What’s going on?

[Dopster198 133]

Look, what’s going on? What’s with the radio silence?

 

Is this a case of “No news is good news? Nothing to report. We’ll tell you when we  have something to tell you?” 
 

Is the Twotter being worked on? What’s up with the new sound set? Any updates planned at all, perhaps refinements of the recently introduced propeller model, or the new CFD in SU9? And don’t tell me there are no remaining bugs and issues with this plane.

 

And I don’t want to post twice, but the same can be said for the CRJ btw.

I’m not gonna say “Aerosoft has abandoned the CRJ and now the Twotter!” because I don’t believe that. But one could be forgiven for starting to feel that way; like another user said, the silence is deafening.

 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51561]

The sound recording that was done failed so we are planning a new recording at this moment. The last update does already included most of the refinements of the prop model but until we get full control over the pitch there is not a lot more that's possible. When new features become available we will always see if they are important enough to warrant a new version.

[echo_oscar 40]

That invisible spoiler really needs to be tweaked or removed. It’s very difficult to fly a stable approach with the latest patch. 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51561]

I have asked Alexander to comment on this.

[rbringh 50]

21 hours ago, Dopster198 said:

Look, what’s going on? What’s with the radio silence?

 

Is this a case of “No news is good news? Nothing to report. We’ll tell you when we  have something to tell you?” 
 

Is the Twotter being worked on? What’s up with the new sound set? Any updates planned at all, perhaps refinements of the recently introduced propeller model, or the new CFD in SU9? And don’t tell me there are no remaining bugs and issues with this plane.

 

And I don’t want to post twice, but the same can be said for the CRJ btw.

I’m not gonna say “Aerosoft has abandoned the CRJ and now the Twotter!” because I don’t believe that. But one could be forgiven for starting to feel that way; like another user said, the silence is deafening.

 

 

Whatever is going on it's having a negative impact on Aerosoft as a quality developer. I was looking at a Facebook Sim page regarding the development of an A-350 by Aerosoft. Most of the comments were VERY UNFAVORABLE regarding their ability to produce a quality product. Seems whatever has changed in Aerosoft needs to be looked at hard and by the sound of things...FAST.

[MarkHurst 173]

3 hours ago, echo_oscar said:

It’s very difficult to fly a stable approach with the latest patch. 

 

But it's difficult to land STOL without it. I'm all for tweaking, though.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51561]

13 minutes ago, MarkHurst said:

 

But it's difficult to land STOL without it. I'm all for tweaking, though.

 

Check this: 

 

[John2 200]

Hi Mathijs,

I wonder if you could elaborate a little on this. This would seem to be rather fundamental to the modelling of turboprop aircraft. i.e. propeller pitch is a range which is used to vary power/thrust and drag. Beta range is a range and not a switch. I think that attempts to simulate changes in propeller pitch with invisible spoilers, while frequently done, and I guess is the only viable alternative, is rather kludgey. Is it your understanding that Asobo are in the process of making the propeller pitch range available to you in the future? Are you having discussions with Asobo regarding this issue?

John.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51561]

I am far from the expert on this, but I can tell you that Alexander is well known with the developers of the sim. 

[BenKorek2021 23]

A guy over in the FlightSimulator.com forum figured out a way to apply the spoiler effect more gradually in Spad.next. (See his post here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/aerosoft-twin-otter-baby/395128/1984). The solution only requires about 3 conditional statements in the Spad.next configuration and results in a spoiler activation profile like what I've plotted in the graph below. The red line is the Aerosoft solution (e.g. instant on at 12 degrees of beta) while the blue line is the Spad.next configuration from the forum link above.

 

I've had a chance to fly the otter a bit using this Spad.next config and I can say that it is a LOT better than the default. A solution like this might take some tuning to get it to "feel" right to a real world twin otter pilot, but I'm confident that even without tuning, the parabolic increase is better than a sharp edge. @Mathijs Kok, can your team consider implementing something like this? If the simulator variables required to deploy the spoilers as a function of prop beta are exposed to Spad.next then surely they're also exposed to your code?

