Black Box Twin Pioneer for MSFS released.

[Paul K]

A much-loved aircraft here at CBFS, and newly released for MSFS2024:

https://www.blackboxsimulation.com/2024 ... duct-home/

[Bridon Bear]

That was a surprise...there used to be a couple of these 'Twin Pins' based at our local airport Staverton (EGBJ) now named Gloucester in the early seventies. The company was called Flight One and they used these aircraft for aerial photography. A common sight over our house at the time.

[TSR2]

I’m looking forward to trying this out. I do like the Blackbox stuff as a general rule. Remember the twin pin at Coventry and theres a lovely one up at the Museum of Flight at East Fortune in Scotland.

[Paul K]

Early reports indicate the cockpit textures aren't up to much, but being non-marketplace, repainters have access.

[Airspeed]

I was intrigued at the depiction of aerodynamics; so many directions of force, it's amazing how they fly.
Obviously the strongest win out, but it's like I felt when I heard that internal combustion engines are generally only about 25% efficient.

[Tomliner]

If I had FS2024 I’d probably buy this as a reminder of a flight I had in the one then owned byAir Atlantique’s Classic fleet at Coventry. The flight was a trip to Duxford in 2005 for the airshow celebrating the 60th anniversary of the end of WW2 in Europe.
It was quite a windy day and before boarding for the return flight to Coventry I asked the captain Stewart(can’t recall his surname)
about the crosswind limits of the Twinpin. I can’t recall the exact figures but the speed and direction made for a much slower return, unsurprisingly, and were also right on the limits for landing. The crabbed approach was quite spectacular. All said,it was a brilliant day out.EricT

[spatialpro]

Early reports indicate the cockpit textures aren't up to much, but being non-marketplace, repainters have access.

Textures being sub-standard for today's payware is one thing, but sub-standard UV mapping is another entirely, and something re-painters sadly have no control over. It seems to me it comes down to how much is an individual is willing to sacrifice to fly a relatively obscure aircraft they probably won't get elsewhere, or at least not for a long time.

[Tako_Kichi]

As a freeware developer I can tell you that bad UVW mapping is just laziness on the part of the modeller! There is simply no excuse for it and it can completely stop any hope of repaints for an aircraft. I ALWAYS made sure that every single piece (no matter how small or how complex) had it's own spot on the texture map so that a re-painter could access it easily. 'Stacked' parts on top of each other or 'mirrored' sections are just needless. The other thing that grinds my gears is when you have say a fuselage for a large aircraft that is split into three (or more) texture sheets and two of the sheets are at a 1:1 scale and the third is at a scale of 1.05682:1 (often in one direction but not both!) for no reason other than the modeller accidentally 'stretched' the map through negligence when placing it in the layer in Photoshop or similar! It has happened to me but I always corrected it once it was discovered!