian 8Q-TJM) DHC6-300 Floats Passenger Short Nose (Trans Maldivian 8Q-MAV) DHC6-300 Ski Cargo (British Antarctica Survey VP-FBB) DHC6-300 Tundra Wheels Cargo (Air Inuit C-GKCJ) DHC6-300 Tundra Wheels Passenger (Norlandair TF-NLC) DHC6-300 Wheels Cargo 3 Blade Prop (Aklak Air C-CDHC) DHC6-300 Wheels Cargo 4 Blade Prop (Aklak Air C-CDHC) DHC6-300 Wheels Skydiver (Perris Valley Skydiving N-708PV) DHC6-300 Wheels Passenger (Solomons Airline H4-FNT)

That twitch stream (not okayed by me btw) has sounds that are months old. I'll ask Twitch to remove the video. I suggest to to wait for the sounds, we still get daily new sounds recorded by pilots who assist us. and we will provide a sound set that is fully modern, so with all 3d placement etc.

Yesterday evening Hans and I had a long teams meeting in which we smooth out the sounds even more then they already were. Unfortunately it wasn't possible to add these changes and adjustments in the release version as everything was set and ready. These adjustments will come in the first update that's rolled out. The sounds are tested, provided and confirmed working as should, by real Twin Otter pilots who have hundreds of hours on the left or right seat. Also note that if you don't change the settings during climb/cruise you'll indeed go deaf but that's how loud the plane is according to the real world Twin Otter pilots, so we followed that advise 40TQ and 75% NP should be the power settings while climbing and cruising.

How many aircraft can land there with 4,400 lbs load? Note that a go-around would be about as impossible as at Lukla Tenzing Hillary Airport and that the pilot manages to get the stall warning the same moment he touches down. Also note the high end avionics while the aircraft seriously needs some new paint. That is pretty much what Twin Otters are. You update what you need. Not what looks nice.

As said before, if that is your minimal standard, this is simply not a product for you. The picking gets seriously small when you apply that standard though. Is there any add-on that models failure modes of a Pratt & Whitney PT6-A, further then an incorrect setting of the fuel lever? Let's close this. We will not model problems due to incorrect procedures of the pilot. The main reason for that is that every single step we do in that field will cause more demand for deeper failures and we are simply not interested in that. I understand that sounds not very nice, but in the last 12 years the only product we did that a bit different was in the Twin Otter Extended and that was a mistake. When we did our standard market research to see how many customers had the failure mode activated after tens hours of flight we found that 93% of customers had it deactivated. This is about the same as we know from more complex products like those from PMDG that we sell. As we are now dealing with a less informed (but wayyyyy expanded) audience in MSFS we decided to go for very solid basic systems and not model incorrect procedures. A commercial decision. But the MSFS Twin Otter did cost three times as much as the Twin Otter Extended to develop and we are selling it for a lower price. The aircraft looks far better, we got more models, we got way better sounds, we got a far better flight model, we got a far better modeling of the props, we got a far better simulation of the engine (with SOP). We can do so because we have a much larger potential audience. But in no way do I feel this product to be inferior because we do not model a very limited set of potential mistakes by the pilot. Allow me to stray from the topic a bit. I am always surprised no add-on developer models reasons why a crew decides to make an unscheduled landing. See the chance if is caused by some idiot who drank too much is dozens of time larger then a mechanical issue. After passenger issues come things like toilets (I have been on a KLM flight from Amsterdam to New York that flew back to Amsterdam when all but two toilets failed). Another fun one is smoke or smell. Just check and see how many flights are aborted because of those reasons, hundreds each year. Ever had a 3rd part add-on model that? Nope, the all focus on engines etc. That reminds me, been on a flight to Singapore when the cabin crew found out all the meals were vegetarian. Was not aborted. We got unlimited drinks though, so at the end nobody cared.

I am still trying to find room for a Beaver in our schedule.

Was checking out the last beta and could not stop myself making this crummy low res video. That is one impressive terminal. Note the reflections and the moving rolling roads.

