Jump to content
Ramón Cutanda

Concorde-X is not even mentioned in the last roadmap

Recommended Posts

Ramón Cutanda

Not even "Concorde-X is at the very bottom of our to-do list but we will get to it and update her eventually... one day." What we Concorde-X users only wish is to be able to fly Concorde-X AS IS, even with her current imperfections, but in a 64-bit platform where we could enjoy better sceneries at our landings and forget about OOM errors.

So sad...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/da/8c/21/da8c2163061be58d770f6f9af78258e8.png

I guess I am breaking zillions of FSLabs' rules with this post. Delete it, ban me, cancel my Concorde-X license... whatever. It's been such a blow...

Best of lucks with your Sharklets.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

Sad indeed. :(

A business is a business, I understand and respect it, its just that I always thought there was some passion lying somewhere deep in the roots with Concorde.

Well I for sure will keep my current "box" as is forever for Concorde as my "Concorde simulator" and whatever I upgrade to in the future it will be for newer stuff.

Pitty I'll have to spend those 1.000+ € because my favorite product has frozen in time. A portion of this amount would for sure go in buying a new ConcordeX if I did not have to upgrade to a new PC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale

This line right here:

"Those of you who have been with us since the FSX days know that we continuously update and improve on already released products for years after they first come out."

 

Hmmm.... Very disappointing.  And what's the point of upgrading to P3dv5 if the new Microsoft 2020 comes out and suddenly everyone wants to switch... I won't be buying any more Airbus 320 derivatives now, they are all the same from inside anyway and they all fly pretty much the same, hence crew cross-qualification.  I just want a Concorde that will fly without bugs for hours at a time without running out of VAS.  It shouldn't be too much to ask when other products from a manufacturer were ported over. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Weren’t they going to wait until MFS was released and then decide whether to develop for that or the latest 64-bit P3D version?

The only problem with that strategy is how do you know which is the more popular platform? And how long do you wait before making a decision?

I agree with Ramon. A 64-bit of the current version with no graphical enhancements would be more than acceptable as a medium stop-gap. Perhaps a final one.

Meanwhile over in the Airbus forum they’re now wanting yet another Airbus. An A330 this time. Where does it all end? Given a fair amount of work has already been done on Concorde how much more would it take to finish?

But with v5 now out and MFS looming I just cannot see when Andrew will give priority to Concorde given all the work required to make their Airbuses compatible with v4.5,  v5 and MFS.

I’ve been patient waiting for something but this latest announcement is a bitter pill to swallow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Vimal Anandharaman

Shame indeed :( 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Sebastien CARROUGEAUX
I am desperately waiting for a version of the Concorde in 64b ... really disappointed with this announcement ... FSLAB is the undisputed leader of the Concorde ... and it is no longer on sale ... I am P3dv4, and I due to re-install FSX to fly again on Concorde ... I feel abandoned ... :(
 
Regards,
 
Sebastien
 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Steve Prowse

Beyond words at this stage...everyone knows my opinion on the likelihood of a 64 bit Concorde.  So frankly guys there is absolutely no point in having the same old discussion on what FSL should or shouldn’t do, it just seems to delight them, particularly when they can slap us down, with thread locked you’re banned or generally trying to humiliate us.  
 

anyway please keep safe one and all 

 

all the best

steve

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Sebastien CARROUGEAUX

just in signature...

sig_concordeX.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Michael James

Gentlemen,

Apologies for lurking.  

We have been here before of course, and want the same thing. I share the commercial sympathies towards more popular airframes - but I’m also saddened at the thirst for a never ending stream of airbuses. As good as the software is - it’s still an airbus and not a fraction of special in the way Concorde is.

I still run v3 on standard everything, just for flying BOAC. I have just discovered a cockpit texture update package (I’m late to the party) and will run this bird until we get a successor. 

If you believe in cycles like I do - it might offer comfort to remember a lot of flight sim announcements are a surprise. There are a lot of dynamics in the industry and community and I remain hopeful of the right timing. Someday. 
 

Until then - thanks for what we have.

Yours hopefully !

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I remain mystified why sharklets are so sought after. Just sticky up things on the end of a wing. It seems there are no limits when it comes to improvements on the Airbus. Anything goes and every update further delays work on Concorde. Not an all bells and whistles version. Just what we have now in 64-bit so we can enjoy the far better scenery in P3D v4.

