I have and enjoy Aerosoft's Twin Otter X.  I am interested in purchasing their Extended version and I would greatly appreciate the opinions of folks who now have both.

 

I believe the new Extended version is a more complex model with additional features.  Does anyone notice any changes in the FDE?  How about sounds?  More virtual cockpit functionality - switches, etc?  

 

In short, given your experience with the Twin Otter X, does the Twin Otter Extended "feel" any different?

I have just got my hands on the X version, but can't compare it to the original as I don't have it in my hanger. However, I can say that I am very pleased with the extended version. I guess it's me, but I do find it a little soulless. As I say, it may be me, probably is, but you know, under all the things it does well, I think I still actually prefer flying my B2 Islander!

I guess it's me, but I do find it a little soulless. As I say, it may be me, probably is, but you know, under all the things it does well, I think I still actually prefer flying my B2 Islander!

Its supposed to be one of those Aircraft that has character Howard : )

 

I have the older version and i understand that the extended version is a completely new build and more complex systems. I always enjoyed the X version so I might get the extended soon as its a great Aircraft. Apparently it performs well FPS despite the added complexity. Seems well received.

By the way, head over to Aerosoft and read there forum about it : )

Hi

 

I have both, and haven't flown the old one since I bought the new one. 

 

It is different, perhaps a bit more of a challenge to master, esp the AP and managing climbs and descents. It is worth the trouble though because it is much more realistic, (as far as I know) than the old one. It also looks better; VC is excellent.

 

They also seem to have got the Flight model right first time, the old one took several go's, if anyone remembers. 

 

Really there's no comparison, I could say much more, but look for yourself. If you need a twin bus for bush flying this is a must.

 

PS I also have the BN2 Islander - which is great  - but horses for courses,

 

Try landing the Twin X at Lukla and you'll see what I mean.

 

Hope this helps

 

 

Ray

Hi Simon, by X I meant Extended. Sure, I know what you mean, I just feel that it is a very smooth design and the devs have done a great job, but I somehow feel that some of the 'rawness' of the aircraft has been lost, as I say, only my own impressions. Yup, the framerateas are amazing! I was gobsmacked at how fps friendly it is. BTW, in fairness, I probably need to spend a little more time in the aircraft.

I just got the BeaverX to learn how to do water and snow.

Found that the FS9 version ... skis don't retract.

 

I will look at the Beaver X Extended after Aerosoft gets it finished.

 

Does the BN2 Islander have floats / skis / wheels models? for FS9 and FSX?

Hey fellas,

 

Thanks for your feelings and opinions.  I do have the BN-2 and love it.  I have been over at the Aerosoft forums and I believe the general feeling over there is the new Extended is a definite improvement.  I appreciate being able to garner that information.

 

I have a great respect for the folks here and I really do value your feedback.

 

I am an inveterate GA, low & slow, bush sim pilot who does enjoy some complexity.

If the Extended, as Ray suggests, represents a step up in that direction not only in systems but also in flight characteristics then I suspect I would enjoy it very much.

 

Howard, I know you to be a thoughtful, thorough critic and so I look forward to your thoughts as you get to know the new Extended.  Thanks again!

 

Does the BN2 Islander have floats / skis / wheels models? for FS9 and FSX?

No

Howard.

Thanks.

I have both.  The Extended version is better in just about every way.  The FDE is very good, and models important things like the difference weight makes in flight dynamics and performance very well.  It's a fun plane to fly into and out of bush strips.  Amazing STOL performance for such a big aircraft.  

 

I rarely flew the older version.  Just too rough around the edges and dated.  The new version is quite fun to fly.  It has limited visibility, as does the real one, and is not as quirky as, say, the Islander, as has been noted.  I suspect that's largely to do with the individual personalities of these aircraft.  The fidelity level seems to me to be very high (but I've never flown a real one).  It's a small commercial airliner, in many ways, that you can hand fly like a Cessna and treat like a bush plane.  That's a cool plane to have for FSX. 

I've got both as well.

 

The most noticeable differences are the VC and flight modeling.

 

Both are many moons ahead of the previous version. Systems are far more in depth too.

Thanks for the comments, Griphos. That's the perspective I'm looking for. I'm interested in the opinions of folks who have some time in the new Twotter and also have had at least a little experience in the older version.

 

For instance, the older version is a rather docile aircraft under most conditions and loads which, I suspect the actual aircraft also is. I can easily trim it out on my system. Rates of climb and descent are very manageable, on my system at least. I wonder a bit about the response/torque/temperature model present in the older version, especially the pressure variance due to changing prop RPM. Have you noticed in the new modal if the powerplants react appropriately as you vary the Prop RPM? Does the new version reflect the different performance parameters brought about by varying payloads? Are the stall speeds, flap settings, etc. pretty much static regardless of the a/c's weight?

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to join in here! I really appreciate it.

Hey Ryan!  Thanks for jumping in here.  I've flown the Kodiak, BN-2 and the original Twotter for some time now and have enjoyed them all.  The new Extended Twotter has caught my eye as it appears to represent a step up in terms of authenticity of not only the systems but also the flight characteristics.  At least that's the feeling I'm getting from those who have reported on their experiences with it to date. 

 

I'm very interested in settling down with a mid-sized a/c that has a robust carrying capacity and STOL capabilities.  I enjoy getting to know an individual aircraft well and staying with it until my interests wander in a different direction.

 

I really place a lot of emphasis on authenticity of both systems and flight characteristics and prefer to utilize the RW manuals and information on the aircraft when it can be realistically applied. 

 

Thank you for taking the time and effort to post on this thread, Ryan.  I appreciate your contribution.

To echo what has been said here already, the new Otter is a feast visually and is both fun and challenging to fly well. I have NO real world experience flying anything, but having spent far too much time in virtual cockpits (as well as reading far too much about such here...), I like the seemingly authentic feel of the new Otter.

 

BTW, version 1.03 has just been made available, which includes tweaks to the autopilot as well as a new model, the tundra-wheeled Otter.

Well then, Wayne - that's new info! I suspect your comments added to those above and coupled with the news that the tundra-tired Twin Otter is now available has pushed me over the top! Thanks!