Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended Released!

FSX/P3D. Aerosoft's Twin Otter Extended has been released, well, sort of released. The initial release is somewhat "limited" in the sense that not all models are included. As of now, the current release only includes the three bladed DHC-6 300 model on wheels with air stair and normal doors. Other models with floats, skies, tundra wheels, four blades, as well as the DHC-6 100 model are to come later as a free upgrade. The aircraft looks impressive though. Check out some official release shots inside.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Visit the official product page - click here
 

53 comments:

BlackManPilot aka AfroPilot said...

This is awesome, like the light reflection on the whiper from the cockpit-light.

Jens said...

Downloading right now......

p3 said...

Will there be a way to change the default GPS to reality XP's ones ?

Also, GREAT looking shots, one of the bests ones for this great product.

flyboy98 said...

@p3 Aerosoft said that they had been trying to get in contact with RealityXP numerous times but they never responded so it won't be integrated to look nice. See here: https://aerosoft.zendesk.com/entries/24667866-Will-the-RXP-GNS-be-usable-

DAndre Newman said...

Our FirstLook coming later today!!

Todd said...

RXP developer is pretty much AWOL. Go to the forums and you'll run into some pretty pissed customers.

Graeme said...

It's going to be one of the first things I'll be looking at doing now I have the aircraft, that's for sure. Really hoping we can swap it out like we do for Carenados older aircraft etc.

Aerosoft really seem to have such a level of animosity towards RXP users lately though. I mean I understand if the developer is AWOL, that makes it hard to develop a RealAir style 3D cockpit, but reading the Robin forum and that as well, the negativity really seems to be targeted at the users too.

I mean I'd be more than happy if they just went the route of Carenado and gave us a VC option to use without 3d knobs for that area. At least I could have the choice to put the 2D RXP panel in there and decide for myself. They might think it looks crap as per their example of the A2A P51 in their twotter forum, but being able to navigate properly with my 430 or 530 (which most of us paid $100 to $200 for) means a lot to me, and I'm certainly willing to put up with the flat face panel section in exchange for its usage.

Graeme said...

Well it looks like it's a definite no go for RXP in the Twotter. The 3D overlay used for the MS GPS will sit right over the RXP one, unless you are happy to have the RXP unit show up within the screen area of the MS GPS (ie a GPS inside a GPS).

Real pitty that. So unless they choose to go the route of Carenado where you have post install panel installers to replace it with a flat no 3D knob area, or they can gain some tips from what Marcel did with the Katana, then it's popup only RXP for us in the Twotter.

Pirx said...

I have a lot to do yet, because I like to always start with my planes from cold & dark, but I have been taking photos to my new Twin Otter on parking at it is really, really beautiful...

Everything talks about a great product from Aerosoft. We still have to meet each other, but by now I have fallen in love with this plane.

PGB said...

Lack of RXP support is a show stopper!

AviatorMan said...

Plane looks great, but no integrated RXP is a no-go for me. Their excuses don't really hold water, as Milviz recently provided a 3D RXP integration (and it looks great!) in their B55 and have said they intend to backfit a 3D integration into their C310.

Andreas Paul said...

YOu may still use the 2d panel of the RXP. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

p3 said...

You mean the lack of support from RXP developer?

PGB said...

nope, i mean RXP integration here.

Realair, Carenado, ORBX, Marcel Felde did succeed, so Aerosoft should get it done as well.



Todd said...

Thank God I'm too stupid to appreciate all the RXP drama, 'cause I'm really gonna enjoy this one! :)

cloudswimmer said...

Yeah no RXP no buy here either. Shame.

captain obvious said...

Nobody cares about RXP, so get over it, if thats the best complaint you can come up with, you're pathetic

This aircraft is a work of art, Thanks Finn and crew!!!

Andreas Woerner said...

No Reality XP Support ? I was just about the buy that thing: no way !

Anonymouse said...

Flight1 has a pretty faithful rendition of the G1000, wish they would come out with a GNS 430/530, or better yet one of those new GTN touch screen GPS models, that could be plugged in just like the RXP. Except with an actual updateable nav database.

Anonymouse said...

Frankly the RXP is extremely overpriced, the nav database is 7 years old (yes, I realize that it is updateable to 2011, but not beyond that), is has no support from the developer. Would like to see Flight1 come out with a plugable and updateable GTN 650 or 750 to compete (and crush) the RXP GNS 430/530.

captain obvious said...

No, stop spreading bullshit, its RXP that is not supporting RXP

Go blame RXP on their forums for lack of support

ofgs said...

Talk to RXP about lack of cooperation

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/70293-rxp-gps-why-is-it-not-possible/

RXP is vaporware with no support

Andreas Woerner said...

What are u talking about ? RXP GNS is not supported by the developers : https://aerosoft.zendesk.com/entries/24667866-Will-the-RXP-GNS-be-usable-

Andreas Woerner said...