As Ronny Corbett said in a famous sketch... “I know my place.” The Airbus is Cleese and we, it seems, are Corbett. Oh, the irony.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale

And yet without one, nobody would have the others....................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Milton Kuser

I remember a time when FSL proudly announced that Concorde was their flagship product and would never be forgotten.  (This was back at the beginning of A320 times.)  While I completely understand the business model they have to deal with, and the fact they probably are still missing a lot of the details they need from a technical point of view on the new flight sim (mostly because they are still in flux themselves), I agree some sort of word of encouragement would be nice. 

Clearly the new sim will have to be released, a study of the market would have to be done, a decision made, and finally development would have to start or be resumed.  And given the large amount of time it takes to do the development for the features that Lefteris once discussed, I would expect a fair amount of time to pass before we got anything released.  And while that product would be amazing, it still appears to be a long way away.  

I agree it would be amazing to at least get a functional Concorde in P3Dv4 or v5, without any significant improvements to systems, panels, exterior models, no PBR, etc. just so we would be able to fly this amazing aircraft again.  I completed a major upgrade to my flight sim computer to take advantage of the new 64bit era of flight simming, and as of now I only have P3Dv4 installed.  The primary reason for me to reinstall FSX would be to fly this truly amazing aircraft again.  Flying it certainly made me a better pilot that I was!  However, flying 32 bit again feels like such a step backwards that I haven't done it yet.  

I feel confident that we Concrde simmers would happily pay for a major upgrade at a later time when all of the planned features would be implemented - regardless of which sim it was in.  But an intermediate release would allow the former flagship of this company to take to the skies once again for many people.  This aircraft is truly one of the most iconic machines to take to the skies, and I find it amazing that more people have gone to space than have flown this aircraft in real life.  This aircraft not only represents the beginning of FSL but placed them on the map, and it certainly deserves its place in the skies once again - even if it is in a simple compatibility update to the new sim instead of a major upgrade.  At the very least, some information about the future of the product is very much desired by me and many others.  So with all due respect, please let us know what if anything has changed regarding the future plans of the amazing product.  Thanks!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Peng Jia

They are just developing planes for the old-platform,they did not announce any news of the new model,A330 is not mentioned, so don’t be disappointed so early,I think all new models will appear in FS2020。

Share this post


Link to post
David Porrett
On 4/20/2020 at 4:17 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I remain mystified why sharklets are so sought after

Me too. It has been a source of amusement to see the fever it has caused, along with Sat Domes :huh:. I must be getting old.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Mirza Beg

We been waiting since 2017.. At least me,... I'm very frustrated and sad...!!!!!  I also agree  I don't get whats so special about airbuses!?? I own one from FSL btw, and it''s a very well made product but I don't get how its fun to fly.. It was boring to fly for me lol

Share this post


Link to post
Marcell Csendes

@Mirza Beg Airbus is actually special, so Boeing, don't get me wrong, I also waiting for Concorde X for V4 long time, but again, Airbus is also a popular one, the only thing I didn't like, the could have go with an A380 or at least an A350 for the second product from the Airbus line. I know it's a larger slice to model it and everything, but still would probably come with more sales.

About the Concorde-X probably way more sales, than they would imagine, as FSLabs has great quality, even if the pricing is a bit high (at least for me), it would still a top notch quality supersonic jet, that you will unlikely see from other creators, especially with more details.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Mirza Beg
11 minutes ago, Marcell Csendes said:

@Mirza Beg Airbus is actually special, so Boeing, don't get me wrong, I also waiting for Concorde X for V4 long time, but again, Airbus is also a popular one, the only thing I didn't like, the could have go with an A380 or at least an A350 for the second product from the Airbus line. I know it's a larger slice to model it and everything, but still would probably come with more sales.

About the Concorde-X probably way more sales, than they would imagine, as FSLabs has great quality, even if the pricing is a bit high (at least for me), it would still a top notch quality supersonic jet, that you will unlikely see from other creators, especially with more details.

 

Yeah, I'd love the A-380 but the rest of the airbuses are not needed.. I'll say A320 i understand... since it comparable to boeing 737 in size etc

Edited by Mirza Beg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I've often thought of running a poll on AvSim on Concorde and the reasons why people would or wouldn't buy it. For example, I've read many times people consider it a complicated aircraft to setup. I would say it's different, not complicated. When you look at how many systems are modelled in an Airbus can you honestly say that is simpler than setting Concorde up?