Please login to display this image.

 

[PaladinX 11]

The AS Twin Otter (my favorite plane since years) is currently collecting dust in the hangar. I find it personally unflyable and unenjoyable in the current state. A stable approach is not possible, basically, even with the best input devices. This is so overdone.

[Paul K 93]

May we have the current status of the sound improvement, please. Is it still in progress, and if so, when can we expect it ? If it has been abandoned, can we please be told ? This prospective Twotter customer would really like to know the definite answer.

[Radu Robu 4]

I am also really concerned about the future of the Twin Otter. The flight model feels very weird and there hasn't been any updates on other improvements to the plane like the -400 variants or more modern avionics like PMS50 or G1000.
What the radio silence really tells me is that they released the Twotter, got the money, and moved on.
The one mod that still put some love in the Twotter got shot down to bits and pieces and we're left with a fake spoiler that does stuff.

Disappointing to say the least, as this plane is one of the most iconic ones still flying after 56 years of it's release.

[John2 200]

Be patient. Hopefully, now that the CRJ has been updated they will now start to give the Twotter some love.

 

John.

[Paul K 93]

I'm glad we are here. At least we can give ourselves some news, and provide answers to our own questions.

[mhron 31]

I guess Alexander hasn't replied yet. 

[John2 200]

He seems MIA right now but hopefully he will be back soon. For those who are waiting for a sound update, I found another sound pack which is a big improvement on the engine sounds. It is a patreon service with a subscription but there are other sound packs for the Caravan, CRJ, etc. It is found here:

https://www.patreon.com/FTSIM/posts

 

John.

[Wolf Rösler 21]

HELLO AEROSOFT! Is there anybody out there? Why don't you care about your customers. Any statement on the future of the Twotter is overdue. 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51561]

A few tweaks are being worked on but we simply have not found an opportunity to record new sounds.

[Dopster198 133]

15 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

A few tweaks are being worked on but we simply have not found an opportunity to record new sounds.

 

Would you mind elaborating a bit please? What does this mean in practice? Is Aerosoft still committed to providing a new sound set at some point in the future, or is this the end of the line, so to speak?

 

This is all very disappointing, I have to say ...

 

-Rene

[Wolf Rösler 21]

For me it seems you have more or less abandoned this plane which is a shame and against all your promises. The least thing you could do for your paying customers is asking your developer to open this plane up for publicly shared mods. Maybe this could give us the chance to obtain from someone else what we should have gotten from you from the very beginning. Maybe you recall that there have been promising efforts along this line before. 

[Paul K 93]

2 hours ago, Dopster198 said:

This is all very disappointing, I have to say ...

 

Disappointing, yes, but at least we know where we stand. I'm now clearer about which add-on aircraft to consider over the next few months, and that is helpful.

[Thijs010 51]

6 hours ago, Paul K said:

 

Disappointing, yes, but at least we know where we stand. I'm now clearer about which add-on aircraft to consider over the next few months, and that is helpful.

For sure it will not be the upcoming A330 from Aerosoft if they keep on holding this update policy.

[PaladinX 11]

As a long term customer of Aerosoft, i have to say, this was the last addon aicraft i bought from this company. Its a shame!

[Dopster198 133]

13 hours ago, Thijs010 said:

For sure it will not be the upcoming A330 from Aerosoft if they keep on holding this update policy.

 

I don't want to harp on about this much more, the internet has enough snark as it is,  but yes : Aerosoft has definitely lost a day-one purchase from me.

 

As Mr. Kok will no doubt once again espouse its tremendous sales in future forum posts, it won't include my purchase. Both the CRJ's veeeeery lackluster update cycle so far and specifically the near total lack of meaningful Twin Otter support have put a very bad taste in my mouth.  

 

This A330 will have to be spectacular in every way for me to even consider looking at it, and even then not without waiting at least a month or six .... (or as we say in Dutch "we kijken de kat eerst maar es uit de boom"). And I will recommend anyone else to do the same!