Twotter 101 unofficial update now available

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I was able to tune the feg fine, did not use the swap option. I somehow was able to highlight the left side freq, and tune this, and it worked fine, but would like to see the swap feature work as normal.

Also, other fixes listed seemed to work great sofar. Thanks very much for the popup 2d windows for the AP, and GPS. Since I have a dual monitor setup, makes it very nice to have those active on secondary window. Thanks for the fixes on this, sure this will be my primary plane for sometime now.

But as far as we know it works exactly as it should (so not as in the default Cessna). I was able to 'direct tune' the active frequency, able to tune the standby and switch them, in both nav and both coms radios.

If it does not work, let us know exactly in what model and we'll look at it again

[pauldgardner 2]

Hi,

The Otter is a superb aircraft from Aerosoft, thanks so much for all the hard work.

Just downloaded the update and tried to install to root of FSX but got series of error mesages saying coudn't delet output files.

Any thoughts please.

Paul

[Andy B. 40]

Update: The Freq swap will work on the Nav side if you click on the centre of the actual tuning knob first. Clicking on the centre seems to pop the dial out which then allows the swap button to work. :roll:

This is on the BA paint 300 GPS.

edit: sorry added GPS to name

[trisager 16]

Update: The Freq swap will work on the Nav side if you click on the centre of the actual tuning knob first. Clicking on the centre seems to pop the dial out which then allows the swap button to work. :roll:

If I read the manual right, what you describe is exactly how it is supposed to work: Functions requiring the in position include active and standby Nav frequencies exchange in the default screen...So the centre button needs to be depressed before you can swap frequencies in the default mode (impossible to do in VC mode).

Edit: In VC mode there is sort of a shadow of the right-hand radio dial behind the dial itself. Clicking that instead of the knob itself toggles the center button in/out.

Tom

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Update: The Freq swap will work on the Nav side if you click on the centre of the actual tuning knob first. Clicking on the centre seems to pop the dial out which then allows the swap button to work. :roll:

This is on the BA paint 300 GPS.

edit: sorry added GPS to name

Yes and that how the thing actually should work, lol.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi,

The Otter is a superb aircraft from Aerosoft, thanks so much for all the hard work.

Just downloaded the update and tried to install to root of FSX but got series of error mesages saying coudn't delet output files.

Any thoughts please.

Paul

Try it after restarting the system. FSX has a nasty habit of keeping files locked after it has shut down. If that does not help send me a screen shot at info@aerosoft-shop.com

[Andy B. 40]

Yes and that how the thing actually should work, lol.

Ok but why should the swap frequency button ever be disabled, i cant think of any reason for it to be, other than when the standby side isn't actually displaying a frequency i.e. when its showing a to/from radial etc. Ok the real radio may still do this but it doesn't make sense on that either, lol. Sorry for wasting your time.

[pbearsailor 9]

I've just flown an hour or so with the update, 300 wheels only.

Still no luck with FSMap. Is that problem still being looked at?

Haven't looked at the radios. Just a general comment on the glideslope, dme, marker beacon issue. Mathjis stated most of these airplanes are with bush operators. I'm not sure exactly what bush operator entails, but in the third world, the Twin Otter is still an airliner. Those operators want a plane that does the job efficiently and economically. That usually means you've got the avionics you need to do the job, but nothing more. Lack of a glideslope, dme, and marker beacons can mean you either can't do an approach or minimums are higher, increasing the chance you won't get in. That costs an operator money, so my experience is that if an airport they use needs those tools, the airplane will have the radios. We had an airplane go off a runway and get wiped out (nobody hurt) and had to bring in another plane. All of us went to look at it when it got in and it had exciting stuff: a full Collins autopilot and flight director. We couldn't wait to see it on the line. A few days later when it appeared, it had no flight director, no autopilot, and they had even taken out the two cockpit fans!! Extra weight that WE didn't need, so THEY took it out. :shock:

I don't see much change in the flight model. I added considerably more pitch damping to mine while waiting for the update, so the update seems to be a step backward for me from what I had been using. I'm sure my change impacted other stuff and I'm no expert here, but the airplane felt so much more like the real one with more pitch damping. Like I've said before, though, it's flyable either way.

