edit: I am toning down the thread because the plane is good, but not great. I don't know what came over me....too much of an Otter fan I guess...:)I am enjoying the "Twotter" very much. Panels are very crisp, but VC only has forward panel. The visibility is outstanding. Sound is kinda cheesy though. Need to practice landings...hard bird to slow down.Probably a $15 plane overall, but I'm happy with it and will fly it regularly.Thaellar

How nice is the VC?

Crisp graphics. But it only has the forward panel. Can't see the wings outside and no view behind the seats.

Thanks for the info on the Twin Otter. Im sorry to hear they did not model the interior other than the front cockpit. I probably will still get it, but their FTP server appears to have just gone down and I have to work tomorrow so, Ill get it next week sometime. Post some screen shots, if you can. Thanks,Rob

I bought The "twotter", and feel that I have been ripped off. There is nothing accurate about this pakage. The visuel model is HORRIBLE! The sound is the worst i've hered in a commercial pakage, and the panel systems.........what panel systems? Overall, I dont see how they can charge money for such a poor product. I deleted it after one flight. the worst 20 bucks I ever spent. The VC is unimpressive, and why no wing views? In a real twin, you barely turn you're head and you get an eye full of engine, prop and wing. I dont recommend this product to anyone. If anything, LAGO should pay US the 20$ to fly they're crap.But hey, thats just my opinion!

Glad ya got yours goin. My Twotter got gauge twobbles.Form at Lago got lot Twotter twobbles.Mabey they get them ironed out before New Year.

Ok, I managed to purchase & download it. Flew it for a little while until it caused FS2002 to lock -up. (which never happened before) Aside from that, If it was freeware, Id say it was a nice attempt, but for $20 I would not recomend it. The VC guages are very clear. but even the floor on the cockpit in not textured (maybe a bug?). No virtual interior behind the cockpit like some of the other payware planes I have. The external view is just OK. the cockpit looks wrong. too wide and squaty looking from the outside. The props do not animate once at full throttle, so in outside views at full power it looks like the sim was paused. All in all, it needs a lot of work. I hope they come-up with updates or its the last Lago package for me. Rob

It was flying great, but now problems are starting to show. For example, in the VC at dusk or night, the interior light blinks on and off. Does the real one do that? Even if looking into the plane with spot view, it blinks off and on every couple seconds. Someone else mentioned the trim control and it is indeed oversensitive at low and mid speeds.The first few flights were great (Alaska), but when I got near some airport scenery (KIAH with some Lago FSSE planes and gates), my frame rates dropped dramatically to about 7.It feels like its not finished yet.

Max, perhaps a little research would go far in the future? I'm noticing a lot of people who purchase payware products impulsively get annoyed when its not what they expected. I guess the moral of the story would be its good to wait for reviews. That or it's that people in this forum seem to just hate payware, which makes them all that much more intolerant to the products.Scott

I think one problem is that Igor Suprunov (The panel designer, and likely the moddeler as well for this package) needs to learn how to debug! Does anyone remember that Saab 340 panel? The gauges are nothing like the real thing, the layout is inaccurate, the thing crashes all the time until you remove the defective throttle gauge, and the autopilot behaves VERY strangely. And to think that this was the 'demo' of a commercial package that got canned becuase Mr. Surpunov got this contract from LAGO... :-boom I was planning on buying this package, but with all the negative feedback, and odd reports of the package making FS unusable (i.e. it crashes every time you try and start a flight), I think I will definitely save my pennies for the Ariane (moral implications ASIDE) 737-300 United 'special set.'

>Max, perhaps a little research would go far in the future? >I am amazed myself. Why would anyone want to rush to buy a plane from someone who has specialized in scenery creation so far. And if someone charges $20 per single airport chances are big the same $20 will buy you even less in an aircraft.Michael J.

"or it's that people in this forum seem to just hate payware, which makes them all that much more intolerant to the products"I don't mind payware. But the moment someone charges $$ for something, they lay themselves open for public criticism (or praise). I write this knowing that without payware, we'd be nowhere close to the add-ons for FS that we have today. I agree on the research too- I've made a policy to wait for reviews (which are never more than a week or two in coming). I recall reading here about those who got (apparently) burned on the MadDog product a few months ago.While we may wonder what it is that makes some of us rush to buy the next new product, those first comments here in the forums are usually right on the mark, and we can all learn from those.Bruce.

Actually, Lago's first (or one of their first) product was an aircraft. This was way back for FS98 and was the venerable MadDog (MD-80) which set the standards for panel design at the time.The Twotter was designed not by Lago themselves (they are just the publishers) but by someone from Russia who is providing loads of support in the Lago forums right now (from the number of his posts and work it seems he's been up all night).An update for most problems people mentioned should be ready later today. Most of those were caused by the inability to test on enough different machines (remember that Lago is a very small company) and some incomplete or incorrect data available to the development team (which has been provided and incorporated already).

I purchased the TWOtter and asided from some cosmetic issues. I think this is a terrific aircraft. Great for the short hops. I flew it in VFR and IFR conditions in large and small airports, and it works great so far. The cosmetic issues I am refering to is the lack of landing lighting in VC mode, no textures on the mixture and prop levers in VC mode, some funny slivers on the model faces on the side of the fuselage. Other than that I am enjoying the heck out of it.

perhaps a little research would go far in the future? I'm noticing a lot of people who purchase payware products impulsively get annoyed when its not what they expected. I guess the moral of the story would be its good to wait for reviewsLOL, you mean like the FSD Seneca which can be found for free with better flight dynamics that the sad FSD creation?