26 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

id be curious to know how many people loved the plane before reading Aerosoft statement, and now, hates it and think its garbage. 😄 

FACT: Animation load being an issue on xbox is something ive never heard of. --How do i know? I released 2 planes on xbox
FACT: The DC-6 wasnt pulled out of Xbox because of that.  --How do i know? Its the handling of the WASM modules on the xbox side that is slightly different, just enough to fook everything up.

I don't think people hate it Lep, they are just slightly disappointed with some aspects of it, the sound being one, and probably astonished at some of the comments coming from Mr. Kok!    The comments just don't make sense at all.

That Aerosoft leave out features to sell it on xbox leaves a bad taste and looks like a cash grab. Like did they forget who put food on the table for them all these years, we the PC simmers...  Also the marketing, left me belive this plane was gonna be something never achieved in a flightsim, that the possibilities was endless with this new platform, then what we get is Carenado level of depth... 

4 minutes ago, Kaboki said:

That Aerosoft leave out features to sell it on xbox leaves a bad taste and looks like a cash grab. Like did they forget who put food on the table for them all these years, we the PC simmers...  Also the marketing, left me belive this plane was gonna be something never achieved in a flightsim, that the possibilities was endless with this new platform, then what we get is Carenado level of depth... 

Aeronado

The Twin Otter will be a nice piece once the rest of the issues are ironed out.

I'll give Aerosoft benefit of doubt with this one.

53 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

FACT: Animation load being an issue on xbox is something ive never heard of. --How do i know? I released 2 planes on xbox

 

Sorry, buddy, but you don't work for Aerosoft, so why should we believe a word you say?   Unless it comes out of MK's mouth it's not fact, and whatever comes out of his mouth is fact, by definition.  At least that's the lesson I think I'm learning from some of the folks in this thread.  😂

Also, "fact" means "something that supports my pre-existing opinion", apparently.

3 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

The Twin Otter will be a nice piece once the rest of the issues are ironed out.

I'll give Aerosoft benefit of doubt with this one.

I hope so as well sharky!  But do you think they can make a silk purse out of a pigs ear with the current sound set?  Smoothing them out and getting the pitch to alter with rpm is one thing, but the current base sounds don't seem that good to start with.

14 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I hope so as well sharky!  But do you think they can make a silk purse out of a pigs ear with the current sound set?  Smoothing them out and getting the pitch to alter with rpm is one thing, but the current base sounds don't seem that good to start with.

Indeed the sounds are jacked up! You can hear the huge sound delay in my video after I pulled her out of reverse/beta thrust.

The bad sound sync confuses the senses and you habitually throw more unnecessary power at her on taxi/takeoff because you don't hear you've spooled them enough🤣

I know it will be sorted out soon along with the "bouncy bounce house" feeling of lack of weight the plane behaves on takeoff and landing.

Edited January 22, 20224 yr by blueshark747

19 minutes ago, Kaboki said:

Also the marketing, left me belive this plane was gonna be something never achieved in a flightsim, that the possibilities was endless with this new platform, then what we get is Carenado level of depth... 

Was there a lot of marketing? There was certainly a lot of community hype. To be fair, there was also a 91-page running discussion of the development over the past 16 months in the Aeosoft forum that left no doubt about what this was going to be: a nice-looking default+ aircraft that would sell in the 'reasonable' price range and had to work on Windows and XBox from common code. It was explicit that functionality was going to be less than the FSX version and more recently, that it was going to be essentially default sim functionality only. Okay, it's bit buggy as well but hopefully that'll be sorted in the next few weeks. There was an awful lot of pressure from the community to release, so I can't help thinking that was a factor in getting it out before it was really ready.

1 minute ago, MarkDH said:

Was there a lot of marketing? There was certainly a lot of community hype. To be fair, there was also a 91-page running discussion of the development over the past 16 months in the Aeosoft forum that left no doubt about what this was going to be: a nice-looking default+ aircraft that would sell in the 'reasonable' price range and had to work on Windows and XBox from common code. It was explicit that functionality was going to be less than the FSX version and more recently, that it was going to be essentially default sim functionality only. Okay, it's bit buggy as well but hopefully that'll be sorted in the next few weeks. There was an awful lot of pressure from the community to release, so I can't help thinking that was a factor in getting it out before it was really ready.