I did a post at SOH that maybe got what I'm trying to say better on the pitch change with power:

" The tough place I flew into with it was Ofu in American Samoa. When we had a north wind, it would create huge downdrafts on the south side of the island where the 8/26 runway was. I'm really not exaggerating when I say we'd go from full power to idle power and back again on final trying to keep up with it. It could be really wild. The thing is, I'd trim her up on base with 20 or 30 flaps and never touched the trim again and the pitch attitude stayed quite solid. It was a truly amazing thing about an amazing airplane and I always knew it was capable of doing things that I just wasn't good enough to ask of her. Most honest airplane I've ever flown."

I wish we could set up that scenario in FSX, but doubt that we can, so this pitch issue isn't as big a deal. It's just, for me, it takes an airplane that has no quirks in real life and gives it some in flight sim. Can live with it and adapt to it like you do in most airplanes, it's just that it makes it less of a Twin Otter for me. :?

One other nitpick maybe just doesn't fit your target audience, but I'd sure like to see the power levers able to over torque and over temp. Seems like I can just firewall the power levers and that isn't the way most simple turboprops are: you've got to set those limits yourself and can't push it all the way up. Again, not a biggie.

cheers,

steve

[trisager 16]

... I'd sure like to see the power levers able to over torque and over temp.

Agree!

[PPS 0]

I agreee with everything Sailor just said !

[Private-Cowboy 3]

Well this is no Do-27, it was never meant to be one. Aerosoft inhouse productions are always a compromise between realism, depth and accessibility. This is not a Digital Aviation plane that tries for ultimate realism. I appreciate both approaches. But the Twotter is great because you can get into easily and have fun after work flying around some great scenery like Victoria+ (great freeware from Holger Sandmann, high recommend it) or Bella Coola. And once you use the FSX failure engine you can have some fun with the Twooter too. In that aspect the Twotter is like the BeaverX, a great plane to have some fun in.

But let me ask you one thing. If you'd be able to overtorque the engines here (in what addon are you able to do so anyway - only the Do-27 comes to my mind that has to be flown be the book, not even the Piper Cheyenne), what then? Would you do it knowing you would damage the engine? No, you wouldn't because no real pilot would. So where is the difference in having something that nobody who cares about proper operation would ever use/cause and leaving it out for easier accessibility? Just pretend its there...

Besides there is the economic aspect of things. Adding in those features would take the development time to new lenghts and because of that the price of the product. And the potential bug fest is not to be forgotten either. Just look at the mess the Piper Cheyenne was for FSX for weeks, you could not even use many features because it would send FSX to nirvana. I don't think that we would want that given the fact that those "features", even if there, should be avoided at all cost. After all they do only mean you're not operating the plane properly. I (personally) don't want a Twotter trainer for insane money that covers every eventuality. I prefer an affordable addon that gives a realistic portrait of the Twotter - and that is what she does already.

I hope you understand what I mean and don't think that I (or the "target audience") am the reason for a somehow watered down Twotter. :wink:

[gwolb 0]

yea, I would much rather have the Twotter just like it is, dont even fly the DO27, or ATR-72 500 any more since almost every airport I fly into just kills the FPS with those to planes. Are they very realistic yes, are they flyable with good FPS at larger airports, NO. I have the MD-80 as an example, complex systems, but not all perfect vc graphics, but I get better FPS with that plane than even some of the default planes, so use it all the time. Will be same with the TWOTTER. Good FPS all the time = plane that I want to fly all of the time. Beaver X, also is one of my fav. planes. great on FPS and better than some of the default planes.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

Well that for sure. But complexity is one aspect too. More complexity = more development time = more bugs = more costs. And all that for features like over torque that you should avoid anyway?