There is no support needed by RXP at all: Carenado, RealAir, Marcel Felde and lots of freeware addons have it. Normaly, its only a mod of the panel.cfg, but it wont work, if the developers have integrated their GPS inside of a gauge file, beside to leave it open. So, no business too me. The default GPS is useless.

Bart said...

Thanks for putting that out Captain Obvious. It would seem that many people choose not to read Aerosoft forums or just go to Avshit forums where the info in just plain wrong. Aerosoft are doing what they can. For all you choose not to buy over this, simply don't and move on. Or better yet, get RXP to contact Aerosoft and get the ball rolling. Good luck on that, and also a good luck getting any support there, the lights are on but nobody's home.

Anonymouse said...

All this complaining about lack of RXP integration sounds like the great wingflex debate all over again :-P

Speaking of which, does the twotter have wingflex? Because if not, I'm not buying it or flying in it IRL.

Finn Jacobsen said...

To hopefully end the RXP discussion, our decision was made due to this..

We really don´t think that 2D panels put into a 3D should happen on a payware poduct of 2013.

Numerous mails has been send to the developer of the RXP GPS, but no feecbakc at all. That would mean that we would have to spend quite some time with trial and error to integrate it with 3D knobs and buttons.

Though Aerosoft probably would be able to sell e few more Twin Otters doing so, we would also become responsible for support issues not only on the integration, but on the complete avionics including the RXP GPS.

Question...
If You had a company selling a product and a customer would ask You to fit in a certain component he want´s, cause he likes it, but the manufacturer of that component had closed down and no wiring diagram or other docs for fitting it exist - would You really feel happy to put Your name on such work ?

We know that other developers are doing that and thats a fair decision on their side, but I also find that our decision has a fair reasoning.

The day the RXP developer will get in touch with us and offer his help, we will offcourse look into it again, but right now the ball is on his side - so please use the RXP forum to make Your request.

It´s actually sad to see a otherwise smooth release get poisened by repeatious talks of the missing RXP integration.

If we disregard the RXP posts it seems that the Twin Otter has been well recieved.
I want to thank people for the nice feedback we got so far.

Finn Jacobsen
(Aerosoft developer)

Graeme said...

Hi Finn,

Thanks for the response. Despite a few aircraft being pitched at the less technically inclined of late, I purchased this one as soon as it appeared in the shop given the amount of insight I was able to attain during its development, and I must say I really have been very happy with aircraft.

Despite the disspointment I couldn't integrate RXP without it bleeding over the DME gauge, I've been incredibly impressed at the amount of work you have put into everything. The check list is truly something special, and it's ability to bridge the needs of both the technical enthusiast to the basic simmer.

Being able to channel my hardware through FSUIPC and have things like throttles assigned in axis through from full power to full reverse, as well as prop from full fine to full feather in axis, it's really great. Brings a lot of immersion into the sim for me.

So despite the amount of bugs and ideas from folk I know you must be piled with right now right after initial release, I hope you're really proud of the product and what you've delivered and not brought down too much by all the other dealings.

My sincere congratulations and appreciation for going more than the extra mile to make this a plane something which brings so much life in the sim. I'd been hoping for something close to the Katana from Aerosoft again, and you've done really great.

Graeme Wright

Ipeefreely said...

Well said Finn, its a beauty, and I'm sorry that some folks decide to stick knifes in over something so silly, it is not in any way deserved as you provide a top-notch aircraft for a very fair price, and back it up with professional support, and a great paint kit

PGB said...

@anonymouse

>>the nav database is 7 years old (yes, I realize that it is updateable to 2011, but not beyond that)<<

you are not well enough informed aboout the possibilities.;)

@ofgs

RXP can't be vaporware it's been released long ago. They supply terrible support, of course. But the product is stable, thousands of simmers had purchased their Garmin and are still being happy with it.

To blame a third developer on something other competitors did smootly sounds like a cheesy alibi to me.

Pete D. said...

"would You really feel happy to put Your name on such work?"

Finn, please ask ORBX, Realair, Marcel Felde how they feel about your point.

"We really don´t think that 2D panels put into a 3D should happen on a payware poduct of 2013"

And also tell RSR from your idea, PMDG must be totally wrong in 2013.:)

That's ridiculous! I'll tell you something about customers feelings. Flightsimulation can be a very expensive amusement. So clients (here simmers) intend to use their purchased tools like RXP Garmin as often as possible and don't care if you are feeling guilty about the lack of support from RXP.

"If we disregard the RXP posts it seems that the Twin Otter has been well recieved."

Your statement is deliberate provocation, you just don't get it. You'd do yourself a big favour keeping away from sales management.




Sid said...