Im not meaning the marketing for the Twin, but was more reffering to MKs praise when MSFS came out about the possibilities this new platform would have and it would blow our socks off, and that talk made me belive aorosoft planes for MSFS would exceed everything done in the past. Didnt pay much attention to the twotter thread because he already hyped me so much that I kinda expected something completly different...

1 hour ago, Cyrex1984 said:

Aeronado

Carosoft. 😁

1 hour ago, DeepestRed said:

 

Sorry, buddy, but you don't work for Aerosoft, so why should we believe a word you say?   Unless it comes out of MK's mouth it's not fact, and whatever comes out of his mouth is fact, by definition.  At least that's the lesson I think I'm learning from some of the folks in this thread.  😂

Also, "fact" means "something that supports my pre-existing opinion", apparently.

He either lied or repeated stuff he was told (wich were lies).

On 1/20/2022 at 11:06 PM, bobcat999 said:

I just can't believe what MK is saying!  The trim wheels don't move because the animation is too intensive and would affect xbox?!  
Your flying a plane across a landscape, maybe in 4k, but the trim wheel animation will bring the frame rate down?

He then goes on to say the doors don't open on the default MSFS aircraft for a reason, as xbox wouldn't cope with the animation. 
Well how about the 3P aircraft sold on the marketplace for xbox - their doors open don't they?  Is this a joke?  Is it a fact? or is is just typical MK?  

 

What I don't understand is why folks continue to give Aerosoft money for their mediocre airplanes. 

Mind you, that isn't even the issue. I've bought a lot of mediocre addons from a lot of companies.

The issue is the terrible attitude of Aerosoft's support staff. 

It always plays out in the same way:

1. A customer raises a legitimate issue, supported by a video or a screenshot.
2. Aerosoft supporters come out in full force and blame the user. 
3. MK joins in with his usual "real pilots told us...." routine, or "we had to do it this way, because....." shenanigans
Then one of three things happen:

- the user gets banned
- the issue gets addressed
- the issue is quietly forgotten

I can set my clocks to how this plays out. 

Edited January 22, 20224 yr by Ricardo41

5 hours ago, Matchstick said:

So when that person says the AP is broken because of the need to use default code for XB compatibility but testing shows it's actually because they used the unmodfied default values from the SDK for the AP config - do we believe them or the result from experiments we can perform ourselves ?

No but then we know 2 things dont we...
1. He might of just lied.
2. Its no longer a fact if it is proved different.

Nobody has yet proved the trim wheel moving or not moving could cause issues on the XBOX, and therefore it remains a fact!

So all in all you responded being clever, but the reality is the fact as it stands has not been disproven and remains a fact! as far as I can see.

IMHO Aeorsoft have seen all the money they can make with the "Twin Conner" and could care less about trying to be real hence the default values! But I wasn't talking about that.. I am talking about what he said in regards to the trim wheel, which in any fair and decent world has to be taken as a fact from the maker of the plane until otherwise proven despite the possible lies we seem to have been told already.

 

The real question needs to be, If they have used these default values, then what about the so called Master who supposedly made the Flight model for it. All I hear is he is a genius!! So why is he using default SDK values??

What lies if any are we being told? Is this Aerosoft now? Should serious simmers continue to support them as we have over the years when they cared about quality and not quantity and especially when they cant just own it!! These are the real questions.

Edited January 22, 20224 yr by a321

22 minutes ago, a321 said:

Nobody has yet proved the trim wheel moving or not moving could cause issues on the XBOX, and therefore it remains a fact!

My P40 on xbox has incredible ground breaking trim wheels....

6 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

My P40 on xbox has incredible ground breaking trim wheels....

Well I'm glad you are happy. But please do remember according to MK of Aerosoft "there is no other plane on the market place with the memory demands of this plane" Whatever that means, seems pretty default to me!

Edited January 22, 20224 yr by a321