The INS has an auto option so just a couple of clicks and you can leave that alone. Fuel Management has the VFE so you can ignore that. And the remaining systems can also be handed over to 'virtual' crew. You as pilot need to create a flight plan which is the same for any aircraft and CPS-X will work out V speeds, engine settings and fuel load including balancing.

Of course it's different to fly but surprise surprise, it does have an AFCS and the basics of that are no more complicated than a Airbus autopilot. Just different. No LNAV or VNAV. Once you get your head around how it works it's a pretty easy system to handle.

Yes, you have to load a new set of waypoints on longer flights but that is just a few clicks of the mouse. It's not the systems that are complicated. Hand flying it is the biggest challenge but hardly impossible.

Given Concorde and an Airbus to someone with no prior knowledge of either and I bet they'll find Concorde easier to learn. And when it comes to beauty I've yet to see anyone say it isn't a beautiful aircraft. Could you really say the same about an Airbus?

The biggest drawbacks with the 32-bit version was the amount of VAS it consumed so the virtual cockpit had to be compromised and that was probably the biggest killer. Looks matter. People were forced to run at 1920*1080 which up to the last couple of years was the standard resolution anyway. Lots of people have UHD displays now. A 64-bit version could run at 3840*2160 and the virtual cockpit even on the existing version is fine. Sure it could do with better quality graphics but that could come with time. Once you remove the VAS problem people can enjoy Concorde with far better scenery in P3Dv4.

Remove the checks for registration in the existing installer and release it free of charge with no support. Just the forum where us would be happy to help. Many people still have P3D v3 or FSX and would be willing to try it for free. As a result when a new version is released your sales could be significantly higher. An hour or so of work and you could improve your sales of the next version significantly. Surely the effort is worth it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

I made this video a couple of years ago. I don't think I need to add anything else...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale

A couple of things from me and like everyone's posts on this subject, it is opinion mixed with conjecture and known facts. 

- a new version would sell if for the most modern, affordable and popular platform

- only yesterday I was watching a live stream when a current Boeing 737 captain was asked "if you could fly any aircraft type that you haven't already flown, from any period in time, what would it be?" His first answer was Concorde.  There are many real world pilots alone who would consider purchasing a detailed, complete version of the greatest airliner ever

- I don't believe it is a simple matter of porting the current version into 64bit without it being a significant amount of work, or I suspect it would have been done anyway. Unless anyone on here is a professional programmer with knowledge of writing complex addons with external programming as well as native can say differently? 

- there is no doubt that the current version in a 64bit platform would need some graphical updates and system re-models to be worthy of additional cost to the consumer

- the aircraft is more complex to learn than the Airbus, because the systems all run themselves in a 'bus so as long as you can import the flight plan, plug in the weights and speeds and flick the switches to start the engines, the rest is easy.  It is much harder to land well in my opinion because the fly by wire control laws are digital and not as elegant as those in Concorde

- the complexity could be ironed out by more automation options for those users who want that

- making the current version free I don't think would be worth while as (I would think) the majority of sim pilots have moved on from FSX and P3dv3 unless they have legacy addons like ours

- we need to keep in mind that we all want the same thing in the end, no matter how many different people think they know what the next steps should be, although I do think some mention of the future would be a good thing now

- there is a slight measure of art imitating life now, in that I once spoke to an engineer (who I didn't really take to because of this comment incidentally) who said Concorde was like the royal family: everyone looks at her, most admire her but nobody wants to pay for her

Every sim pilot has different wants and needs and if anything, the current situation in the world might well shift these aspects, nobody will know for some time.  I am a complete Concorde geek, who can't (even after all these years) get enough of her and want a 64 bit version more than anyone, but I do also understand that if a new version/update occurs, it will be the last and should be done well to serve as a lasting legacy to all the original designers and engineers, the likes of which I don't think we will ever see again. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
6 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

 I don't believe it is a simple matter of porting the current version into 64bit without it being a significant amount of work, or I suspect it would have been done anyway.

@Andrew Wilson has said a significant amount of work had already been done on the 64-bit version before everything stopped last June. That’s 10 months ago now and that was the last time there was an announcement about Concorde.

