Jump to content

Payt Laros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Payt Laros

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Payt Laros's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges



  1. That's fantastic news.. thanks for your dedication to getting this right can't wait to hear how it turns out!
  2. Hi Matthijs, maybe rerecording is a good Idea, though I think the current recodings are excellenmt as well. Will the lack of Pitch curves for the engine sounds be fixed in the new implementation? Otherwise you'll just end up with another set of weird sounding engines
  3. Hi Mathijs, so good to see you're so dedicated to get this one right! Also really nice to hear that the Twotter has been selling well! I just flew around St Maarten and St Barth, and there were quite a few Twotters flying around over there. A lovely sight for sure! As for the sound: To be honest I think the sounds you have are excellent recordings already. You really don't need a different set, as far as I can see. All you need is for the engine sounds to be programmed within WWise properly, so that they follow the PITCH envelope of the engines correctly. Right now they are just a couple of static loops that don't change pitch as the engine changes RPM. It's just crossfading between these static loops. Imagine you have a mixing desk with 6 faders, and on each fader you have a loop of the engine. The first loop is of the engine at idle, the second of it at 20 %, then one at 40, 60 , 80 and finally the last loop at 100%. You can move the faders all you want, but you'll never get a smooth transsition form 0 to 100 %.. it'll just be static loops at increments of 20%. This is the problem you have right now. What you'd need is a knob that changes the pitch of the tapes. All the way to the left is 0% thrust, and then you turn it up to say 15 percent. It'd simply speed up the tape (raise the pitch) of loop 1 and move up the fader of track 1. Then, as it approaches 20%, tape 1 fades out and the second fades in. Then as you increase RPM further, the speed (pitch) of tape 2 increases, which then fades out while tape3 fades in as you approach 40% RPM, and on it goes to 100%. That's basically how it should work in WWISE. So if you replace those engine noises with new recordings, you're just going to have the same effect, but with different recordings. It will still sound wrong. What you need is what's called PITCH CURVES within WWISE. Here's an explanation of what they are and how they work: https://www.audiokinetic.com/library/2017.2.10_6745/?source=Help&id=building_smart_pitch_curves https://blog.audiokinetic.com/loop-based-car-engine-design-with-wwise-part-1/ https://blog.audiokinetic.com/loop-based-car-engine-design-with-wwise-part-2/ https://www.audiokinetic.com/library/2017.2.10_6745/?source=SampleProject&id=car_engine_details_matching_pitch_to_rpm_using_rtpcs These explanations relate to car engine sound design, but it's basically the same thing. I really think you can make an excellent representation of how the twotter sounds with the current recordings, they just need to be implemented right
  4. I truly hope that Aerosoft ends up fixing the sound for the twotter, as well as the CRJ. But does it seem likely? From what I've seen the thing that counts the most to Matthijs is whether most people who buy Aerosoft products are happy enough with the product in general. The few people here who are concerned about the sounds might just be a small clique of nerds who don't represent the average buyer of MSFS plugins. My impression is that Mathhijs seems to be relying on the feedback he gets from people he trusts, and as long as they sing his tune, we may just be a few oddballs who don't know what we're talking about in the first place, since we've probably never been on a real twin otter..so how would we know eh? I hope I'm wrong of course. But what we have here is a sound guy who doesn't know how to implement the engine recordings that were made/licensed. They were recorded correctly. it seems, and by themselves they sound wonderful. It's the programming part that's lacking, and it's proven rather difficult to communicate what exactly is wrong. I mean I know exactly what's wrong, but the communication falls on deaf/non-comprehending ears. So he did try his best to smooth out the sounds, and in some way he succeeded as well. The transitions are smoother, but the crucial bit is still missing, which is the changes in PITCH. It's like somebody gives you a black and white grainy photo of a rainbow, and then telling this person that what you need to accurately represent the rainbow is COLOR..and then the person smooths out the grainyness of the photo, but it's still black and white. As it stands I don't see how the fix could happen. Matthijs doesn't seem to understand what we're talking about, and the sound guy seems incapable of implementing the right changes. Still they better get it right at some point. The first thing I'll be looking for in any new Aerosoft release is the sound implementation, and as long as they keep getting it wrong..well that's one less customer for them.
  5. 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.
