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.
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”.
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…
I am currently using the Black Square Caravan and wanted to go a step up in complexity.
So I bought the Analog King Air of couple of days ago and that turned out to be so complex that I was kind of demotivated. It sure looks like a awesome plane but I needed something in between the Caravan and that. That’s where the DHC-6 came in. I must say, the plane really clicks for me.
The industrial look-and-feel of the cockpit and the whole thing rattling and screaming at you, it’s like you are in a Beaver on steroids.
The complexity is exactly in the ballpark that I want it to be, working my way through the manual now.
It is a bit of a pain to use in VR with that overhead panel and the complete lack of cockpit flow. In that regard, it’s the opposite of the Caravan which has a very logical layout. The sounds don’t really bother me, I even quite like them, although I do think there could be some improvement here and there.