Microsoft Flight Simulator Aerosoft Aircraft: Twin Otter

[John2 64]

25 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Well, for sure this is optional. Personally I find an empty seat more disturbing because as we all know taking off or landing like that will result in you license being removed. I never understood why people bother so much about wingflapping and not about the massive issue next to you.

 

 

Well I have been flying without a license for many years so it doesn't bother me too much.

[Mathijs Kok 39140]

2 minutes ago, Donka said:

I guess I personally am ambivalent on the copilot. I’ve seen some implemented better than others but I seem to notice the copilot more when viewing the cockpit from an external view. When in the cockpit, I’m more focused on instruments and looking outside. Optional for me works. 

 

Can you show us any you feel are 'respectable'?

 

[amahran 434]

7 minutes ago, John2 said:

Well I have been flying without a license for many years so it doesn't bother me too much.

I’ll take “Things You Don’t Want To Hear From Your Captain” for $500, Alex

[Anne Ludwig 48]

vor 14 Minuten, Abriael sagte:

 

I exactly talking about people who would pick up the sim as their first sim and/or on Xbox. I'm fairly sure the lack of a co-pilot would likely bother more people who are experienced with aviation and sims. On the other hand, I almost entirely guarantee that most first-timers likely won't notice either way and will spend 90% of the time in external views. I know this isn't the most positive feedback for someone working on the interior, but that's just how it works in other sim-like games that are already popular on consoles (racing sims, for instance), and the pretty scenery doesn't help. 

 

The presence of a modeled co-pilot is likely more helpful to enhance the immersion for those who will play with the upcoming VR support. 

No problem - some will see the interior, others won't - it's up to you

 

But if you think of the vr players - would Guenter's presence suffice for them? VR is not my world - I always get a headache from it - but aren't these players even more demanding due to the additional proximity to the simulated world? Animations, a facial expression, interactions with the plane - wouldn't that be even more important to make the immersion perfect?
 

So if you assume you want a copilot?

[Abriael 302]

5 minutes ago, Anne Ludwig said:

But if you think of the vr players - would Guenter's presence suffice for them? VR is not my world - I always get a headache from it - but aren't these players even more demanding due to the additional proximity to the simulated world? Animations, a facial expression, interactions with the plane - wouldn't that be even more important to make the immersion perfect?

 

I can relate. I don't use VR because due to my job I pretty much can't afford isolating myself from the external world for hours.

 

But yes, that's exactly what I meant. The presence of a modeled copilot would certainly help for those who play in VR, as having someone talking on the radios in the cockpit and an empty seat would negatively impact their immersion, and in VR, immersion is everything. 

 

If you're asking if *I* personally want a copilot, the option would be a nice have, but nothing that I would consider super-relevant to my enjoyment of the sim and add-on. 

 

To summarize, I would certainly implement it as an option unless it's super-costly to have it. I'm quite sure the Twin Otter is going to sell a LOT by addons standard, so I imagine Aerosoft can afford adding some unusual bells and whistles to the package.

[Anne Ludwig 48]

vor 50 Minuten, amahran sagte:

Hello, just reposting my comment from the other thread:

 

 

 

I’ll chime in with my thoughts: I like the idea of a second person in the cockpit too. However, I typically find that such models can be especially unnerving if they just sit there with a blank stare (um, hello? is anyone home?)

 

I think it would be AWESOME if they actually had a bit of life to them, reacting to certain flight phases, jostling with g forces, occasionally panning their head around. Maybe writing something on a clipboard when above 1,000’AGL, or when on the ground with the engines off. Maybe if you use keyboard commands to lower/raise flaps and gear, this character would reach over and actuate the lever. 
 

Things like this can add life to the flight deck. Otherwise, I think it would be moderately disturbing to transport a lifeless body around.

Yes, if the character were to move really lively, that would be very nice. But that is also the difficulty. As you already mentioned, the face is very important in human characters, but it is just as demanding in the implementation.