I have to say im very dissapointed with the sounds in the update. Its still alot of problems that i cant understand developers didnt notice! 1.Still no smooth changes in rpm (Something that we expect in a 30euro addon in 2022) 2.Still abrupt changes in the sampes (The sounds go quiet before the next sample kicks in) 3.No difference in the sound when the engine goes from feathered to unfeathered. 4.The starters and shutdown are way to loud now compared to the other sounds of the engines. 5.Badly spatial sound difference.

I agree..and it's such a shame,because the sounds are recorded very well. The thing is that for the engine sounds (my main concern, but not the only one) need to go up and down in pitch as RPM goes up and down. I know this is possible in WWISE, because literally every other plane in MSFS does it. The only planes that don't are the Aerosoft ones. The CRJ exhibits the same issue. So if you have, say. 5 recordings of the engine, you map them along the range of RPM. let's say you're idling, you have one sample for that, and as the rpm goes up, so does the PITCH (Frequency) of the sample, until that sample no longer accurately resembles the sound the engine makes for that RPM. As the pitch goes higher, you crossfade to the next sample, which needs to be tuned to the same pitch the previous sample left off..and on you go. here's a nice demonstration of how that's supposed to work: So this is a job done right. But whomever did the sound for the Twotter did get the transitions, but the PITCH doesn't change between each sample like it does in the example above. So you get this weird crossfade result, which sounds completely unnatural. maybe the Aerosoft sound guy can ask this guy on youtube for some help.

I've seen so much negativity about this plane both on these forums as well as the official MSFS (often the same people, no doubt) and it bums me out a bit - I felt I just wanted to pipe up to say I do like the plane, and am very happy with my purchase. Maybe I'm just getting old, but people are SO quick to judge, and SO incredibly knit-picky, and SO quick to criticise (no doubt helped by the anonymity of the internet) - everything is always either AMAZING or THE ABSOLUTE WORST THING EVER. There are some problems with the plane, yes. I have every confidence most of these will be acknowledged and rectified where reasonably possible, as with most version 1 .00 software launches. Those issues not withstanding, I've made a few flights with this plane, and I enjoyed every second of it. So don't be disheartened Aerosoft peeps - you've made a nice thing, and your efforts are appreciated.

Fresh images. But they are WIP

Think we also never listed the complete avionics set: Complete avionics stack (all compatible with available tweaks) Garmin 530 all-in-one GPS/Nav/Comm solution Garmin 430 all-in-one GPS/Nav/Comm solution Bendix/King KR-87 ADF Receiver Bendix/King KT-76C Transponder Bendix/King KAP140 Autopilot Intercontinental Altitude Alerter Collins 913K Autopilot Controller (used as repeater for the KAP140) Bendix/King KMA Audio Selector Collins FD-112V Flight Director

My first contribution...

However the disappointed customers are. This is after all a product for which there is payment received, it's far from something provided by an enthusiast for free that people have issues with. I think the forum comments are generally representative of the same repeating statements, all of which reflect a disappointment in a product that is not really considered comparable against peers and not what should be considered fit for release. I have no problem with small issues, you know, like the trim wheel animation not working, nor some of the switches not working but standard functionality like a sound set that is immersive and not just 4 step sounds of the engine? Try the Kodiak or in fact any of the standard stock aircraft and they all blend well. Props not feathering...just something else I immediately found in my first 15 mins. I bought the Beechcraft 99 a long time ago for £12 and it's pretty bad. I don't fly it but they still have my money. Same here, i'll give this another go but please urgently revisit the sounds, they're a jarring quality leap from what they should be and really do detract from the overall result. The loudness too, I shouldn't have to adjust my overall FS sound settings for one aircraft, a little consideration in balancing them in line with the other expected sound volumes of other aircraft perhaps? I was considering the CRJ but now no, not unless this one gets attention, that's my small protest here, no more money from me.

No, sorry. The manual for this one a bit special as it is based on a book we bought the rights for. It is not just a text you need to use the product, but really part of the product. It contains stories, a lot of background information and three complete flights. If all goes well it will even include interviews with pilots. So it is only available for customers.

We have just given testers permission to share.

