Jump to content

Twotter 101 unofficial update now available


Recommended Posts

I understand very well what you're saying. But for many it has to be like it is in so many addons and prolly real planes. If something differs from the defacto standard it's not very welcome no matter how easy it may be. I was like that in the beginning too. When I tried that great freeware TU-154 from the ProTu-Team on a friends FS9 setup I thought "wtf is that???" but I came to like the unique things now and appreciate the little differences most of the time as they add to the character of the addon/plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a customer of a pletoria of addon aircraft and helos, I´m always on the lookout for something different. I like to read manuals (yes I know I´m weird).

A new addon should challenge me, learn me something new.

But i do know that different people have different desires, and that´s what make it hard to please everyone.

Finn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've not printed the Twotter manual yet because it is not final either. When will we see the final version?

I must say that some manual are better than others. I'm in the process of reading the one for my C-130X and while it is very complex and technically detailed it is a good read. The one from the Eaglesoft C400 was very lacking though only giving intel on certain areas and leaving others aside. And the one from the Twotter is also not complete, at least in the 1.0 retail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I said that a while ago already did I. And mathjiskok also said the modern radio and GPS are a 3rd party addin, that they did not made themselves. I understand very well that it is not easily changed because of that. You can't demand from Dreamfleet that they change the RealityXP gauges the use either. It's an oddity we have to live with as it seems.

I recall your statement. If you meant that to be taken as a factual statement, then I apologize because while I remember it, I thought it was a case of supposition on your part. Since I did not read a certification of the statement I presumed it was inaccurate supposition.

Clearly, though, your statement was accurate.

Cheers,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use