[pbearsailor 9]

Like I said, it was no biggie. It's just that a turbine pilot on takeoff sets the power by the gauges and a piston pilot tends to push the power all the way up. Just hurts the immersion factor for me when I know I can just push the power levers up to the stops--it makes it seem less like a PT-6 powered airplane. Doubt that this is really a complexity issue.

I do agree on the complexity issue with you. While I love the complexity of the Cheyenne (I've flown the real one too and it comes the closest of any flight sim airplane to matching those that I've flown in real life), the simplicity of the Twin Otter is part of what makes it so good. I personally don't care if it lacks an airstair door and don't care for a complex GPS or an autopilot. I never even think about frame rate with it and that's a really good thing.

Realize absolute realism is not for everyone and it's Aerosoft's choice to aim it where they want. It's just the closest I'm going to be to being back in a real one, so I'd like the flight model to be as accurate as it can be.

cheers,

steve

[MatthewS 32]

Like I said, it was no biggie. It's just that a turbine pilot on takeoff sets the power by the gauges and a piston pilot tends to push the power all the way up. Just hurts the immersion factor for me when I know I can just push the power levers up to the stops--it makes it seem less like a PT-6 powered airplane.

Maybe the reality factor can be increased via SimConnect?

I love the Otter and have done some work with SimConnect... So maybe we can write a freeware simconnect module that implements these sorts of things.

For example:-

* Engine overheat and failure

* Ground roll noise when taking off or landing

* Rain on windscreen noise

* Wiper/Wiper motor noise (not sure if wiper state could be detected using Simconnect)

What sort of things do you think would add to the immersion factor?

Not promising anything but its at least worth discussing.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

Like I said, it was no biggie. It's just that a turbine pilot on takeoff sets the power by the gauges and a piston pilot tends to push the power all the way up. Just hurts the immersion factor for me when I know I can just push the power levers up to the stops--it makes it seem less like a PT-6 powered airplane. Doubt that this is really a complexity issue.

I do agree on the complexity issue with you. While I love the complexity of the Cheyenne (I've flown the real one too and it comes the closest of any flight sim airplane to matching those that I've flown in real life), the simplicity of the Twin Otter is part of what makes it so good. I personally don't care if it lacks an airstair door and don't care for a complex GPS or an autopilot. I never even think about frame rate with it and that's a really good thing.

Realize absolute realism is not for everyone and it's Aerosoft's choice to aim it where they want. It's just the closest I'm going to be to being back in a real one, so I'd like the flight model to be as accurate as it can be.

cheers,

steve

I totally understand what you are saying but on what addon aircraft do you have to keep that in mind? Can't you push the power all the way up on the Cheyenne too? I don't know a plane besides the Do-27 that takes such actions personal. Even the likes of the Cheyenne and PMDG/Level-D don't take that into account. You can yank the power all the way up instantly and nothing bad will happen. Surely does it hurt the immersion factor but why does it hurt more here than on a Cheyenne? Here I know about that and don't expect it. On a super real addon like the Cheyenne I would find that far more annoying. Or is there any PT6 powered addon that you cannot do that with that I don't know of?

[pbearsailor 9]

No, that's the point. The Cheyenne makes you set torque and temp limits manually with the power levers. If you push it all the way up, it will go beyond the limits. On the PC-12, there are computer limiters in the plane, so it won't overtorque. The Twin Otter is all manual like the Cheyenne and should force the pilot to set the limits. Piston powered airplanes are an entirely different matter and nearly all of them can just be pushed up to the stops.

cheers,

steve

[fushi 0]

Out now...

Where can I get 101 from? Please let me know.