Another seems timely given how many here have asked politely. We know this forum is being read because the FSL team have said as much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Andrew Wilson has said a significant amount of work had already been done on the 64-bit version before everything stopped last June. That’s 10 months ago now and that was the last time there was an announcement about Concorde.

Another seems timely given how many here have asked politely. We know this forum is being read because the FSL team have said as much.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with my statement or not Ray....? 

Just because an amount of work had been done, doesn't mean it was half finished, part finished, nearly finished.... You back up my statement by saying this anyway, as I said it wasn't just a case of porting the current version over, which is what people have been asking for. 

When all said and done, if they don't want to say anything, there is no law saying they have to.  I agree that it would be nice to know whether I have to face up to the fact that at some point in the future, when my current setup gives up the ghost, I will no longer be able to fly Concorde or whether there is a hope for an update.  I think it would be better for PR to at least have said something like "as for Concorde fans, we haven't forgotten you but there is no progress to inform you of at the moment" but then even if FSL did that people would be moaning - me included, so what do you expect them to do.  

Of course they read their own forums, especially when you tag them in. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

@Fraser Gale I'm agreeing with you that it requires a significant maount of work to port to 64-bit. Of course we don't know how much. Only FSL know that so some clarity about that would be helpful. I don't see why they can't say x% has been done and y% remains. And whether that includes improved graphics or not would also be helpful.

Of course they don't have to say anything but good customer relations cost nothing.

It looks like MFS is getting closer to completion. FSL could certainly say whether they have access to the SDK and what the prospects are of all their aircraft porting into that sim and in what order and over what timescale. When I spoke to Andrew at Cosford he said the critical thing was whether the new sim could handle supersonic flight. Do they know if it does because if it doesn't then that means P3D v5 is the only option.

So, depending on how much info they have, a statement could be made.

As for your setup Windows 10 can handle P3D v3 and we know any graphics driver can be used as long as Spotlights isn't installed. You should be okay even if you need a new PC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Mirza Beg
11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Fraser Gale I'm agreeing with you that it requires a significant maount of work to port to 64-bit. Of course we don't know how much. Only FSL know that so some clarity about that would be helpful. I don't see why they can't say x% has been done and y% remains. And whether that includes improved graphics or not would also be helpful.

Of course they don't have to say anything but good customer relations cost nothing.

It looks like MFS is getting closer to completion. FSL could certainly say whether they have access to the SDK and what the prospects are of all their aircraft porting into that sim and in what order and over what timescale. When I spoke to Andrew at Cosford he said the critical thing was whether the new sim could handle supersonic flight. Do they know if it does because if it doesn't then that means P3D v5 is the only option.

So, depending on how much info they have, a statement could be made.

As for your setup Windows 10 can handle P3D v3 and we know any graphics driver can be used as long as Spotlights isn't installed. You should be okay even if you need a new PC.

facts..  I wish we could  just have a 64bit concorde it doesn't even need anything else fixed etc.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale
14 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Fraser Gale I'm agreeing with you that it requires a significant maount of work to port to 64-bit. Of course we don't know how much. Only FSL know that so some clarity about that would be helpful. I don't see why they can't say x% has been done and y% remains. And whether that includes improved graphics or not would also be helpful.

Of course they don't have to say anything but good customer relations cost nothing.

It looks like MFS is getting closer to completion. FSL could certainly say whether they have access to the SDK and what the prospects are of all their aircraft porting into that sim and in what order and over what timescale. When I spoke to Andrew at Cosford he said the critical thing was whether the new sim could handle supersonic flight. Do they know if it does because if it doesn't then that means P3D v5 is the only option.

So, depending on how much info they have, a statement could be made.

As for your setup Windows 10 can handle P3D v3 and we know any graphics driver can be used as long as Spotlights isn't installed. You should be okay even if you need a new PC.

The way they seem to be building FS2020 it is currently not fit for full IFR never mind supersonic flying, no idea about the dynamic laws.  I think from what I've seen on update videos, that any developer will have more work to do when it comes to aircraft, as dynamics are no longer "single point" but based on hundreds of points on a wing.  How much data each point needs I've no idea but getting that right for an ogival delta that nobody has flown for 17 years would be interesting...

