Two twins - which one to choose?

[BrentBeale 0]

As you know, Aerosoft has 2 recent releases of twin engine aircraft (my favourite ), the Cheyenne and the Twin Otter. Through sheer willpower I am only getting one of these excellent 'looking' additions to FSX.

I know they fill different niches but for those reading this who have both which one do you prefer and why?

Value (Cheyenne costs about 40% more)

Framerate

Visual (they both look spectacular!)

Sound

Complexity

Fidelity

Thanks,

Brent 8)

[Private-Cowboy 3]

To be perfectly honest I prefer the Twin Otter. Why? Because

- The Twin Otter is more versatile (5 models including skis and floats) where the models of the Cheyenne are only marginally different compared

- The Twin Otter is lighter on the framerate

- The Twin Otter uses modern techniques like bump mapping where the Cheyenne is not using them despite having a FSX-compliant model

- The Cheyenne has quite a few bugs even after the 1.01 patch

- Lack of support by Digital Aviation or better said the MUCH better support Aerosoft is showing around here for their Twin Otter

But it basically comes down to your preference. If you want ultimate realism there is little that comes close to the Cheyenne which is incredibly detailed and complex. If you want a versatile frameratefriendly classic that is easy to have fun in there is little that is better than the Twin Otter.

I have not bought the Cheyenne myself but I was able to test her (collegue from work bought her) for two weeks during that public beta you had to pay to take part in - they called it version 1.0 and that was not too pleasent. Rumor has it the 1.01 made the Cheyenne usable but if you look into the DA-Forum you can still read lots of comments about bugs, CTDs and other things. And there is little that would suggest this is going to change soon.

The Cheyenne is a great plane BUT you will have to have some strong nerves learning to live with the remaining issues and the support, that went downhill since the FS9-days. For me personally the Twin Otter is the safer bet. But again, thats just personal preference.

If you can I'd wait till the 1.10 update for the Twotter is released (hopefully very soon) and then make the decission. At the moment the Twotter has some issues but the 1.10 is shaping up nicely and should fix many if not all of them while the Cheyenne looks stranded.

[pbearsailor 9]

I have both of them and I've flown both of the real ones.

I'm very happy with both and disagree with the post about support from Digital Aviation on the Cheyenne. It's been good. It is a much more complicated airplane in systems and avionics. Everything that was an issue for me personally has been fixed. The Twin Otter also had serious issues with the flight model in the initial version, but they will be fixed in the upcoming update.

I use them for two different purposes. When I just want to fly, especially down low and VFR, the Twin Otter is perfect. Simple systems suit me just fine and having flown hours and hours in the real one with crappy radios, I don't mind at all not having the most advanced radios in the Aerosoft version.

When I flew the real Cheyenne, it was always in the flight levels on an IFR flight plan. Here I appreciate the complexity of the Digital Aviation version and enjoy programming rados and starting from cold and dark. In the real world I'd start getting ready one hour before takeoff in a turbo prop like the Cheyenne, but in the real Otter, I'd walk out to the ramp and ask the previous captain for maintenance squawks and be airborne in 10 minutes. I do the same in the virtual versions.

Both fly like the real ones. Systems are much more accurate in the Cheyenne. Sound in the Twin Otter is just fabulous and really helps the immersion factor for me. Frame rate is good in both, probably better in the Otter.

cheers,

steve

[BrentBeale 0]

Thanks Steve and Cowboy

I will probably eventually end up getting both because I like both styles of simming, but I have an itch in my pocket and was trying to decide which one first.

I love flying the Beaver - get in, spark her up and just fly so I think the Twin Otter will supplement that perfectly.

OTOH I love to fiddle with systems and procedure so the Cheyenne seems a good fit and they did get a good review over on Avsim. I guess that's what make simming so addictive and I don't have to spend $1-2M to scratch that itch!

Thanks again for your opinion - I think I'll wait for the patch and pick up the Twotter.

Brent 8)

[trisager 16]

The Twin Otter and the FSX Cheyenne are both nice aircraft models. The main outstanding issues with the Cheyenne are in the Trimble GPS - it will track an FSX flight plan fine, but if you try some of the more advanced features (such as showing the winds around the aircraft) you run into some bugs. Also, because the Trimble has its own databases, the number of GPS approaches you can fly is limited until Navigraph gets around to updating them.

Both aircraft were released with a number of bugs in the 1.00 versions, and in both cases the developers have been quick to issue updates (although Hans from Digital Aviation made the mistake of calling the unofficial updates "public betas" which caused some people to complain that they were paying to participate in a beta). Of course, in a perfect world a version 1.00 product would have fewer bugs, but I somehow suspect that addon aircraft developers do not have Microsoft-sized test departments.

Personally I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 1.01 Cheyenne if I didn't already own it. I would wait getting the Twin Otter until the 1.10 update as the flight model in 1.00 is somewhat strange as described in other posts on this forum.

Tom

[Finn 873]

Of course, in a perfect world a version 1.00 product would have fewer bugs, but I somehow suspect that addon aircraft developers do not have Microsoft-sized test departments

And even Microsoft doesn´t release programs without bugs ! Did I say Vista ?

Finn