  6. Ok jst installed the update. What can I say? The RPM pitch issue still hasn't been fixed. The transitions between the samples is smoother, but there's STILL no PITCH envelope. I guess the sound guy just doesn't understand what we mean, or doesn't know how to do it right. Or both. Either way, I give up.. lol.. This isn't going to work. I'm getting the TSS pack and install the mod .. I;ll also avoid Aerosoftproducts until they educate their sound guy or hire someone with enough talent to do it right!
  7. That's great news! can't wait to try it Thanks!
  8. That of course is the other side of the coin. I have been looking forward to the Otter since it was aanounced, and to find that in this case the sound is as bad as it is was a big disappointment for me as well. I still wonder how it got released in it's current state. I'm sure people must've noticed something wrong with the engine sounds, but maybe they were just told that t it's still a WIP, like most of the reviewers were told. Anyway I hope the upcoming patch fixes that.
  9. Thanks Eric, It's so encouraging to hear that you guys are hard at work on the sounds I suppose it's no fun for a teamto have been working hard on a plane for what..over a year? You build up the hype, and all the testers, pilots and reviewers seem enthusiastic about it (with a few caveats), and then finally the day comes where you release your baby to the big world..and then it's a bit of a disappointment.. I can only imagine how that feels. Anyway really lookijg forward to the Aerosoft update then .. can't wait to hear what you guys managed to accomplish!
  10. Dynamics is kind of a hard thing to do in a desktop simulation, If you'd have to reflect the true dynamic range of a real Twotter, it'd go from hearing close to nothing at idle, to exceedingly loud at full RPM. If you want audio at all levels, you always have to make a compromise. So you bring the levels of the low rpm sounds a bit closer to the high rpm sounds, until you come to an acceptable range that still sounds like the thing you're trying to emulate. Just think of it. You could comfortably take a switch from a twotter into your living room and switch it, and that would be fine as far as sound level. If you took one of the PT-6's into your living room and ran that at full RPM, I don't think you or your neighbours would enjoy that. So you have to lower the volume of the engine. But then you wouldn't hear the switches or the low rpm sounds anymore if you still maintained the same dynamic range while being able to comfortably run the engines at full throttle Anyway I thik you get it by now
  11. Phasing happens when you use the same recording for both engines. When you switch to an external view, in many cases the engine sounds will start at almost exactly the same time. They will either amplify eachother or cancel eachother out, depending on how they synchronize. That's the phasey effect you get. The solution would be for the engines to have differing loop points in their recordings, or to have different recordings for each engine, which of course would result in a lot more work for the sound guy.
  12. OMG this is just what I was looking for! please find a way to share this. maybe Aerosoft can make this happen sopmehow? Just release it as a patch and we'll at least have a placeholder that's 10.000 times better than the old sounds Apparently Aerosoft have already licensed the TTS sounds (according to TTS), so using them in a new soundpack shouldn't be an issue... right?
  13. Thank you so much.. haha.. Sorry if my droning on is annoying Anyway I'm of for another spin in the twotter!
  14. Hi Again Matthijs, I think you may be right about the volume. In the twotter it's probably incredibly noisy when those 2 props are are spining at full power. The volume is probably accurately represented in the current mix. It would be much more acceptable if the pitch/crossfading issue was addressed. I'm sorry if I and other keep repeating that, but that's probably because the feedback we're getting doesn't really acknowledge that you understand what we're saying. If that's the case, please let me know, and I'll try to find another way of explaining it.
  15. Just for illustration of what it SHOULD sound like, listen to this: Another thing missing is WIND sound. In most planes that fly at some speed, you'll start hearing the airplane cutting through the air. You can hear it really well here: It really helps with the immersion. And the wind sound is pretty simple: it's basically filtered white noise that increases in volume and gains more high frequencies (like a cutoff filter opening up) as you fly faster. Comeon peeps! Sound is half the experience of flying a plane. I'll admit I'm a bit of a sound nut, but as you can see in just this thread and the one on the MSFS forum, it's really important to LOTS of virtual pilots. And now we have the means to make it such a convincing experience. Having really good sound actually SELLS planes. Just have a look at the Just Flight Hawk or the Kodiak. I'm sure the fact that those planes had incredible sound helped make them the successes they are!
  • Create New...