Mathijs Kok

Twin Otter Extended Extended?

Recommended Posts

Yup.... they will give you Rain Effects, but you may need to license Real Light from TFdi..... although I believe A2A are developing their own too, as they refused to license either technology from TFdi, as it was too expensive.

 

 

May I just suggest a compromise for everyone ?

 

Step 1. Give the existing Twin Otter a bit of a "tune up", with improved textures and a native installer for the GTN 650/750 etc.

 

Then, release it to us ASAP for say 25 to 30 Euros .. as soon as possible !

 

Call it "Twin Otter 2020"

 

 

Step 2. Later, bring out a fully fledged  "Version 2", with some type of Rain and Real light effect for the VC, plus dynamic lighting etc. .... and possibly more enhanced textures, liveries together with some of these other 'improvements', that people are listing (ad infinitum) in the posts above. (Although for me most are not necessary)

 

Charge 10 to 15 Euro for the upgrade

 

Call it "Twin Otter 2020 V2"

 

 

Step 3. Then finally, later still, an expansion pack, developing the different models - skis, amphibian etc etc.

 

Charge 10 to 15 Euro for the expansion pack.

 

And obviously, call it "Twin Otter 2020 V2 - Expansion Pack"

 

 

= Total cost around 50 to 60 Euros.

 

 

Or just charge the full amount as Early Access - I'm in already. After all, we get something, quicker, and help to ensure we get a modern 64-bit capable classic, with all the bells and whistles.

 

Well worth it !

 

 

BTW,  this is just my 2 cents.... but guys, lists demanding 200 improvements is only going to put off the potential devs.

 

The Twotter, isn't, and was never meant be,  a PMDG 747 !

 

Let's keep things real, and we may eventually get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of devs use an Early Access system.... can't see why it wouldn't work out.

 

Air Hauler 2 started 2 years ago.... constantly being updated and improved.

 

But I guess with an aircraft it may be different.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early Access is a scheme to fund development when it is hard to find the money. That's not something we have to use. Early next year we'll make a decision on this project,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK .... you're the boss. Just relieved you have not abandoned it.

 

I believe most people will pay full price for a well developed update. When they see it, they won't moan !

 

Watching with interest.

 

" Ich wünsche dir das Beste für das kommende Jahr. "

 

😁😁😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me in - my debit card is on stand-by for a full price product (providing you update the FSX version).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, expire said:

Count me in - my debit card is on stand-by for a full price product (providing you update the FSX version).

Don't think they will do the FSX version - pretty much dead for devs now.

 

The point is to bring the Twootter up to P3D standards - dynamic lights etc.. 64 bit, no OOM errors or VAS issues to worry about, and a flippin looooooooong list of other stuff.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's for sure. If we work on it, it will be for 64 bit only. Commercially FSX is a lot like FS2004.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pity - with all my investment in FSX scenery add-ons and such, I can't see me converting to P3D.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We understand. There are a lot of FSX users (and also a lot of FS2004 users). But the fact is that they simply are not very willing to invest in more add-ons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, expire said:

That's a pity - with all my investment in FSX scenery add-ons and such, I can't see me converting to P3D.

I was saying the same a year ago. but when P3D V4 came out, I understood that FSX was officially the past. The good thing is, FSX can continue work with P3DV4. there are different programs, you just need the space to store the sims. in my case is not a problem. But the truth is that I have now uninstalled it FSX and put in my memories, once you try P3DV4 when you fly with FSX you will notice the changes a lot. A LOT trust me. I recommend you to lose the fear I had. Too much money invested. A completely closed development which means no headage with updates. And a lot of add-ons purchased that won't work for P3DV4. The fact that now over 80% of my add-ons work with P3DV4. just remember I was like you a year ago. And now I'm very happy with the decision I took. 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the encouragment Eduard.  I quick look around P3D based websites suggests that my Gen X scenery and tress of the UK might work on P3D.  If that is the case, maybe life is not so bleak after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a new Twin Otter with deeper systems simulation and a proper turbo prop simulation would be a fantastic idea for the 64 bit platform going forward. As of right now, I'm doubtful that anyone will pickup this project since Aerosoft already did a good job on the current product. Therefore, if there is ever a future for the Twin Otter in P3D, I think that Aerosoft is the only developer we can depend on for such an effort. If special attention is paid to having a proper turbo prop engine simulation that doesn't suffer from any of the common limitations experienced in FSX/P3D, it will be quite a popular product for those who crave realism. Other items such as individual lighting controls, realistic radio functions, use of dynamic lighting, rain effects, PBR for the model and the option to use various combinations of Garmin 430/530, or GTN750/650, this will also be a major incentive to attract customers. 

 

Also important is the option of choosing whether the aircraft has an autopilot or not. In the real world most operators do not use an autopilot with the Twin Otter other than perhaps the 400 series. I understand that the model used in development had an autopilot, but this is very much the exception rather than the norm. some operators have a standby artificial horizon in place of where the autopilot unit is located on the Aerosoft model. Hopefully this can be looked at?