Hi Finn,

As I have stated in a previous post where the usual culprits just talk utter garbage about an obviously sound and quality product and to do so again just in response to this ridiculous RXP garbage (which has nothing to do with the Aerosoft Twotter), I again pledge to buy this great Twin Otter from Aerosoft to show my support, trust and thanks in your good and hard work. Bear with me, it won't necessarily be today as a lot on at the moment but I will buy it soon. It'll be my first Aerosoft aircraft. That's a promise! So in my case at least, all the nonsense backfired on these poisonous people's intentions. Thank you!

Andreas Woerner said...

They never react on anything, and for other developers it is not needed at all. Looks that the Twotter devlopers integrated the default-GPS in their gauge files, and this is Aerosoft´s problem, not RXPs (looks nice, but makes the GPS usesless).

Andreas Woerner said...

The RXP engine is based on a very old 16-Bit App (Garmin-Trainer) and - as far as I know - there is no developer anymore since 2008.

ALX WNT said...

@Finn,

You've made a great job with aircraft, please dont give a frack about RXP lovers, threat them like wingflex and graphics vs. animation lovers.

I'm sure they have lots of planes in their hangars without the stuff they requested from you, they're irrelevant.

Thanks again for this beauty, looking forward to your another works.

Cheers

Andrew said...

I have sent RXP an open plea via their support contact form to see if I get a response. Perhaps we should all do this. I am not saying that any currently or recently released addon be retrofitted or anything. See it more as an attempt to secure a future situation. I see it that a number of us have invested a fair bit of hard-earned money in these gauges and we would like to be able to use them in as many of our addons as possible. I have even been given feedback and explanation on this from a particular developer, who wishes to and will therefore remain unnamed.

I think our biggest problem is the default navigation aid database is now vintage 2005/6 or something, which makes realistic real-world operations with airways and so on taxing to say the least. Obviously, flying VFR with an older database is not an issue, though referencing a VOR with an incorrect frequency can be a little dificult. I suppose, as ever, it will be down to whether you can accept this or not. Either way, the current state is not going to change unless RXP starts to offer support of its software to developer community, instead of leaving it up to them to find a solution to integrate them or not.

The Aerosoft Twin Otter is a great remake. If its only "flaw" is the lack of RXP GNS in the VC, then it is truely a great addon...

A

PGB said...

Arguing against principle customers advantages (and RXP Garmin integration is one, even you don't use this tool by yourself, just a matter of empathy), doesn't make any sense, from customers view.

It just would make sense, if you try to moderate on behalf of Aerosoft and don't want to make potential customers happy, with someting competitors do without invitation!

PGB said...

You can say what you want, an aircraft which intents to be "extended" equipped with just FSX basic Garmin support is everything else than extended! :)

Experienced pilots/simmers are expecting advanced products. That's not negotiable, even your don't agree.

If someone don't like to have them on board, act like Aerosoft did with this product. It's that simple.


Finn Jacobsen said...

I have the RXP GPS in some of my addon aircraft and agree that it is great.

But most hardcore simmers also demands updateable, or at least uptodate navdatas, which the RXP not offers.

Bottom line is that we simply don´t want to add another developers stuff as long as it is unsupported. In all other business I think thats stance holds true too.

End of RXP discussion.

Finn Jacobsen
(Aerosoft Developer)

PGB said...

"But most hardcore simmers also demands updateable, or at least uptodate navdatas, which the RXP not offers"

If you had done any research on that topic, you would know, how hardcore simmers get every new cycle for RXP 430/530.

"End of RXP discussion."

This hasn't been nearly a discussion, just potential customers feedback. It's on you how to deal with it at any time.

Good luck! :)

Finn Jacobsen said...

Thanks....

The stock navdata is from 2005 with a possible update to 2011 if You know how to work with files and folders (some simmers don´t) - and no, though I have both the 430 and 530 RXP GNS I have not followed up on how to make newer updates, but as far as I´m awere the developer gives no support (or other answers) doing so.

And You expect a payware company who has nothing to do with such a product to include that and then offer support ?

I actually find we offer OK support - we even told our stance on the RXP GPS in our preview forum quite in adcance of release.

If You buy a car where the dealer clearly tell You that it won´t come with a build-in GPS - do You then complain that is is missing once You bought the car ?

Makes no sense for me - maybe I´m alone with that.

Finn Jacobsen
(Aerosoft Developer)

PGB said...

"And You expect a payware company who has nothing to do with such a product to include that and then offer support ?"

What you're doing here is to put words into my mouth.

Nobody asked Aerosoft to support issues with the RXP Garmin.

Nobody asked Aerosoft to deliver AIRAC Cycles for the RXP Garmin.

So your response isn't very useful, because you're distorting the facts to make a well known and by community accepted feature unappealing.

It doesn't make really sense to cut a manageable market in a more limited one, because you aren't willing to offer some preparatory work for a wider range of customers satisfaction.