When it comes to point on a timeline stuff that you return to regularly - that could be deemed commercially sensitive information, but more importantly, if there are more questions than answer regarding new platforms, the Microsoft one not being complete and by the sounds of it won't be even on initial release, they maybe don't know how much work it would take to convert, regardless of how much has already been done...!  Saying how much had been done is pointless because it might need to be done again...

As for my setup, if I need to upgrade my machine in the future I'm not going to all the hassle of reloading a legacy sim therefore no Concorde, although I'm at the stage I won't be buying any more Airbuses, therefore might just freeze my equipment in time.

At the end of the day, it would have been nice for it to have been at least mentioned as I said in a previous response, but ultimately the project is paused, meaning it's not being worked on as far as the public are to be concerned. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Michael James

It's not often I come to a forum and find myself agreeing with every post.

Ramon and Ray - your commitment to Concorde is enduring and highly respected in the community. Thank you for your efforts.

FSL have already done the market research on Concorde, and previously decided to commit to 64bit. It's a shame that effort is paused, however:

1. One hopes with the new FS2020 it will bring a massive market interest in aviation generally - which would extend to an appreciation of the greatest airliner in the history of time. This may well offer new opportunities for FSL, and Concorde. 

2. I've learned that everyone wants different things from their sim. I prefer hand-flying the right aircraft, and pushing my knowledge to the limits. I have a home cockpit adaptable to most aircraft, and fly standard liveries, as I fly it from the inside. Others might revel in entering in LAT/LONG to the INS, and following checklists to the T. And others might love airlines, and due to popularity - Airbuses are interesting to those who like to simulate airline operations. It's not so much about the flying for them - more about the liveries and the schedules. The plane is but a means to an end. Something to look realistic from the outside. Hence the sharklets I guess, and hence why they don't focus on Concorde - as no one flies it.

3. Concorde's flightdeck "looks" more daunting to the uninitiated, and it's no longer flown which put off some those into airline ops. Some are even disrespectful of the fact Concorde doesn't fly anymore - "so what relevance is that old plane to me? who cares... mmmm sharklets!" - type of attitude! I really hate this.

I've seen simming broaden its market appeal, as things have gotten prettier and more immersive. I'd love to see a return to the "glamour of flight", of which the Concorde stands for in every respect. The A320 is a brilliant plane. I fly it often (on the default livery ;) ) - but it lacks glamour, and has no heart.

My 4 year old son is a Concorde fanatic. He adores it and watches youtube videos for hours (yours included Ramon!)... I've taken him to Filton. He once got tearful as realised he'd never fly on it. "But why Daddy, look how fast and beautiful it is... "

How do you explain to a 4 year old that the "glamorous future of aviation" died 12 years before he was born?

I've rambled on but in Summary - yeah, please do what you can, when you can FSLABS. We're hoping that no news is good news, and would appreciate an update when you feel able.

Stay well all.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

It seems not all developers think Concorde is not profitable and should be stored forever at our computer's museums. It has just been announced that a new Concorde is being developed for P3Dv4.5 and v5 and MSFlight Simulator.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

@Ramón Cutanda, got a link please?

Share this post


Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

As this is a FSLab's forum, a commercial and not an open one, I would rather not link to other developers. I hope you will understand. Thanks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Understood. Doesn’t take much effort to find it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale

Well there is a gap in the market and wherever there is one, someone will try to fill it!

Share this post


Link to post
Vimal Anandharaman

Actually there are 2 devs for P3D atm. But in my honest opinion, don't think they will match with the current offering system wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Seth Goodwin

I’m just catching up on this thread now, but I find its initial premise a bit odd. If you actually read their roadmap it shouldn’t come as a surprise Concorde isn’t mentioned. Said roadmap is so narrowly focused on the near-term that it doesn’t even mention the simulator that would probably be the odds-on favorite for any further FSL Concorde development.

 

Nothing fundamentally has changed since Lefteris’ announcement a little under a year ago that we’re aware of publicly. The flight simulator market fundamentally changed with that announcement and everything that continues to come out from Asobo/Microsoft makes that platform look very promising for the future. I’m not going to begrudge them for shifting their strategies developmentally and or waiting to see how things shake out. I’d personally prefer to get the best quality Concorde in the best sim going forward. If that means waiting, so be it.

