It certainly isn't a no-brainer for me, as several people keep saying.  It looks like a lovely airplane, but being saddled with a default based GPS is just something I couldn't tolerate.  If they change that in the future, then I'll take a look.

 

I don't like default-based GPS systems either, but I have the RXP 430 in the Twotter, as a pop-up and all is working just fine, and not spoiling the fun one bit for me.

 

But each to their own......

Yes, the RXP gauge can be put in, but unfortunately it overlaps with some of the radios...

 

I've asked Aerosoft if they can assist in fixing this - it would not be hard to do.

 

Suggest posting a request on their forum if you would like to see this happen.

 

Hi Bert,

 

Have you had better mileage discussing this with Finn at all? I'd tested it out as well, just trying to even get the actual RXP screen to display and click on to use pop-up for interaction, but as you mention there's a bleed over into the DME gauge most notably. Just going on the responses I'd read in the Robin forum, the initial RXP post from Mathijs, and the responses from Finn in AirDailyX, they seem to be quite adamant on no RXP and are actually quite narky about any discussion on it, so I hadn't been game to bring it up at all.

 

Personally I'd be happy to kick in for a small upgrade fee ($20 - $30), if they were to create a second variation of the interior mdl which I could selectively use to then place the 2D based gauges for the GNS, GMA, GTX in that center space. (Be great if they were able to consult with someone like Marcel to get a 3D implementation going without assistance from RXP direct, but obviously that's a hell of a lot more in consulting fees rather than simply flattening a section of an interior mdl file). I'm not sure if others would be prepared to kick in as well, or whether it would just start off a debate on the fact they felt Aerosoft should have just included it by default because others do. But none the less, it would be worth that much to me, and I'd be happy to commit to pre-pay for it.

 

Same would apply to a hide-able yoke, I thought we would have seen that implemented from the requests on the old Beaver, but I think that's even less likely to happen given the work required there. It seems to be a point of view they think it's not realistic enough if hidden, which is a shame. I thought with the whole Web 2.0 era we realised user choice in interface design was the way to go, but at the end of the way what can you do aside from end up arguing with everyone all day long.

 

Graeme Wright

I want the Twotter but I'm sitting on the fence now.  If I were to guess, I would say Aerosoft is very proud of the way the VC looks (with good reason, I'd say) and doesn't want someone to ask for mods...even if they're practical.   If the yoke can't be hidden that's okay so long as it doesn't hide anything important.  But the RXP decision does seem like they're making the decision on our behalf.  "You'll like it better without it."  Maybe they'll rethink it some.

I'll admit I purchased the aircraft as soon as it appeared in online store listing, but I'd been watching the updates in the forums and that as it progressed, and Finn and the guys did seem to be taking a lot more on board so far as requests and the realism of the aircraft (I hadn't purchased in Aerosoft aircraft for a while due to this, and the somewhat negative attitude towards such customers), but I've been really happy with this plane so far. Haven't been able to log too many hours up yet with a six week old hanging off me most of the day, but still I'm happy enough that I've gone through and seen enough to make me quite happy with it. Reality XP would be tremendous for sure, but still aside from that fact, a great aircraft.

 

Don't get me wrong on the yoke in the twin otter either, it is far more livable unlike the amount of stuff it used to obscure in their older beaver. If anyone were to say I don't think I'll purchase it due to the fact the yoke can't be hidden, I'd have to say you'll probably find it's not that bad. I admit that I do use Track IR together with EzDok and three screen surround, so it's not all that bad for me to navigate around. However I'd have to say that the limited amount of gauges hidden by the column (mainly just test and environment system, though maybe VSI and that level depending on where you set head height), and the fact they have done such a good job with the check list feature so you can actually click on items in the list and it will move view those intended items (such as the test switches), it's far short of being a major thorn in the side of any purchase like what yokes may be in other aircraft where they very readily obscure your primary flight displays.

I really fail to see the issue here. Aerosoft modelled the aircraft as it came from factory, this is akin to asking for the A2A Stratocruiser to have GPS or the old argument of anA320 with wing flex.

I have 22 hours on Twotters and they were all flown way before GPS was even a concept, in the way the Twotter was designed. Flights to remote areas, very few nav aids, mostly VFR with challenging approaches. That was its mission, and that is what I see Aerosoft have put together.

I can't wait to take her for a flight and relive some old times!

 

 

I really fail to see the issue here.

 

I agree, this is absolutely a non-issue. I guess learning to fly the aircraft as Aerosoft and de Havilland Canada intended is just too difficult for some.

Many of us are in DX10 and with SweetFX can't have pop ups.

 

All I need is a VC place holder for the 530 screen on the VC. I think this is something we can do ourselves..right? I don't need clickable spots.. I have hardware for all knobologies.

 

if not, fly it like the GPS is inop. Yeah..I'll never use the default 500.

I really fail to see the issue here. Aerosoft modelled the aircraft as it came from factory, this is akin to asking for the A2A Stratocruiser to have GPS or the old argument of anA320 with wing flex.

I have 22 hours on Twotters and they were all flown way before GPS was even a concept, in the way the Twotter was designed. Flights to remote areas, very few nav aids, mostly VFR with challenging approaches. That was its mission, and that is what I see Aerosoft have put together.