 

Would you compromise here if the character otherwise integrated well into the aircraft and its behavior? I mean with the animations of the Face ?

[Abriael 302]

1 minute ago, Anne Ludwig said:

Would you compromise here if the character otherwise integrated well into the aircraft and its behavior? I mean with the animations of the Face ?

 

Give him sunglasses. That always helps with the uncanny valley  

[Mathijs Kok 39140]

But again, flying without a co-pilot is not only unrealistic but even illegal. No real pilot would even dream of flying an airliner on his own.  Never. 

So why is that glaring violation of aviation rules acceptable to so many simmers?

[Donka 31]

Jardesign have a copilot plug-in I have seen in a few movies which I think is animated well and adds something to the experience. I thought there was one in Aerofly FS 2 as well but turns out it was the pilot when viewed from the copilot seat. 
I concur with others that having a well modelled copilot that doesn’t have any interaction doesn’t add much to the experience and I would prefer the empty seat. 

[Abriael 302]

6 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

But again, flying without a co-pilot is not only unrealistic but even illegal.

 

Are you talking about the Twin Otter in particular or aviation in general? As far as I know, solo flights for props are not unlikely even in commercial aviation in remote areas (see Susi Air haha). 

 

That being said. I think in this case many people consider a modeled copilot more of of a visual thing that something functionally impacting procedures. When I fly in a sim, I've accepted that the lack of a human body by my side is simply a matter of graphics. The copilot is talking on the radio so obviously, they exist, just not visually represented. It's a bit challenging to explain. 

 

After all "true simmers don't care about graphics" haha. Not that I agree, but that's what the elite preaches all the time nowadays 😂 (unless it's wingflex).

 

But again. I welcome the option if it doesn't drop 10% of my FPS. 😁

[amahran 434]

3 minutes ago, Anne Ludwig said:

Yes, if the character were to move really lively, that would be very nice. But that is also the difficulty. As you already mentioned, the face is very important in human characters, but it is just as demanding in the implementation.

 

Would you compromise here if the character otherwise integrated well into the aircraft and its behavior? I mean with the animations of the Face ?

For sure. I think one reason I can tolerate the ground crew in MSFS compared to the FSX GSX models is because they have genuine human behaviour.

They twitch and fidget, rather than stand entirely still. They move around and shuffle their feet. Their eyes don’t look like they just watched someone die. They look genuinely bored, which is a genuine characteristic in most people working long hours in aviation. It makes them seem more human. Maybe have them always looking around outside in boredom?

 

On the topic of VR, it would be cool if the shared cockpit player models were Guenther, so Guenther is the other player moving their head and arms. I realize that may be out of scope for now though.

[Anne Ludwig 48]

vor 10 Minuten, Abriael sagte:

 

Give him sunglasses. That always helps with the uncanny valley  

But that doesn't fit always to the situation

[Mathijs Kok 39140]

6 minutes ago, Abriael said:

That being said. I think in this case many people consider a modeled copilot more of of a visual thing that something functionally impacting procedures. When I fly in a sim, I've accepted that the lack of a human body by my side is simply a matter of graphics. The copilot is talking on the radio so obviously, they exist, just not visually represented. It's a bit challenging to explain. 

 

The key in your answer is " I've accepted that the lack of a human body by my side is simply a matter of graphics." 

 

Customers complain about the color of an aspect of the cockpit is not exactly as it was in 1997 and that the mark on a instrument is not exactly as it was on that exact model in 2002, but they gladly accept lack of the MOST important thing in the cockpit, your co-pilot.

 

Anne is very right to challenge that.

[Abriael 302]

4 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

The key in your answer is " I've accepted that the lack of a human body by my side is simply a matter of graphics." 

 

Customers complain about the color of an aspect of the cockpit is not exactly as it was in 1997 and that the mark on a instrument is not exactly as it was on that exact model in 2002, but they gladly accept lack of the MOST important thing in the cockpit, you co-pilot.