Hello everyone. I'm almost done CRJ mod, and now i want to ask permission from Aerosoft to make it public available. For the modification to work, an official purchased aircraft is required. Modification is free and does not require additional purchase. The modification does not affect the original files and exists as a separate addon. About the same way liveries work. The list of changes that I have added/changed/fixed is below. - Added: INGAME Assisted checklist. The implementation is incomplete due to the impossibility of controlling some things on the plane. I am waiting for feedback on what to change or add. - Added: Switchable pilot/copilot (click airspeed sign over PFD). - Added: APU heat effect (for temporary Asobo Afterburner Heat FX, custom newone is planed). - Added: Cockpit displays ambient lights. - Added: Interactive cursors for all (more than 2pos) switches and knobs. - Added: Sync lights switches with LAND/TAXI/NAV/BEACON/STROBE ON/OFF keybind (Sometimes it doesn't work as expected or doesn't work at all. Still experimenting. I recommend using ON / OFF binds only. Also, if you turn on the switch with the mouse, then the binds are not synchronized). - Added: Sync SPEED/ALT/VS knobs with keybinds (Some problems are possible, need to test additionally). - Changed: Taxi/Landing Lights (brighter). - Changed: Cockpit panel lights (brighter). - Changed: All default cockpit cameras (more usable). - Changed: All swithches/knobs animation now smooth. - Changed: Sounds for some switches/buttons. - Changed: Mouse wheel switch behavior. WheelDown - only decrease value, WhelUp - only increase value. LeftButtonClick - toggle state for 2pos switches. - Changed: Knobs with Push button behavior. In LEGACY interaction - push button now work as before. In LOCK interaction - you may use Aerosoft behavior (RightClick on knob, then LeftClick on button) or Asobo style (LeftClick and Hold on knob, and RightClick for button interaction). I continue to improve the functionality. - Changed: Pass Sign and ELT switch behavior. There is no difference for the end user, rather an annotation for me. - Fixed: Missed sound on some knobs/switches - Fixed: Inverted power switch on Fuel System. - Fixed: Terrain TILT knob/button. - Fixed: Buttons RTU1/2 inhibit and Ignition cont. broken animation. So, @Mathijs Kok, what do you think?

So overall I am happy with the Twin Otter by Aerosoft. I flew 1 hr of continues formation online as a way to test flyability (in VR - Quest 2). It worked great. The view from the cockpit is great, the handling and stability is great. The cockpit instruments are clear enough to see what is going on. Of course a Quest 2 is not going to give you clear reading on instruments but flyable. Great framerates. Of course many items need to be fixed. The way I look at it: Aerosoft could have let us wait longer for this product to release, but now we may already use it. All the basics are in place (the sound issues, admittedly, are a bit painful) and you can get used to it already and await some fixes in the (near?) future. But with this release philosophy, good communication is vital: admit all the flaws publicly and simply announce the effort to work on the fixes. (not new features, only fixes). Buying this product in an unfinished state is so much more joyful when getting actual feedback on the matters. This forum is great, as it shows that Aerosoft seems to work on issues. But it is too much hidden from the public. As a buyer of an unfinished product I would appreciate a mailing list or "Update" forum section to see what is being worked on. In fact, I wouldn't mind if there was no interior in the initial release and I could fly the plane without interior, knowing the interior is still being worked on and available in the future. Same for livery or other features. Thanks Aerosoft, for this MSFS version, and keep up the good work.

That is EXACTLY the issue. As I wrote yesterday, in the real Twin Otter this is not a major problem as the crew wears NC headphones. Without them you are shouting seriously hard to each other to make yourself heard. Now 99.99% of users will never have been in the Twin Otter cockpit wearing a NC headphone and would simply not recognize the sound. And no YouTube video will be a guide. The sound set would be very bland, just a heavy hiss, not a lot affected by difference in throttle or prop settings. All the cockpit sounds, like levers etc would be deleted. I have told this before, but when we did the F1-6 we were lucky enough to have access to F-16 and a television sound guy. So he mounted two small microphones inside the headset of the pilot. We ended up with an absolute correct sound set that was broadcast standard. And customers absolutely hated it. They simply would not accept that that is how it sounds to the pilot. Even when we asked real fighter pilots to confirm it was right, customer still simply did not want to accept it. So after two weeks we made a new recording of the sounds in the cockpit. The result was exactly as is sounds in the cockpit but not as ANY pilot even heard it. They considered it comical. Customers loved it as they heard the jet engine scream, AB kicking in etc. Go figure. In this project we leaned very heavy on the advisory pilots for the sounds. What we most likely should have done is merge that input with the expectations of the customers. Personally I lower the engine sounds using the sim options when I fly with ATC and I know many others who do the same in aircraft that are so noisy that you simply can't use a cockpit speaker to hear the radios. Clearly that is not acceptable to most users, so we will change the soundset more to what is expected and easier to use without setting sim options.

and we wonder for 30 minutes who ordered beer at Aerosoft. So the delivery comes from you?