 

These videos show the typical layout you would see today.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Caribpilot said:

Also important is the option of choosing whether the aircraft has an autopilot or not. In the real world most operators do not use an autopilot with the Twin Otter other than perhaps the 400 series. I understand that the model used in development had an autopilot, but this is very much the exception rather than the norm. some operators have a standby artificial horizon in place of where the autopilot unit is located on the Aerosoft model. Hopefully this can be looked at?

 

Hold on, there. There would be very little to attract me if they start taking away the better stuff! So yes, better engines and more in-depth systems, but it has to be an upgrade, not a downgrade!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MarkHurst said:

 

Hold on, there. There would be very little to attract me if they start taking away the better stuff! So yes, better engines and more in-depth systems, but it has to be an upgrade, not a downgrade!

 

P.S. Unless you just mean the VC can be configured by the user :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. Since the autopilot isn’t a common item on this aircraft it would be best suited as an optional item. Most operators have a standby artificial horizon in that spot and I think this is to comply with IFR regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would purchase an updated product for sure – whether it is a minor update for a smaller fee or a larger one reflecting some significant work. Needs to be financially viable for the developers and publishers and I sense that this plane has a bit more than just a cult following. Options for 3rd party avionics would be really great to have.

 

I fly on Harbour Air between Vancouver and Victoria once in a while. They have two twin otters in the fleet along with a number of turbo otters, beavers and a caravan as many fans of the types will be aware. The one twin I was on this week had a glass cockpit upgrade (Garmin G950 which is based on the Garmin G1000). I found some details on the upgrade at http://aerocorpavionics.com/services-and-repairs/garmin-g950

 

Included a couple of screen shots below as well. It seems a number of the twin otters are getting glass updates – for an update to the Aerosoft product, having integration with the GTN 750/650 3rd party offerings would be great as they seem to be the most polished & popular (F1 &/or RXP). (Would not really expect full glass like the G950/1000 in a smaller update – just thought it was interesting!)

 

On the autopilot question, even though they may be rare in the real world, still like the option to have it in the virtual.

 

- Jim

IMG_2133.JPG

IMG_2135.JPG

IMG_2147.JPG

IMG_2150.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would also pay another full price for an updated product, IF the turboprop simulation is made realistic. The (never to be released) Porter showed what would be possible, MilViz brought a pretty (!) good adaptation of the PT-6 as well in their Totter. If they'd choose to develop a Twotter also (which would be quite logical after bringing the Beaver, Otter and Totter), AS would lose quite a few potential customers to an up-to-date product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would also be more than willing to pay for an updated or new product. But please, make the turboprop simulation more realistic (and also a ground friction fix). As MatzeH84 said, Milviz has done a pretty good job at nailing the PT6 engine in their Turbo Otter. Would love to see something similar from Aerosoft in a new Twin Otter product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 8:48 AM, expire said:

That's a pity - with all my investment in FSX scenery add-ons and such, I can't see me converting to P3D.

You must. Trust me.

 

I was like you 6 months ago. 1000s of quid of addons.

 

But, I sold the rights to half of one of my kidneys, (joke !) And got a decent PC for a grand. Started with basic OrbX stuff and a couple of good aircraft.

 

Never looked back.

 

Just the cockpit shadows are worth it !

 

It looks better, and runs better, than FSX, even on the same hardware.

 

Trust me.... make the plunge, and you will thank me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 12:55 PM, MatzeH84 said:

Would also pay another full price for an updated product, IF the turboprop simulation is made realistic. The (never to be released) Porter showed what would be possible, MilViz brought a pretty (!) good adaptation of the PT-6 as well in their Totter. If they'd choose to develop a Twotter also (which would be quite logical after bringing the Beaver, Otter and Totter), AS would lose quite a few potential customers to an up-to-date product.

But the fps performance on the Milviz stuff is pitiful.

 

A better optimised Twotter from AS would be better. Especially if they synchronised the release with a remastered Lukla !

 

......

Look what they did for Xplane !

 

https://www.helisimmer.com/news/frank-dainese-teases-heli-sim-community-lukla-base-camp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the autopilot can be an optional item or perhaps left to a 2D panel option. It is so rear that having it as a main option of the aircraft isn't very realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caribpilot said:

Perhaps the autopilot can be an optional item or perhaps left to a 2D panel option. It is so rear that having it as a main option of the aircraft isn't very realistic.

 

These days it is no so rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

These days it is no so rare.

With some operators upgrading their cockpits, this might be the case, but it still leave the matter of the standby artificial horizon missing in the aircraft. I may be wrong but I believe that for IFR flights it is required and most airline operators have it in the aircraft. Perhaps the aircraft used for the development was mainly a VFR aircraft? I guess having more options in the cockpit would ultimately be a plus since this aircraft has such a wide range of use and a wide range of avionics. Apart from the option Autopilot feature, I think the most significant upgrades would be the turbo prop simulation with proper startup, beta range and other unique aspects of operating this type of engine. Individual cockpit lighting controls, more pilot uniform options (I think the current model shows pilots wearing a sweater only? In the tropics this is never seen), advanced soundset ( change in sound volume with doors are opened or closed etc. I am honestly looking forward to this project if Aerosoft moves ahead with the development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now