Jump to content

Twin Otter Extended Preview (FSX,P3D)


Mathijs Kok

Recommended Posts

I've got to think that mapping the 3D object with the part of the VC panel window that contains the 2D portion of the knob would be a rudimentary way of making it work. I.E. if the RXP GPS is at 200, 200 on the VC map and the outer knob is at say 100, 200 on the gauge itself, could you map the 3D knob to contain a small portion of the VC window at 300,400 so that it is the part in which the gauge actually has a hot spot. Obviously using L:Vars would be a much more slick way but down and dirty, that would be my idea. But I do gauge design, not 3D modeling so what do I know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Belive me when I say that those screenshots not really shows how good the patchwork, door details and panel wear/smudge appear in the sim.

They have an extreme realistic look and really put depth to the overall look.

To those of You who knows the Catalina and Bronco I can tell that this will beat them.

Tghe best is that even with the GPS On, FPS is very fluid and smooth.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news Finn, the Cat remains my favourite and I absolutely love flying it with the increased 'head bob' from EZdok, but she's a lumbering old girl. The Twotter was my firm favourite back in the day, but has fallen by the wayside over the last few years on my PC, I'm really looking forward to having it back in all it's glory. Would it be rude to ask for a cup holder for my insulated coffee mug?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news Finn, the Cat remains my favourite and I absolutely love flying it with the increased 'head bob' from EZdok, but she's a lumbering old girl. The Twotter was my firm favourite back in the day, but has fallen by the wayside over the last few years on my PC, I'm really looking forward to having it back in all it's glory. Would it be rude to ask for a cup holder for my insulated coffee mug?

I think You will get it soon, knowing Your skills in making screenshots ;)

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this bird is really coming along nicely. Definitely on my "must have" list.

And just to throw a wrench in the works, on the flip side I'd like to recommend NOT holding the model up for RXP integration since I doubt most customers will be using those gauges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this bird is really coming along nicely. Definitely on my "must have" list.

And just to throw a wrench in the works, on the flip side I'd like to recommend NOT holding the model up for RXP integration since I doubt most customers will be using those gauges.

Oh yeah, this one is going to be a goodie for sure!! I'd like to echo Monk1's thoughts about not holding the unit up for RXP. Maybe add full integration in SP1 down the road, although typically Aerosoft aircraft don't require SP's in my experience. Generally they are "there" right out of the box, which is pretty nice.

Good job guys. Looking at those new interior shots puts me right back in there. I can almost smell the mustiness of that quilting :excellenttext_s:

Glenn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this bird is really coming along nicely. Definitely on my "must have" list.

And just to throw a wrench in the works, on the flip side I'd like to recommend NOT holding the model up for RXP integration since I doubt most customers will be using those gauges.

hardcore simmers who buy complex addons will use the rxp gauge. that's why other airplanes (ra dukes, new carenados, etc.) integrate them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While that may have been true in the past, the current level of support, development and assistance from the RXP team means that hardcore simmers have gravitated away in droves...

What you are doing is providing your own personal desire as if it were fact. Have you asked the `hardcore simmers`, and are the results of your study aviable for analysis?

All good things come to an end. Even RXP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally regard the RXP GNS as outstanding and use it too in some of my aircraft addons.

But that said, I don´t find it very hardcore to navigate by simply follow the magenta line on the GPS , or even let the autopilot do it for me.

A GPS tend to keep one from learning proper navigational skills, like simple pilotage, ded reckoning and radio navigation.

For me thats exactly what makes FSX a hobby - learning those skills.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

While that may have been true in the past, the current level of support, development and assistance from the RXP team means that hardcore simmers have gravitated away in droves...

What you are doing is providing your own personal desire as if it were fact. Have you asked the `hardcore simmers`, and are the results of your study aviable for analysis?

All good things come to an end. Even RXP.

whoa, for a moment i thought i was over at the avsim forum soaking in some wisdom. enjoy the pearls, keep'em comm'in!

while i agree with Finn that ap+gps tends to get boring, rxp does offer what i use the most: getting navaid info enroute, terrain avoidance, and lnav guidance.

a flat 2d spot to place the rxp gauge is fine with me (with black bezel overlay would even be better) if all else fails.

anyway, looking forward to the toxe release, sure to be a work horse like the bronco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dfw....

I stand somewhere in the middle between You and Snave.

Whil I agree that we should be abel to add the RXP GPS, just like other developers, I also must state that with no support from RXP, all we can do is try ourself and that we never will give any kind of support for RXP issues with the Twin Otter.

When we add the RXP GPS, we only do so as a service, cause we know alot of the potential customers would like that.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would consider myself to be a hardcore simmer and I couldn't care less about the GPS. I wouldn't use it. For the missions I intend to fly, I will use the VOR/ADF or DR.

