It’s not the same as the Kodiak either. The Twin Otter is a pretty big airplane while the Kodiak is smaller than a Caravan. Plus…steam gauges, an extra engine and a lot of character. The Kodiak will be cool too of course, but I don’t see them as being direct competitors.
5 Likes
As long as it has floats and TMA liveries, I will happily fly the Twin Otter around the Maldives. Whereas the Kodiak, I’ll mostly be in Alaska and PNG.
2 Likes
Is it known which variant of the twin otter they are going to give us?
DHC6-100
Standard wheel pax
- DHC6-100 Fuerza Aerea de chile 940
Seaplane
- DHC6-100 Westcoast Air C-FGQH
DHC6-300
Amphibian
- DHC6-300 Viking Air N153QS
Seaplane
- DHC6-300 Trans Maldivian 8Q-TMJ
Seaplane short nose
- DHC6-300 short nose Trans Maldivian 8Q-MAW
Ski/Wheel Cargo
- DHC6-300 British Antarctic Survey VP-FBB
Tundra wheel cargo
- DHC6-300 Air Inuit G-GKCJ
Tundra wheel pax
- DHC6-300 Norlanair TF-NLC
Standard wheel pax
- DHC6-300 Aklak Air C-CDHC
- DHC6-300 Solomons Airline H4-FNT
Standard wheel cargo
- DHC6-300 long nose Aklak Air C-CDHC
Standard wheel cargo 4 blad prop
- DHC6-300 long nose Aklak Air C-CDHC
Standard wheel Skydiving
- DHC6-300 Perris Valley Skydiving N708PV
8 Likes
You can see why this is such a big release.
2 Likes
Which of those variants is the “standard”/most common variant? I’m asking, because otherwise I wouldn’t know which variant to choose when I initially learn the plane in the sim…
-300 with tires…
Pax or cargo.
2 Likes
I cannot wait to fly the -100 with floats. Finally I will be able fly passengers from CYWH (Victoria Harbour) to CYHC (Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre).
2 Likes
Yeah, confused why there’s no Harbour Air or Kenmore Air livery by default. But I’m not really that worried, it’ll show up probably sooner than later once released.
1 Like
Looks so great! 
Glad to see it coming in quick.
I am however quite disappointed that the aircraft has no systems complexity. I recall aerosoft stating that they are simply aiming to simulate the normal procedures of the crew if everything goes as planned. While this would have been acceptable when I made my first comment some time ago, I think at this point MSFS should at least have begun to acquire simulation-quality aircraft.
The closest we have is still the JF Arrow III/IIIT/IVT, aircraft that do not have functioning GPS, with no plans to ever fix said GPS (along with other inconsistencies that may be pointed out by others). So not only is the best GA option feature-incomplete, the developers have explicitly stated that they intend to permanently leave it in an incomplete state. This renders the JF Arrows abandonware.
The existence of community-made aircraft realism improvement mods, and of open-source sims such as FlightGear (in which the DHC 6-300 has actual electric/hydraulic system logic), is an indicator that the major developers for MSFS are putting in negligible work to capitalize on the rapidly receding wave of players who have installed MSFS as their first ever flight sim.
But who knows. Maybe this is all simply the first wave of aircraft releases. I have noticed that, to date, not all major developers have released a product for MSFS. Perhaps the end of wave 1 should be defined as the point at which at least a single aircraft has been released from all developers that have gained their reputations from prior flight sims. I hope that, after that threshold, we will begin to see some actual effort being put into future products.
2 Likes
What systems are you looking for?
The Arrow/Warrior has functioning GPS(s), I use it all the time, so I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
The Otter will have whatever systems are in the Otter I imagine, of which it is not all that complex, even with twin turboprop model (I’m not sure which version is being modeled, Turboprop or gasoline combustion engine). I’m confused.
Are you looking for a fully functioning G1000 down to the last detail? That’s not going to happen any time soon, especially for those authors wishing to release on Xbox. Not to mention, that’s not, by definition, Systems modeling. It’s an avionics component.
Systems modeling would be a fully detailed engine control/fuel system/every single bit of avionics. MilViz did an excellent job of that with the Goodyear Corsair.
Another example of a really detailed system model can be found in the PMDG DC-6 if you’re looking for systems complexity.
I agree a good Kingair would be nice. I can say I prefer the steam gauge versions though myself.
3 Likes
Aerosoft has never aimed for the kind of systems complexity you’re describing. Their business plan focuses on the “middle market,” where a large customer base is to be found. Not a bad business strategy - they’re able to optimize development time to meet the needs of a big audience, which is one of the reasons why they’re a big, successful publisher.
They’ve always been explicit about not providing ultimate systems depth and instead focusing on routine day-to-day operation (delivering the experience as much or more than the airplane). You have only to contrast their Airbus series with Flight Sim Labs’ to see the difference in emphasis. Aerosoft makes this comparison themselves, and they also contrast themselves to PMDG, explaining that if they tried to develop that level of systems depth, they wouldn’t be able to hit their required price point. Even the Twin Otter Extended for P3D, which offered features beyond the original edition, didn’t provide in-depth systems modeling.
So these aircraft aren’t “feature incomplete” - they’re delivering the features they promised, just not the ones you and other deep-in-the-systems simmers want to see. It’s perfectly reasonable to want more depth - and you’re not alone, you’ve got a lot of company - but not every developer will offer you that. Maybe better to focus on the small group that will.
3 Likes
I wonder which one will have more system depth, the Twotter or the Kodiak. Both are scheduled to come out soon, and both are capable bush-flyers, so they might compete with each other. I’ll definitely get both, though…
What exactly do you mean by “system depth” in a simple airplane? Working curcuit brakers? Those aircraft use commercial simple gps as gns or gtn so you get the exact same functionality. No custom coded computer systems. So as long as the performamce is true to POH or real life, they are pretty much the same in terms of system depth.
5 Likes
I would also like to know in practical examples what people mean when using the buzzword system depth. Having to pump the tires? The only deep system seems to be the gps and that seems to be stock.
1 Like
Theoretically, it might mean that there’s, say, a full computer model of the hydraulic system with every pump represented and with links to the electrical system, the environmental model, etc. That’s in contrast to a set of “if/then” equations or a simple on/off switch. In practical terms the differences can be pretty subtle or not noticeable at all. Which may be why I don’t spend nearly as much time worrying about them as I used to. Or maybe it’s just I’m getting too old to care…
4 Likes
If anyone wants to prepare for the Twin Otter arriving the POH for -300 is available online:
5 Likes