Please be aware that the DHC-6 and the CRJ are very different aircraft that fill very different roles. One is a jack-of-all-trades STOL utility aircraft, and the other is a regional airliner.
I can’t recommend the DHC-6 highly enough, especially considering that there will be an update soon.
If you do get the CRJ, please do let me know how it is, as I’ve had my eyes on it for a while. I’m probably going to end up buying it after the DHC-8 and the ATR 72-600.
Other than the sound update, I’m not sure what will be in the upcoming update. But I would say it’s safe to assume that there will be bug fixes.
I would get the 736 or 146 instead of the CRJ. The CRJ seem to really still need some AP logic updates. But best ask in the CRJ thread i gues.
Which ATR 72-600 do you mean?
The CRJ is one of my favourites aircraft in the sim. Mainly because I like the size and the routes you can fly with it. These are more mid-haul and therefore a great mix between starting, landing and some relaxing inflight. I don’t have any issues with the AP of the CRJ and also think it is very well modelled. It’s much more detailed than the DHC-6 but mainly because it is a more complex aircraft.
I also like the DHC-6. The sound issues I have fixed with an soundpack. And the rest is working pretty well. It flighs pretty stable and is easier to handle then the Kodiak. But I don’t really compare these two as the DHC-6 is for more passengers and flies other routes than the Kodiak. I fly both and enjoy flying both.
I’m honestly not that interested in the tiny 737 or the BAe 146. Just personal preference. And in terms of regional airliners, I am a fan of turboprops such as the DHC-8, ATR family, or the DHC-6. They just look and sound cool to me.
I’m going to buy the CRJ because I’ve always thought they are cool, and they are quite popular where I live as regional airliners. Although sadly they (and other regional airliners) seem to be getting replaced almost exclusively by Embraer jets. But the CRJ is not at the top of my list for aircraft I am going to buy. I’m more interested in buying the DHC-8 from Majestic and the ATR turboprops from Asobo and Blackbird.
Honestly, either the Asobo or Blackbird ATR. I’ll probably end up buying both. The ATRs from Asobo look like they are really high quality, and they are being developed with input from ATR themselves. And Blackbird has some really high quality products, so I’m sure that will carry over to their ATRs.
I wouldn’t say the DHC-6 Twin Otter is primarily a passenger airplane. It honestly does anything you want it to do, and it will do it well. De Havilland Canada even sells a VIP configuration. I would never associate a rugged STOL airplane with VIP transport, but it can do it.
I do have a question about the Kodiak though. What makes it different from a Cessna 208? I know that question probably sounds incredibly stupid, but I honestly don’t know too much about the Kodiak other than that it looks somewhat similar to a Cessna 208. I’ve heard good things about it though, so I’ve been keeping my eye on it in case it goes on sale.
The only issue I have with the cockpit modelling is that there is light leakage in the upper left dash which can get distracting.
Apart from that, and with a sound pack I enjoy this bird a lot. Feels believably at home almost anywhere on the globe.
It’s nice to fly but has some Bugs.
Invisible Spoiler. Do a ILS Approach with 80 to 90 knots and you suddenly have to add Power or you fall out off the Sky.
Fuel System. That’s a mess. Nice Switches for the Fuel Pumps, nice Sound but complete useless. Pumps are not needed in this Aerosoft Version of the Bird, the Engines will run without them. Don’t try this in real Life.
Wing Tanks. Fuel System for the Wing Tanks is complete wrong. The Engines don’t run dry in real Life when the Wing Tanks are empty. AFT and FWD will take over without interruption.
In the Aerosoft Twotter you will practice Emergency Procedures, restarting Engines in Mid Flight without any warnings.
I feel like most planes in MSFS lack in systems depth. Sometimes I forget certain tasks in the startup checklist and the plane starts anyway. So much for being a simulator.
It actually doesn’t bother me though. I do like when a plane is study level and you get punished for mistakes but most of my flights are relaxing cross country trips where I admire the scenery and try to navigate my way.
Huh, I never noticed that.
The cockpit doesn’t look as good as many other third-party offers. Among issues are the bezels that aren’t even round, bugged shadows and reflections, and basic textures. It makes the cockpit look toyish. Among free aircraft you can check the Beaver to see a proper texture work.
I agree with the problems you list taking away from the simulation a lot. Yesterday I skipped a checklist item by accident but - ■■■! - the engine started all the same. 
The 80kt-part of the flight envelope is the startling one indeed, and terribly annoying.
I’ve always used the sound mod for the Twin Otter, couldn’t dream of not.
After purchasing both the CRJ and the Twin Otter I’ve opted to stay away from Aerosoft and let my wallet do the talking. Along with the 737-600 these are my most played mods, and I enjoy them a lot! But the company’s mod support model doesn’t seem up to snuff with modern standards. The CRJ has had persistent issues that are “being looked at” and “hard to reproduce” while the developer himself works on new aircraft. But it’s a great aircraft, font sizes notwithstanding, and the lack of autothrust is very fun.
Forgot to add that Aerosoft doesn’t care about adding support for the 750 on the Otter, whereas most other devs do it, even Carenado.
Hi !
I wonder if Aerosoft will ever update the sounds of the original plane. And before you write something…i know that there are improvement mods for it.
I just had in mind that Aerosoft wanted to updated the sounds in the future…but i think they dropped that ?
Supposed to arrive next week.
You know, I can live with the bad sound and I have created a Spad.next script to improve the way the virtual spoiler is applied (by making it more gradual over a range of propeller blade angles rather than instantly). I also hadn’t noticed the cockpit detailing. I’m not a “high maintenance” customer. What bugs me about this airplane though is Aerosoft’s attitude. We the community have fiddled with it and found bugs and work-arounds for some of those. But when we bring them to Aerosoft and say “hey, here’s a problem and this is how I fixed it” they’re like (to paraphrase a little) “get lost, geek”.
Agreed. The worst thing about this aircraft is the developer’s (publisher’s?) reaction to community involvement. They could have taken a good thing and run with it. They went the other way.
The Twin Otter doesn’t need to be study level (it wasn’t marketed as such) but it’d be great if it was at least “follow a checklist” level. In this day and age, it’s not acceptable to have basic functionality like fuel or anti-ice systems modeled incorrectly or not at all on a payware aircraft.
Or how about even consistently? The engines will quit (incorrectly with respect to the real aircraft’s behavior) if the aux tanks run dry while the pumps are on, but the model doesn’t care if the main fwd or aft pumps are on. And when it is pointed out to Aerosoft, they’re like “
meh”.
The situation makes me think of the apocryphal exchange between a pilot and mechanic where the pilot writes up hydraulic fluid leakage on the L/H landing gear strut and the mechanic signs it off as “normal leakage”, so the pilot writes up the R/H landing gear strut as “lacking normal leakage”… It’s dumb.
Overall it’s the typical Aerosoft quality based on their philsophy. The buttons and switches will control the (pump/generator) indication lights but there’s hardly any (if any) actual pump modelling behind that. You can start the engines in any way you like…