Quite true, I either fly Rnav or good old fashioned dead reckoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Sorry but this whole argument is kind of stupid imo. Using a GPS has nothing to do with how hard core a simmer you are, it has to do with how you want to fly. What exactly is the definition of a 'hard core simmer' anyway? I don't think it has anything to do with if they use a GPS when they fly or what products they use and don't use.

The RXP GNS is a far better representation of a real GPS than default, hands down. The support is gone, the database is out of date but it is still miles ahead regardless and I am sure a lot of people would enjoy having that FEATURE in the Twin Otter, myself included. If it doesn't make it in, I'll be a little bit disappointed but I will still buy it. Maybe people like me are the most hardcore simmers because we will fly it either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now in all honesty: Being a hardcore simmer does not exclude you from simply taking out the GPS and using it. In the NGX you also use the FMC, don't you? And that's not a problem?

'Hardcore Simming' for me only means that you fly as realistic as possible. And in real world you'll use the GPS whenever possible! So where's the problem doing that in FSX? It's not even more realistic than flying without, but it also meens that you can focus on other things for which you would be very thankfull in real world!

Using the old style navigation method is not what you're doing in real world anymore (though it would be better sometimes!) so it's not what you can call realistic in FS anymore. At least not if you claim to be a 'Hardcore Simmer' to my definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if You both interpreted my post in a way I did not meant.

I doesn´t mean that Using a GPS or FMC makes You less of a hardcore simmer.

Using it as a help for normal navigational skills is not wrong.

I just don´t see much challenge in making a flight plan from f.ex EDDF-EDDM on the GPS, take off, engage the autopilot and set to fly the GPS flightplan.

All You can do is sit bak in You seat watching itdo it´s thing or go drink a cup of coffee and then return to perform the landing.

I also told that I have the RXP GPS on some of my addon arcraft, so I use it too sometimes.

Thats my personal opinion (remember that the forum has a nice feature to downvote posts).

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don´t see much challenge in making a flight plan from f.ex EDDF-EDDM on the GPS, take off, engage the autopilot and set to fly the GPS flightplan.

All You can do is sit bak in You seat watching itdo it´s thing or go drink a cup of coffee and then return to perform the landing.

Lol, sounds a bit like flying an airliner...

GDRVVF :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if You both interpreted my post in a way I did not meant.

I doesn´t mean that Using a GPS or FMC makes You less of a hardcore simmer.

Using it as a help for normal navigational skills is not wrong.

I was not talking about your post Finn, but about the opinion many people have that you wouldn't use such things to navigate and that real pilots only use radio navigation.

I fully understand your point of view. If I want a challenge I fly by sight in real world weather only, that's kinda fun in my opinion and for sure the most challenging thing to do in todays winterly weather conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, sounds a bit like flying an airliner...

GDRVVF :lol:

To some extend - yes

What I like about fying modern airliner addons, is the challenge to follow exact procedures.

From could and dark, programming the FMC and take off / climbout.

The enroute part though is more or less like using the GPS for navigation under autopilot control - kind of boring.

Next challenge is then descend, approach & landing.

Thats alos why my flights in airliners tend to be shorter routes, cause the longer routes just adds longer time of boredom.

Most GA aircraft have alot less complex systems to take care of. Programming the flightplan on a GPS like the RXP GNS' also doesn´t need the same work as programming a FMC.

But still - I use the RXP GNS' in various aircraft too and like the realsitc functions they give, but always feel that I´m cheating a bit doing so. I use it mostly if I want to explore a new scenery, or as an easy help to double check my navigational accuracy.

Offcourse GPS' are used alot these days by real pilots, but as far as I know a GPS is not required for VFR flights, while aquiring a IFR licens still means that You need to learn navigation by ded reckoning and radio navaids.

I know that I might get bashed for saying this...

But I sometimes wonder - People demand / request ever more realistic aircraft addons, they strive for the ultimate realism.

We have seen alot of extreme realistic aircraft addons, both modern and vintage.

The problem in my eyes is that people don´t challenge themselves for keeping their flying skills on level with this added realism.

Flying a vintage airliner or transport across the Atlantic f.ex....

Alot, if not most, simply add some kind of GPS to their highend aircraft, program a Direct-To across the pond and let the autopilot follow that dreaded magenta line.

I made a gauge for some time ago that simulated the weatherships in the Atlaintic and Pacific to help making realistic flights across these stretches of sea, but little interest was ever shown for it.

I won´t judge whats hardcore or not, we all have our own personal take on whats important for us in this hobby - and so should it be.

I justtry to give my own personal opinion on these matters.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emi,

I was not talking about your post Finn, but about the opinion many people have that you wouldn't use such things to navigate and that real pilots only use radio navigation.

That's not what I said Emi. I said that for the missions I would fly the Twin Otter I wouldn't use the GPS but simply Navaids or DR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...