I can't wait to take her for a flight and relive some old times!

 

For me it's not a deal breaker at all, I've purchased the aircraft straight up on release and am flying it. It's just that since Aerosoft have chosen to feature a Garmin 530 in the panel, and it'd just be that much nicer to be able to swap it out with one that operates true to life so that we can make use of it in a truer sense. But as you say too, I think if they chose not to have a GPS at all then it may have in fact been even less of an issue and not poked the bee hive so to speak.

 

I'm not going as far as saying they should do the whole 3D panel overlay like RealAir, Carenado, MilViz, their own Katana has, (it'd be tremendous for sure, but I certainly understand Finn's point there. They have no contact with Reality XP, and the birdges to cross in liasing with folk like Marcel or other developers well versed in it already obviously aren't there) but just that it'd be great if they were able to make a panel version where it was blank space so that we could actually add in an RXP 530 or mixed stack if we wanted to. The up side to having such a panel like that as well would be that be deault it'd be clean of any GPS unit at all, so you could have an old twotter in the truer sense without any GPS at all. You could probably argue it might save frames without GPS, but I really don't know if they eat as much as some suspect these days.

 

That's just where I'm coming from any way. I'm not bagging them out at all from my end, I think the plane is great, I'm just interested to know if Bert has had any joy talking with Finn in relating to making a panel where it is clean and able to have third party gauges added in, or just left clean so it's more like you say, no GPS at all.

 

 

I really fail to see the issue here. Aerosoft modelled the aircraft as it came from factory, this is akin to asking for the A2A Stratocruiser to have GPS or the old argument of anA320 with wing flex.

 

Er... the plane as modeled comes with a GPS, based on a default FSX unit.  The issue being discussed is being able to integrate the RXP version to have something that's modeled more completely, not whether the Twotter as modeled by Aerosoft should come with GPS... it does.

 

 

 

I guess learning to fly the aircraft as Aerosoft and de Havilland Canada intended is just too difficult for some.

 

C'mon now.   I learned to fly long before GPS was even dreamed of for aircraft, and can navigate IRL and sim by pilotage, dead-reckoning, VOR, NDB, you name it, though I'll admit A-N range was a bit before my time and I never had reason to explore the mysteries of celestial nav.  Let's not be condescending.  If this isn't of interest to you, then it's not and that's fine too.

 

Scott

Many of us are in DX10 and with SweetFX can't have pop ups.

 

All I need is a VC place holder for the 530 screen on the VC. I think this is something we can do ourselves..right? I don't need clickable spots.. I have hardware for all knobologies.

 

if not, fly it like the GPS is inop. Yeah..I'll never use the default 500.

 

Bert might be able to tell you more about what he'd done. But on my end I was able to get the RXP screen placed in the centre of the Aerosoft GPS, so it looked like it was set up correct, the buttons obviously didn't work but you could see the screen and you would be able to interact with it if you have the hardware as you say. The downside was that it bled down over the other radio stack. Most noticably for me the bottom of the RXP panel would show over the top of the display for the DME. Must be the tightness of mapping from the texture area for the panel or something.

 

So maybe if you had an external hardware unit which displayed radio stack and DME information it might work for you, if you could live with see bits of the RXP buttons and dials covering over the DME in the twotter.

For what it's worth, and I didn't investigate it further, but I did notice that it installed a set of NavDataPro files.  That would imply that although it might be based on the default GPS, it's using up-datable navdata?

For what it's worth, and I didn't investigate it further, but I did notice that it installed a set of NavDataPro files.  That would imply that although it might be based on the default GPS, it's using up-datable navdata?

 

Unfortunately it's apparently only referenced by the fuel planner program, it doesn;t actually tie into to GPS

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/52170-twin-otter-extended-preview-fsxp3d/?p=502012

 

 

Unfortunately it's apparently only referenced by the fuel planner program, it doesn;t actually tie into to GPS

 

Ahhh too bad. 

 

I'll use my RXP in a popup as well I guess. A very small minor slight against a lot of pro's - I won't let this stand in the way of my enjoyment of one of my new favorite and long anticipated planes, but the attitude I perceive from AS surrounding this surely does affect my purchase of AS products - they have to be just that much better to overcome that negative aspect.

 

(i.e.: If my initial impression of the product is say 7/10, and my threshold for purchasing is 8/10, I pass on a product.  If my initial impression of an AS product is 8/10, this incident will be worth -1 for quite awhile, so that brings it to 7/10, and I'll probably pass.  Sorry, but I try to rationalize everything.  Otherwise I run out of money!  I would add that there are a few devs out there that are currently +1 with me due to going above and beyond with support... it works both ways on that purchasing threshold!)

Personally I'd be happy to kick in for a small upgrade fee ($20 - $30), if they were to create a second variation of the interior mdl which I could selectively use to then place the 2D based gauges for the GNS, GMA, GTX in that center space.

I'll match that to fund a change to the project so it has a 2D panel option to drop in the RXP 530.

Thanks to those that have provided a complete rundown of the aircraft, just a shame that 3/4 of this thread has revolved around RXP. Nevertheless I may have to add this bird to the want list.