On 4/17/2020 at 4:17 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Weren’t they going to wait until MFS was released and then decide whether to develop for that or the latest 64-bit P3D version?

The only problem with that strategy is how do you know which is the more popular platform? And how long do you wait before making a decision?

Its not without its risks as today's developments show. That said, it still seems like a sensible strategy. If you look at the roadmap everything they're working on right now is essentially small incremental updates to products/projects that are already clearly largely developed. Objectively, that seems like a better strategy than throwing a bunch of time on something that may or not be able to be used going forward in a new simulator or worse yet developing a project to release in something that may flop.

Developers are already going to have a fairly good idea of what type of sales they do and can expect in P3D. If Microsoft is doing their job after FS2020 launches they'll be sharing data with developers about the potential reach of their platform. That should be enough to make fairly informed decisions quickly.

On 4/22/2020 at 5:20 AM, Fraser Gale said:

- I don't believe it is a simple matter of porting the current version into 64bit without it being a significant amount of work, or I suspect it would have been done anyway. Unless anyone on here is a professional programmer with knowledge of writing complex addons with external programming as well as native can say differently?

I agree with everything you posted Frazz especially this part. Common sense says if any port over had been easy it would've been done.

On 4/22/2020 at 11:25 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Andrew Wilson has said a significant amount of work had already been done on the 64-bit version before everything stopped last June. That’s 10 months ago now and that was the last time there was an announcement about Concorde.

Another seems timely given how many here have asked politely. We know this forum is being read because the FSL team have said as much.

Like Frazz said though, we have no idea what that actually means, nor are they under any obligation to tell us how far they thought they were. Beyond that, we know from what Asobo has released that there are a lot more parameters pertaining to flight dynamics for example... It isn't out of the question that there is a lot of "work" developers have done for previous sims that isn't going to carry over easily or at all.

On 4/22/2020 at 1:34 PM, Fraser Gale said:

When all said and done, if they don't want to say anything, there is no law saying they have to.  I agree that it would be nice to know whether I have to face up to the fact that at some point in the future, when my current setup gives up the ghost, I will no longer be able to fly Concorde or whether there is a hope for an update.  I think it would be better for PR to at least have said something like "as for Concorde fans, we haven't forgotten you but there is no progress to inform you of at the moment" but then even if FSL did that people would be moaning - me included, so what do you expect them to do. 

I fully agree again here. I hope if their developmental plans do change for some reason that they're forthcoming that a change has occurred. I don't feel like I'm owed any explanation as some do, but knowing not to have any hope would be appreciated. I also agree that any statement from them was likely bound to face some sort of criticism here. I'll choose to believe no news is okay news for right now.

On 4/22/2020 at 1:51 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

It looks like MFS is getting closer to completion. FSL could certainly say whether they have access to the SDK and what the prospects are of all their aircraft porting into that sim and in what order and over what timescale. When I spoke to Andrew at Cosford he said the critical thing was whether the new sim could handle supersonic flight. Do they know if it does because if it doesn't then that means P3D v5 is the only option..

I mean it is quite possible that they literally could not if they're bound by a NDA as the alpha testers are. Beyond that based on the updates it doesn't look like an SDK is finalized yet, not surprising for a program that is still in alpha. It remains quite possible to me that even developers with access to the alpha and the SDK won't fully know what development for the platform is going to entail. And your last sentence is a pretty good reason for them to wait on developing Concorde any further...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Seth Goodwin
17 hours ago, Ramón Cutanda said:

It seems not all developers think Concorde is not profitable and should be stored forever at our computer's museums. It has just been announced that a new Concorde is being developed for P3Dv4.5 and v5 and MSFlight Simulator.

This is potentially the worst news possible aside from FSLabs outright announcing that they'd not be going forward with a new Concorde... And as an aside, where have anyone from FSLabs ever said Concorde development is not profitable? They wouldn't have said they were going forward with development if they didn't think the survey results were promising enough to proceed.

Allocating limited resources towards projects you project are more profitable is basic business. I agree with others in this thread that I don't really have a desire to fly an A320 much less buying a stretched version on-top of that,  but it is pretty clear that a lot of people do for both current Airbus and Boeing planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale

I'm glad to see the links to the "other" Concorde development have been removed.  There are other forums for that kind of discussion. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Norman Blackburn
8 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

I'm glad to see the links to the "other" Concorde development have been removed.  There are other forums for that kind of discussion. 