That's how:

Some amphibian shots (when you fly this one, keep in mind those floats weigh a ton)

Absolutely. Adding a deep engine simulation would seriously increase the development cost and would simply add next to no additional sales. So it means a more expensive product for everybody. While you will find customers on forums like this who would like it, people who buy on the marketplace and certainly those on Xbox would not care a lot. In the Twin Otter Extended it was a mixed blessing. The engine failure module was rather crude and as always opened Pandora's box. People called us idiots for modeling that failure and not their favorite failure. Btw the standard sim failure system works and seems to trigger the correct behavior. For this version we worked far more on the systems, to get them to behave more realistic. Those you see every second you fly and we felt they should get priority.

Q1

Happy New Year everyone! You're welcome to join me today for a Livestream pre-release Preview of the latest Twotter build in testing. It's still an ongoing project but I'm excited to show you it's progress so far. We'll be taking the Twin Otter out of Glasgow, across to Barra for a beach landing, then across Scotland to the Orkney Islands on JoinFS.net

In this case you are correct, and the products AS makes are not attractive to me anymore. 'Known from the very start' might be true for someone who follows the forums regularly, but it was not made clear in the public announcements before release, that it was considerably dumbed down in this regard to keep it compatible to Xbox. I know Aerosoft as a company aiming for the middle of the market since the beginning of my simming career 20 years ago. The products were not the most complex, but complex enough to be fun and challenging. The FSX/ P3D Twotter is a great example. Easy enough to make a quick flight, complex enough to cover most systems and engine limitations. With the Kodiak in mind and AS's reputation, plus the official presentation on social media, it was clear to me that the Twotter would be on par with the Kodiak or even better. The price tag, same as the P3D version, suggests that as well from a long term customer's perspective. Now that it is buggy is one thing, and it's sad enough it was released in this state. But bugs are fixable. Not fixable are limitations which come from some fancy gaming console, mostly used by people who buy it, fly it, but don't seriously sim with it (and stop using the product after a few weeks because it got boring). If that's the market where the money is, be it. But if in consequence this means dumbed down flight models, limited animations, awful sound and less complexity (to not scare the gamer boys), then this isn't for me anymore. I would gladly request my money back, but I already know the answer.

@Mathijs Kok I think you need to respect your customers more. Its absolutely disgraceful how you react to some people. In your eyes the user is always wrong. I saw the same behaviour when the CRJ released.

The original photo was taken at Akureyri airport, Iceland, in april 2014. Thank you Aerosoft!

And here is the official trailer:

Yeah... more or less says it all. But it is Friday evening quarter to eight and the whole team is still working. We need a life. Some idiot decided we needed a special sound for the cargo doors.... tjeeee. I also just realized we have 4 different cockpits. Normal wheel, Ski, Amphibian and Skydiver.

A few from today!

No, I am not a fan of that because you need a shite load of polygons to make the humans look good so they match the level of detail of the aircraft. And that take a huge load of memory and will make use on lower end systems and certainly on Xbox hard. Using lower polygon models as shown is not the right way to go.

And it was not possible to release two products, twin otter for PC and XBOX separately and just optimise/remove stuff that will cripple the console?

We are looking for two new advisors to assist our development team. For this we need pilots or ex pilots (and because we have been bitten by 16 year old airline pilots, we have to ask for some proof). Contact me on mathijs.kok@aerosoft.com.

We love the new Kodiak, really well done. One of the best aircraft you can buy right now. But I do not really understand why people compare it. The Kodiak is a far more modern aircraft and not really designed for the same tasks. You do not fly a Kodiak to the South Pole.