It reads like it wants to be the DC-6 manual, but it’s out of a sensible order and as mentioned, half the tests and checks it has you do are for INOP systems.
Auto feather? INOP. The AP controls on the control column? INOP. The response? We’ll take those out of the manual.
Imagine thinking that a reviewer that has a positive outlook on a product while you don’t is “biased.”
Because of course, you’re right and they’re all wrong. 
A lot of reviewers simply have no idea what they are doing. One can clearly see this by the way they fly the aircraft in the review. No idea about systems, navigation, procedures etc.
It works both ways though, the number of reviews I have seen where the reviewer complains the aircraft is not doing something, and it is just so obvious it is total user error is staggeringly high.
A lot of reviewers have decades of experience, and some are real pilots. So far, the videos I’ve seen from reviewers who are also real pilots are all positive.
Perhaps they do know what they’re doing.
Here’s how it works from the point of view of a reviewer who has done this job professionally for over 20 years (but isn’t a real pilot. I do have direct access to one tho. I often consult my father who is a retired air force Lt. colonel and test pilot, then charter, and then airline pilot), on print and web, for both general gaming and simulation products.
A review analyzes the value and quality of a product as a whole. It’s designed to tell readers and viewers (and a wide variety of them, from the more casual to the core) whether they’re getting a good product or not compared to the dollars they spend.
A product may have a whole bunch of nitpicks and issues but still be very enjoyable, of overall high quality, and great value for the price, hence getting a positive review overall.
On the other hand, a product may be nearly flawless, but not offer enough value for what you pay it, or simply not be fun at all. Hence getting a more negative review.
A good reviewer will tell you the flaws and issues (from their point of view, that may not be the same as yours), but may very well tell you that despite those, it’s still a very worthwhile aircraft to get.
People aren’t “biased.” They’re looking at a product from the point of view of the overall quality, whether it’s fun or not, and whether it’s a worthwhile experience, instead of turning every issue into a tragedy as I see some do here.
I used the Support link on the top of the aerosoft page, registered for a support account and opened a ticket in the appropriate section. In this ticket I stated my specific reason why I wish for a refund. And my order was cancelled within the hour. I bought from Aerosoft directly.
So did I. That’s encouraging though, I thought their policy was no refunds on downloads.
I may try that.
Buy it, fly it and enjoy it, that is what the twotter is for, and I am very glad for the newest addition to MSFS.
That I like and fly it is no guarantee for you, of course, we all have different expectations to the addons.
Imagine a reviewer who gets early access and free products trying to stay objective. I watch a review normally when I haven’t formed an opinion so it’s not a case of agreeing or not. It’s more about not trusting the review to be without an agenda.
You can fully trust YouTube reviews - because what you see is what you get.
You see the YouTuber look and pan around in the cockpit, see him start up the plane, you hear him say “ah well the fuel flow when the pumps run is not yet implemented I hope this will be patched later, the amperemeter seems to behave strange” etc. when bugs are noticed.
No need to hate YouTubers 
two YT videos is worth more than two dozen written reviews showing only a handful of blurry 1024x560 screenshots and not going into any details at all.
With any review including video you can show and say what ever message you want to send. I think we all find Video as a medium very useful but just like with the media the content can be edited for any agenda.
What a terrible argument. Review copies are work tools, not freebies.
Writing or filming a good review takes a ton of time and effort compared to the returns. Even for something as simple as an airport, my reviews can easily take 10 or more hours between research, testing, filming of accompanying videos, taking screenshots, and simply writing.
You can bet your rear that reviewers would be way better off using that time to do simpler videos (and for YouTubers, that usually means they’ll get a free copy anyway because the publisher just wants the exposure. As a matter of fact, videos with no judgment at all are more desirable for many publishers nowadays, hence the success of “influencers” that just play games) or write other harder-hitting and less effort-intensive articles. With the returns of those within that same time frame, you could buy the product several times over.
Are you?
Most of the “issues” and complaints about the twin otter are issues with reading the manual and not trying to take time to learn how to handle a new bird.
Yes I know what I’m doing otherwise I wouldn’t be able to spot their errors.
The old aerosoft read the manual is a classic, the manual is terrible for this aircraft. It is copied and pasted from previous versions of this aircraft in other sims where things actually worked.
There are some bugs but no need to exaggerate.
yeah…okay, have fun with being angry, disappointed, and so on…
That´s rather difficult. Imagine a YouTuber being absolutely biased because he got some free game or download content and is praising this stuff - but what you see is not of your liking the graphics is bad the sound is bad, and the gameplay (or in a simulator the flight dynamics and system depth) is even worse.
Imagine the YouTuber saying “how awesome is that, maybe the visuals are a little rugged on the edges, it flies absolute lovely, amazing how these cockpit switches are all animated even if 90% of them are inop but the immersion is absolutely there, and look there are even seats in the cockpit and ehm everything is so absolutely awesome” and blah blah blah for 25 minutes.
But showcased is the newest hypothetical Bredok3D 777 release with FSX visuals and blurred 128x128 pixel textures on most parts of the cockpit, flat everything (no 3D modeled nuts and bolts, low resolution instruments, low polygon objects everywhere, a hexagonal-shaped fire extinguisher in the corner that should be round but isn´t because it was made of estimated 10 polygons like it was programmed with the newest Unreal Engine from the year 1999, labelled with a not readable blurry pixel mass because a blurry 128x128 texture is used like on the other 50% of all airplane parts, and so on) - would you still buy it?
I don´t think so
Even if a YouTuber is absolutely lying into the microphone for half an hour you still see what you would get after the purchase…
That´s why even the most biased YouTuber can be fully trusted because the visuals cannot lie.
All this is very simple. One just has to review the reviewers.
If you don’t like how they do reviews, they said something was great and you hate it, watch another review. One that flies the way you do, likes the same depth of features as you do etc
That’s the PC-6, not the Twin Otter?
I’ve had a few runaway autopilots on GPS-NAV yesterday. And yes the sounds aren’t the greatest. It even ignites before adding fuel.
Earlier a post was made about staying on-topic and to avoid postings aimed at others. Too many flags are being received.
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/very-disappointed-in-the-aerosoft-twin-otter/491394/58
OOPS - was not wide awake yesterday when I did that test … YES – wrong plane.!!
But the Outbound FROM a VOR test I did later was the Correct Plane (Twin Otter), and clearly indicated the issue with the Nav 1 HSI, and hence the coupled AP.
Put NO reliance on any YouTube reviewers. Most all of them are paid reviewers.
They are either given the product for free or are paid to review it.
YouTube has become just a garbage pit of this stuff. Paid content creators are all so full of BS and themselves.
It is difficult to find an honest reviewer that can state at the beginning of a Video they are not paid in some manner.
Now days even most all of the live streamers doing flight sim stuff are being paid, free hardware,software, and also looking for viewers to “tip” them. Hilariously outrageous!
The are all “jack of all” master of none!
That said the Twin Otter is exactly as one should expect for a game not a simulator. It works and flies as expected. People picking the sound apart is kind of trivial. Is it perfect I can’t say, does it sound acceptable for the most part…Yes!