Exactly right Fraser.  They serve no place here.  Imagine the reverse scenario where we or a supporter were to go to a different developers page and highlight our latest news.  Flight Simulation is a relatively small community.

Share this post


Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

It turns out that YET ANOTHER developer is reasonably close to release one more Concorde, this time for FSX, FSX:Steam, all versions of Prepar3D and the forthcoming FS2020. It has been announced that this particular one will have an engineer's panel,  but WILL NOT have the level of detail of FSLabs'.

I would find SO SAD having to swap FSLabs' model for a simpler one... :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

@Ramón Cutanda, if you’re thinking of the ones I am I don’t think they are remotely close to release. Just the exterior model and cutouts for the flight deck. Not a single gauge to be seen.

I’m still enjoying the 32-bit one and hoping for an announcement about FSL’s intentions. Keep positive. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale
5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Ramón Cutanda, if you’re thinking of the ones I am I don’t think they are remotely close to release. Just the exterior model and cutouts for the flight deck. Not a single gauge to be seen.

I’m still enjoying the 32-bit one and hoping for an announcement about FSL’s intentions. Keep positive. ;)

Time to release will depend on level of detail.  If they are purely eye-candy they might not take long at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

The SECOND one I just mentioned (as there are now TWO new Concordes on development) is, according to his developer, "in development for quite some time, as you can see by the images. It's well on its way to completion". I don't expect it to be ready within weeks; but maybe before the end of the year. That would be really "reasonable" for me.  Anyway, the ONLY reason why I mentioned these two projects is a way of "complaining" of the lack of announcements from FSLabs regarding the future update of Concorde-X and rebate the argument that "only Airbuses make money". Otherwise, not one but TWO developers would show interest in having Concorde in the air. And I find sad, really sad, that THE BEST AND MOST COMPLETE model is going to stay stuck in P3Dv3. That would not be that bad if it weren't for the too well known OOM issues,  but unfortunately, this limitations is a severe cut in the level of enjoyment when flying Concorde-X. Before P3Dv4 and the 64 bits environment that was a barrier for all kind of aircrafts and, well... there was nothing else that could be done. But now there is.

The level of detail of this new model is announced to be much simpler than Concorde-X. I will make use of the engineer's panel, but way off the complexity of FSLab's.

Anyway... This is going to be my very last comment on this topic and "whatever will be, will be."

Share this post


Link to post
Fraser Gale
31 minutes ago, Ramón Cutanda said:

The SECOND one I just mentioned (as there are now TWO new Concordes on development) is, according to his developer, "in development for quite some time, as you can see by the images. It's well on its way to completion". I don't expect it to be ready within weeks; but maybe before the end of the year. That would be really "reasonable" for me.  Anyway, the ONLY reason why I mentioned these two projects is a way of "complaining" of the lack of announcements from FSLabs regarding the future update of Concorde-X and rebate the argument that "only Airbuses make money". Otherwise, not one but TWO developers would show interest in having Concorde in the air. And I find sad, really sad, that THE BEST AND MOST COMPLETE model is going to stay stuck in P3Dv3. That would not be that bad if it weren't for the too well known OOM issues,  but unfortunately, this limitations is a severe cut in the level of enjoyment when flying Concorde-X. Before P3Dv4 and the 64 bits environment that was a barrier for all kind of aircrafts and, well... there was nothing else that could be done. But now there is.

The level of detail of this new model is announced to be much simpler than Concorde-X. I will make use of the engineer's panel, but way off the complexity of FSLab's.

Anyway... This is going to be my very last comment on this topic and "whatever will be, will be."

Let's just wait and see, I share your frustration but sometimes "good things come to those who wait..." Maybe with some competition in the frame, Concorde will be given a boost - this is one of the main reasons the real thing was a commercial flop from the manufacturer point of view.  Plus, there are only so many Airbus aircraft that can be modelled....:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
47 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

Time to release will depend on level of detail.  If they are purely eye-candy they might not take long at all. 

In which case no one who has the FSL Concorde will be the slightest bit interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

BBC1 Antique Roadshow from Bristol Aerospace Museum now. Fiona Bruce in AF interviewing Les Brodie. Plus Concorde items being examined.

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...