I tried that and it didn’t work for me. I’ll investigate, again, but have seen many others comment that it can’t be done. Thanks.
1 Like
You might need to update the layout.json file for it to work in 2024. 2024 is far stricter with this file.
It’s easy to do if you use MSFSLayoutGenerator.
I’ve had to do this for 2020 liveries, my B307 mod, etc. that I’ve wanted to run in 2024.
I don’t have the original Twin Otter, so I don’t know if this is the issue, but it is certainly worth a try.
1 Like
I’ll have a go at that next week - much appreciated.
1 Like
A friend upgraded his Aerosoft Twin Otter from the Marketplace 2020 version to 2024 and it works perfectly. I have no idea how he did it, but he shared these pictures showing that it looks good.
1 Like
That’s where I wonder, why didn’t Microsoft release this version or let Aerosoft release their plane in 2024, which would have been better than that other poorly made plane?
And by the way, it’s bad, because the Aerosoft one has all the variants except -400, but almost all of them are there.
Microsoft must have their reasons, but hopefully they’ll make the Aerosoft version native and add version 400, which is the only thing missing. It’s a really good plane, and being native in 2024 should make it even better.
I think many people have been able to get it working because I see that several liveries have already been made compatible for 2024, greetings
Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to look into this later this week. Who knows, if it works I might even be able to add a step-by-step guide on the forum. As things stand, this is probably the only way I’ll fire up the sim again.
2 Likes
MSFSLayoutGenerator seems to do the trick! 
Bought from ORBX. When FS24 was released, I copied it to FS24 community folder, but it didn’t work, so I totally forgot whole plane. Never tried Asobo version.
1 Like
Great news, Asobo version, one year later, still has non working instrument backlights. Shame to release something so bugged and simply leave it like that.
1 Like
You’re barking up the wrong tree, it’s not an Asobo aircraft, it’s by iniBuilds / SH Simulation (Hans Hartmann) if I’m not mistaken.
I was really looking forward to that aircraft being included in the base sim but I’ve hardly touched it given the state it was in after release. SU4 had a lot of things listed for it but I don’t think I’ve given it another try since then.
1 Like
You’re also going to the wrong tree. It wasn’t iniBuilds but Aerosoft 
EDIT: I was wrong, I thought it was about the 2020 version. Apologies!
Nah, Aerosoft had nothing to do with the 2024 version.
1 Like
I’m sorry but I disagree. I bought the sim from Microsoft, not from the dev.
It’s Microsoft who has the contractual relation with the developer to finish a product and who is ultimately responsible for the unfinished airplane. And it’s Microsoft who has the contractual relation with me to deliver a finished product.
Else it’s like buying a Dell computer with a broken processor and accept “Oh you gotta call Intel” from Dell as an answer.
7 Likes
Complain to Microsoft, perfectly valid. My main point was that it’s not an Asobo aircraft because you said “Asobo version”.
2 Likes
Exactly yeah. Aero soft in this case is the good guy 
Come on it’s the same, Microsoft is the vendor, they’re not the developers either. We usually use Msobo as an acronym for Microsoft/Asobo. I don’t think my message was so confusing that no one understood what I was meaning. But ok, “Microsoft as the vendor, Asobo as the developer responsible for the final product which includes the airplanes delivered with the simulator”. Hope now it’s more clear 
I mean, since we’re being pedantic here, no this is not correct. Asobo develops the core sim and some of the aircraft in the sim. However, aircraft published by Microsoft and developed by first-party partners (iniBuilds, Got Friends, Carenado, Blue Mesh, etc.) have nothing to do with Asobo, including development.
1 Like
Correct! Apologies.
1 Like
Please don’t call me pedantic, as I don’t think I’ve said anything pedantic and I actually corrected myself. Even more, I didn’t interact with you in particular. If something did sound pedantic, there was probably a misunderstanding.
As I mentioned earlier, my contractual relation is not with the developer of this particular airplane, but with Microsoft. It’s Microsoft task to deliver a finished product, and it’s Microsoft’s relation with the developer to get them to finish the airplane and not leave it like abandonware. And of the developer isn’t in business anymore, it’s Microsoft duty to find a way to finish the product.
You can disagree with me of course and if you are willing to overlook everything not finished due to who developed it, you’re free to do it. I’m not, since I paid for the product of course and I expect a finished product, regardless if Microsoft, Ini, Asobo or whoever develops it.
I do think the observation was not relevant about who is the developer and that the original idea was clear in my first message. I don’t think that having said “Asobo” instead of “Microsoft" was enough to be confusing about the general meaning of my post.
Please, try not be aggressive, as I don’t think I offended anyone, and if I did sorry for the misunderstanding but it was not my intention of course.
7 Likes
I 100% agree with this. MSFS 2024 was advertised to include many aircraft, of which many are still utterly rubbish. The 2024 Twin Otter is one of them. So it was misleading, and it is still a shame that they haven’t fixed this - or ordered their developers to fix it - in more than 1 years time.
5 Likes