If this is seriously you point, it's OK for me. Competitors appreciate if there is some money left in customers pocket nowadays.

If i intent to buy my next car, i'll surely let you know.

Aaron Graham said...

Actually it is a RXP problem, and this is coming from a FSX developer.

RXP chose not to reply to Aerosoft's several emails...do not blame Aerosoft as it is not their problem.

AviatorMan said...

Finn

PGB simply stated that what you are getting is feedback from the customer community. And, some of us haven't bought the car yet, and are simply saying we might buy it if it had the "built in GPS". It is odd that two other companies have successfully dealt with the same situation in the last year or two, and I believe that they tell their customers that while they provide RXP integration, that they do not in fact provide support for RXP or any other 3rd party products.

Anonymouse said...

I don't even have RXP but I have to agree with PGB here. No one is asking Aerosoft to "support" RXP, just to include a panel option for it like RealAir and Carenado and others do. There is no problem with saying we'll offer it as an option but won't provide support.

Or Aerosoft could develop its own standalone GNS or GTN like Flight1 has done with the G1000. I would buy that as a separate option, provided I could also include it in other panels!

Finn Jacobsen said...

To put it simple...

We told clearly that RXP GPS would not be implementet before release - so I don´t get why people can be disappointed now that it has been released.

We do not reject the possibility to add it, but we really would like the developer of the RXP GPS to show some kind of support, cause it is he who should have the greatest interest doing so.

If people won´t buy it due to the lack of RXP integration, then it´s their decision. Reality of life is that You never can make everyone happy.

Finn Jacobsen
(Aerosoft Developer)

PGB said...

"We told clearly that RXP GPS would not be implementet before release - so I don´t get why people can be disappointed now that it has been released."

First, i can only speak for myself, but i don't have the time nor the desire to read every flightsimulation forum, thats why i like this plattform here.

Second, i must have missed the part where someone got disappointed. I just stated that the package doesn't appeal to me without RXP integration, without being irritated in any way.

So i'll sleep well, even you don't change anything on this aircraft.:)

Anonymous said...

I second the missing RXP integration from the customer point of view.

But is there anything else within a Twin Otter than an Garmin unit? I would be interested in some well-founded contibutions about the addon product range, innovation and system qualitys. Aerosoft promoted the Twin Otter Extended as the presently best turboshaft engine simulation for example.
I was disappointed about some preview videos by some beta testers. As the developer i would control the promotion material to be suggestive of professional promotion. I also wrote some statements especially due to the massive unrealistic engine startup indications and behaviors.

If an addon is only be judged by FMS/GPS systems (here we talked about Garmin) and easy handling of such systems - everyone would be happy with carenado addons.
There is much more separating high quality developers from the other ones. Why does advanced customers buy A2A accusim?

I am interested in some AS Twin Otter expieriences.


PIO

DAndre Newman said...

@PIO,

Next time do not use the anonymous option to post your comment or it will be deleted.

PIO said...

Roger, i was not aware about what to choose from the selection menue. Now a friend explained me how to put in a "name".

AutoRotationer said...

I'm always amazed at the excuses and tit-for-tat discussions that follow here, especially for this particular add-on.

Aerosoft is a key player in the FSX / P3D market (and X-Plane too). Every clued up developer knows that the RXP GPS is no longer supported and also doesn't work at all in P3D. Ok, so why not throw some resources at creating a new hardcore GPS that us simmers can use?

I can only shake my head at Aerosoft management, they seem so fast asleep to have missed the opportunity of developing a RXP GPS successor! It's been 10 years since the RXP GPS was released for FS9 and 5 years since the FSX release. A quick search on Google shows that as early as May 2010 users were complaining about the lack of support from RXP.

So here we have a perfect example of developers not grasping an opportunity to give the community a sorely needed navdata updatable GPS that would be a worthy successor to the very popular RXP GPS!



Finn Jacobsen said...

At aerosoft there are many fine scenery and aircraft developers.
That doesn´t mean that there are any with the skills to do a 1:1 recreation of a GPS.

We would also need agreements with a company like Garmin, as well as You probably would expect us to deliver navdata updates.
Though we have NavDataPro, thats not the same as having the rewquired data for a Garmin simulation.

I really feel it´s unfair to blame Aerosoft for the lack of a highend GPS.

Bad excuses or not - when starting a project You must take a stance on what to add and what not - we did that !

The issue for us is not the technical part, but rather political. We don´t want to spend time implementing a product for which support has discontinued.

Finn Jacobsen
(Aerosoft Developer)

Anonymous said...

Agree. RXP is a show-stopper for me too. And what a shame, I love the videos I have seen of the aircraft. All they woul need to do is the no-3D buttons option on the GNS. Jason

Post a Comment

Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.