 

I have never said all hardcore simmers are rational Mathijs. Hanging around the official MSFS forums a lot, and seeing the vitriol, anger, and disrespect for the developers that often run rampart there, I'd be more inclined to argue the opposite nowadays 😂

 

Personally, I don't go crazy about super-minute details (and I'm likely not to even notice), so at least I'm coherent. 😎

 

4 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Anne is very right to challenge that.

 

Absolutely. No doubt about that.

[alsummers 2]

Optional would be fine, but I don't think a copilot being hard coded into the model is a great idea.  The Twin Otter can be, and indeed is operated single pilot in some instances, for example British Antarctic Survey operations.

[Mathijs Kok 39140]

1 hour ago, alsummers said:

Optional would be fine, but I don't think a copilot being hard coded into the model is a great idea.  The Twin Otter can be, and indeed is operated single pilot in some instances, for example British Antarctic Survey operations.

 

DHC-6 according to its manufacturer, is a single pilot aircraft. So, in normal circumstances it can be operated by one pilot. However there are very few countries where commercial passenger carrying flights are legal with a single pilot. 

[Nathan Palmer 6]

Sunglasses will help with the no blinking part. Optional would obviously be ideal but if not then yes to a Co-Pilot over no Co-Pilot. Ideally there should be a few sets of models for the various environments, Bush Attire, Caribbean Attire, Charter/Airline Attire, Expedition Attire (even if as an addon package DLC). 

[Nathan Palmer 6]

Will the flightdeck have a door to the cockpit? If not like the current version, can Passengers be added? Maybe not a full flight but at least a few so its not always a deadhead flight. I know years ago PMDG did that with their JetStream41 and as the user added passengers to the load sheet by the pilots left window clipboard, the pax would show or disappear in real time seen both inside the plane and through the windows from the outside.

Another thing might be to have the model wear a oxygen mask when above a certain alt since the planes can go high and work in that kind of terrain but not pressurized. It just pops on and off when the plane crosses a set altitude.

[Nathan Palmer 6]

On 12/3/2020 at 4:57 AM, Mathijs Kok said:

 

DHC-6 according to its manufacturer, is a single pilot aircraft. So, in normal circumstances it can be operated by one pilot. However there are very few countries where commercial passenger carrying flights are legal with a single pilot. 

Here in the US its got to be 9 pax and under and a working auto pilot. If the AP is InOp then its required to have a second pilot for Part 135 Ops.

[MAD-MM 1]

Think there speaks nothing against a Copilot, makes the Cockpit a little bit more a live, but as minimum he should at least be a little bit alive moving the Head, think complete stiff Copilot would be creepy.

Possible you can redesign the MS Radio/Frequenzy Window where  you can currently change per Ghost Hand the Radio Frequenzy, that task will do the virtuel Copilot in future with ankowlege of the Task.

 

Think probalby I lean little to much out of the Window with my currently Idears but how knows...

[Mathijs Kok 39140]

It's not immediately clear, but all these orange lines show where the rivets are placed. 

 

 

[kberg 52]

there we go xD (failed x times to get the gif working)

[Eric Bakker 605]

Wow, looking good @Mathijs Kok!

Will the model even more detailed than the CRJ because it's a smaller aircraft (so more polygons on a smaller volume/surface)?

 

@Anne Ludwig Please make the models in the VC as round as possible, for instance the yoke. That was one of few things in the previous Twotter that needed improvement IMHO. Polygons allowing of course

[FighterFlight 2]

Nice @Mathijs Kok!

It looks so great

I wonder how much time you put into this.

Did you use Blender to create this craft?

[Mathijs Kok 39140]

21 hours ago, FighterFlight said:

Nice @Mathijs Kok!

It looks so great

I wonder how much time you put into this.

Did you use Blender to create this craft?

 

No. it's al 3ds Max work, we really need professional tools.  At this moment the main tools are 3dsMax. Photoshop and Substance Painter.  And yes, our invoice for software every year is in the tens of thousands.