2 minutes ago, a321 said:

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

Utter non sense, but hey, what do i know...

4 hours 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.

No a fact is statement that is: the truth about events as opposed to interpretation. He said that as Fact as to why it is not present. Nobody wants that to be the fact, but until otherwise it is! 

As much as I am disappointed with MSFS as a serious sim platform, I have, like others invested quite a large sum in it based on the promises and good directions it has sometimes taken. So in my case I have a pre-existing opinion that I really want changed, but at the moment nothing is. And if it is really true as we are lead to beleive that dual platform releases have to be cut back then I have a problem with that! but I do not want it to be the case. If we dont take anything he says at face value, until we know or see otherwise then where we have we arrived? and on that basis going forward every product they make and he hypes up we should assume its a lie? 

The disappointment you are seeing about this product is because people believed the hype!

Have you never heard of the saying "open the door, and they walk right in"

Edited January 22, 20224 yr by a321

4 hours 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.

 

3 hours ago, Kaboki said:

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...

I more or less just read the Avsim forum, with a very rare visit elsewhere if it is linked to from here.  My impression of Aerosoft has been a company that appears to be developing a study level product, but releases something below that expectation.  I exclusively fly shorter range routes or GA , so The CRJ series was perfect for me.  However, due to my impression of Aerosoft, I didn't buy the CRJ on day one - even after all this time I have not purchased it.  The Twin Otter should have been a day one purchase for me, but very quickly the reviews demonstrated a product that fell short of my, and others, expectations.  I shall continue to watch how the Twotter develops, so may be a purchase from me in time.

Just flight on the other hand has always given me a product I have enjoyed out of the box.  I have every one of the Cherokees and I didn't need to read a review before buying.  So when they announced 'Real Taxiways' I knew that would be a day one purchase from me - the product was great on first use.

Another nail in the coffin for the Twin Otter was the SWS Kodiak.  I expect every aircraft release to have bugs and the Kodiak was no exception. However, they were dealt with quickly. The aircraft itself is so very good out the box.  There are no shortfalls with it and my expectations were met fully.  They have announced the PC12 which will be a day one, no review, purchase from me - as will every other product they release.

Aerosoft just need to go that extra 10 percent to be in the same sphere as SWS, Just Flight, PMDG etc.  Just that little bit of extra effort on quality control and communications to have many more people making a day one purchase.

I think it is important to clarify something as I don't like some comments I am reading.. and even when perhaps I should stay clear from these things since they consume too much energy, well it really upset me to read certain stuff to be frank, mostly because I always like people to be 100% informed.

So here it goes:

• XBOX vs PC aircraft, scenery and any add-on SDK guidelines are the "SAME". This means, if you build and aircraft in accordance with the SDK instructions and guidelines it will work the same both in PC and XBOX.
   
• There is absolutely no need to cut ANY FEATURE of your aircraft in order to be able to support it on XBOX.
   
• Animations are the less concern in terms of memory and system performance when developing airplanes for MSFS, the biggest concern for us as developers are numbers of vertices and proper LOD implementation so multiplayer experience remains optimal, but under no circumstances, ever we have been told to cut the number of animations to keep performance high... instead Asobo keeps reminding us of cutting "textures sizes" and numbers of vertices.. BUT NEVER ANIMATIONS.
   
• Lastly, when people submit content to Microsoft so it gets approved for market place, you have the option to select to which market you wish the add-on to be available to, this includes PC and XBOX and they are not exclusive. What does this means? it means you can submit your product to work first on PC.. and then later on XBOX.. or even viceversa. However if it comes to it, you could separate your product in two, one for PC and one for Xbox (although it is not a requirement, since MSFS SDK and core is designed to support both with no code base changes). 
   
• There is currently an issue with WASM modules and Xbox, Microsoft is aware of the issue and working on it. This is the reason why PMDG DC-6 had to be pulled out from Xbox and why other aircraft might have not reached this market. However as soon as Microsoft address the issues products using WASM modules will be able to reach this market. This is the only current limitation between PC vs XBOX content. 

Hope this helps to clarify certain things.. I wish people were more honest.. if something doesn't work.. call it what it is.. address it, update and move on.. is never helpful to create lame excuses.

Best,

Simbol 

 

1 hour ago, simbol said:

it means you can submit your product to work first on PC.. and then later on XBOX.. or even viceversa. However if it comes to it, you could separate your product in two, one for PC and one for Xbox (although it is not a requirement, since MSFS SDK and core is designed to support both with no code base changes). 