Sincerely,

Kan-ichiro Fushihara

[Private-Cowboy 3]

No, that's the point. The Cheyenne makes you set torque and temp limits manually with the power levers. If you push it all the way up, it will go beyond the limits. On the PC-12, there are computer limiters in the plane, so it won't overtorque. The Twin Otter is all manual like the Cheyenne and should force the pilot to set the limits. Piston powered airplanes are an entirely different matter and nearly all of them can just be pushed up to the stops.

cheers,

steve

Hm, ok, understand that. But there is no negative side effect simulated in the Cheyenne if you go over the limits, is there? So you just don't do it because its correct not to but there are no consequences if you would.

I must say, I'm very happy with the Twotter although there are some issues of "efficiency" here after I took a close look at the installation after patch 1.01 - sound is there twice wasting 70+MB, there is a new folder "Twotter 300 modern" which contains the GPS versions of the 300 (but they are already under the Twotter 300). Cleaning the mess up nearly gave me 200MB space back 8)

But flying her is incredibly fun. The tricky part is navigating the float version on the water (docking etc). I'm able to do that quite well in the meantime using the engines (one in reverse, the other forward) carfully. But it's really hairy sometimes since there is no brake. I already hit a few tings after I built up too much momentum, even more challenging than the flight.

[Ken Stallings 1]

I am having the same problem with the Bendix-King comm/nav radios. The flip-flop white button is not working to swap the standby and primary nav frequencies. This was observed on the Tahiti livery aircraft with the GPS stack. This is part of the initial feedback I provided earlier.

Also, I have received no response on my issue with the lack of propeller feathering. The props don't feather. They windmill.

Ken

[PPS 0]

I am having the same problem with the Bendix-King comm/nav radios. The flip-flop white button is not working to swap the standby and primary nav frequencies. This was observed on the Tahiti livery aircraft with the GPS stack. This is part of the initial feedback I provided earlier.

You need to 'push' the center of the round knob under the nav freq.

[trisager 16]

I don't think the suggestion was that anything would actually break if the engine was overtorqued, just the ability to push the gauges into the red areas. Sligthly more challenging for those who care about realism, no loss to those who don't.

[Kofi 0]

Thanks for the update Mathijs 8)

Question: (and I know this is asking a lot) :oops: - Is there any way that on the skydiving models to:

1) Have the parachutists jump out as an effect

2) After the parachutists jump out, the weight is accordingly adjusted.

Just thinking....Tks... 8)

[azflyboy 1]

I am having the same problem with the Bendix-King comm/nav radios. The flip-flop white button is not working to swap the standby and primary nav frequencies. This was observed on the Tahiti livery aircraft with the GPS stack. This is part of the initial feedback I provided earlier.

Also, I have received no response on my issue with the lack of propeller feathering. The props don't feather. They windmill.

Ken

How are you trying to feather them? I've tried manually feathering both engines with the keyboard, by pulling the prop lever to feather with the mouse, and by engaging the auto-feather system and the failing an engine on takeoff.

In all three cases, the prop fully feathered and stopped windmilling within a few seconds, as confirmed by both the engine gauges and looking at the visual model.

Do you see this problem with specific models, or does it affect all of the Twotters?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Thanks for the update Mathijs 8)

Question: (and I know this is asking a lot) :oops: - Is there any way that on the skydiving models to:

1) Have the parachutists jump out as an effect

2) After the parachutists jump out, the weight is accordingly adjusted.

Just thinking....Tks... 8)

We do believe thats possible in FSX as we had some small weird tool in the beta stage that changed the weight in flight. Getting the skydivers to jump out is certainly possible as the effects and animation engine of FSX could handle that.

But making realistic people would cost a few tens of thousand Euro (buying them and adapting them is an option but not a lot cheaper) and animating them would cost about the same. With the productions runs we do for these products that's just not an option unless you quadruple the price. These kinds of things add a lot to the costs but do not increase sales dramatically.

In principle the Twin Otter will be patched to 1.10 (with the open issues and we are now also considering an DME), then it will go to boxed production. After that we need to leave it alone for a while as the boxed resellers hate it if we make major changes when they got the boxed just in. So like most project we revisit it after half a year, to see what it needs to stay up to date. But that will be later this year.