So when I ask MK on their forum : 

And it was not possible to release two products, twin otter for PC and XBOX separately and just optimise/remove stuff that will cripple the console?

Then he replied :

At this moment this is not possible. 

He just straight up, lied to me...

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I shall continue to watch how the Twotter develops, so may be a purchase from me in time.

MK at AS: This weekend or Monday, should fix 90% of the known issues.

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/170049-sound-hotfix/&do=findComment&comment=1073837

we‘ll see…

16 minutes ago, DAD said:

MK at AS: This weekend or Monday, should fix 90% of the known issues.

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/170049-sound-hotfix/&do=findComment&comment=1073837

we‘ll see…

Are ugly squared wheels are on the list?

26 minutes ago, bendead said:

So when I ask MK on their forum : 

And it was not possible to release two products, twin otter for PC and XBOX separately and just optimise/remove stuff that will cripple the console?

Then he replied :

At this moment this is not possible. 

He just straight up, lied to me...

 

Unbelievable!!!

 

This guys just flat out lying to everyone because they were lazy and rushed out an incomplete product!

 

I'll never buy from Aerosoft again!!!

5 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Are ugly squared wheels are on the list?

How this one slipped by?

ns

8 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Are ugly squared wheels are on the list?

 

Is it because the Xbox can't handle the extra animations of round wheels?

 

😄

The Twin Otter hasn't even been released a week..sheeesh.

Some folks here just really have a hard on and are super critical of this Mathijs Kok guy no matter what Aerosoft does apparently, the Kodiak has had it's issues out of the box also.

Along with most all of the other payware aircraft that's been released since MSFS's release, as if if most of the addons these days don't have "VERSION.1-9 XYZ" numbers on them by now,

It's 2022 who's really expecting 1.0 versions of products to be perfection out of the box in software these days?

For now on save yourself the hype and later disappointment of making first week purchases of payware if it will eventually come to you really despising folks like Mathijs Kok.

Nothing more to see here... typical biased bipolar AVSIM selective outrage for particular devs as usual.😂

Anxiously buying payware off first week release hype is very exciting yet risky business for one's emotions and has been since FSX.

Enjoy the fun of it or or don't indulge!

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

The Twin Otter hasn't even been released a week..sheeesh.

Some folks here just really have a hard on and are super critical of this Mathijs Kok guy no matter what Aerosoft does apparently, the Kodiak has had it's issues out of the box also.

Along with most all of the other payware aircraft that's been released since MSFS's release, as if if most of the addons these days don't have "VERSION.1-9 XYZ" numbers on them by now,

It's 2022 who's really expecting 1.0 versions of products to be perfection out of the box in software these days?

For now on save yourself the hype and later disappointment of making first week purchases of payware if it will eventually come to you really despising folks like Mathijs Kok.

Nothing more to see here... typical biased bipolar AVSIM selective outrage for particular devs as usual.😂

Anxiously buying payware off first week release hype is very exciting yet risky business for one's emotions and has been since FSX.

Enjoy the fun of it or or don't indulge!

 

 

 

 

Ah sorry, so we just celebrate poor work... Geee thanks...

5 minutes ago, Car147 said:

Ah sorry, so we just celebrate poor work... Geee thanks...

More like just enjoy poking your least favorable payware dev with torch and pitchfork any chance there is a brief moment for drama and pent-up anger lashing.😉🤣

Either way happy simming and condolences for your first week disappointment of the Twin Otter!😥

 

3 hours ago, a321 said:

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.

Personally once we definitively proved that MKs comments on one part of this topic were.... mistaken, it became difficult to consider anything else he said to be reliable.

3 hours ago, a321 said:

No a fact is statement that is: the truth about events as opposed to interpretation. He said that as Fact as to why it is not present. Nobody wants that to be the fact, but until otherwise it is! 

Saying something does not make it a fact by default.

If I say I'm the Queen of England, it doesn't make me the Queen of England until someone proves otherwise.    Rather, if I say I'm the Queen of England, I should be expected to provide proof of my statement, and if I can't I should be laughed out of the room.  Everyone in this thread who seems to know something about aircraft development is saying "no, Aerosoft, you're not the Queen of England".

And then there's you.

 

 

Edited January 22, 20224 yr by DeepestRed