Found this when starting the FSLabs Control Center...

[Will Fibich]

The tease is real. Looks amazing!

[Steve Prowse]

Nice I must say but can't wait to see her in a modern Flight simulator, MSFS she really deserves it; doesn't she? 

[Will Fibich]

15 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

Nice I must say but can't wait to see her in a modern Flight simulator, MSFS she really deserves it; doesn't she? 

I'm fine with either simulator honestly, what I can't wait for is to hear from the team soon... been a bit quiet 

[Milton Kuser]

Looks pretty darn good to me!

[Steve Prowse]

15 minutes ago, Milton Kuser said:

Looks pretty darn good to me!

It does look good Milton, but it would look much better in MSFS that's all I'm saying.  If other developers are to believed then P3D is no longer an option for them; so should we be considering, at the very least, the possibilities of having this Concorde in MSFS at sometime in the future? 

[Ray Proudfoot]

2 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

It does look good Milton, but it would look much better in MSFS that's all I'm saying.  If other developers are to believed then P3D is no longer an option for them; so should we be considering, at the very least, the possibilities of having this Concorde in MSFS at sometime in the future? 

There is a Concorde being developed for MSFS. It looks to be a serious competitor with an asking price affordable by most. The developer is interacting with interested parties. I’ll say no more.

[Andrew Wilson]

It’s being produced for Xbox, Ray – quite a different target audience, I would think. I don’t imagine many users will be performing a reverse air shut off check with their Xbox controllers 

[Ray Proudfoot]

44 minutes ago, Andrew Wilson said:

It’s being produced for Xbox, Ray – quite a different target audience, I would think. I don’t imagine many users will be performing a reverse air shut off check with their Xbox controllers 

The programmers seem to have cracked moving fuel around the tanks which has gone down well. An impressive achievement given the plan was to keep it a more simplified offering.

I’m not sure how many of your existing Concorde owners would know how to perform that check. Was it covered on the ITVV DVD? It sounds very impressive Andrew but how many of us would want that degree of complexity? Not something that was modelled in the FSX version I assume. If it wasn’t there how many of us would notice?

And of course it’s for a different simulator. I know you’re keeping an eye on the rival sim. My preference remains P3D for serious flying. Others may have a different opinion.

[Steve Prowse]

10 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

It’s being produced for Xbox,

It's being sold for MSFS, if it is the one I'm reading about, oh and just how many of your users Andrew use X box?  I'm sure more and more flight sim sticks and yokes etc are being made now that are X box compatible, so I guess you should be able to try on your X box Andrew

 

9 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’m not sure how many of your existing Concorde owners would know how to perform that check

I think it is part of the Taxi checklist....reverse ASOV'S, might be wrong though, non serious flight simmer here of more than 20 years at the stick!

Here it is Ray for those that have never checked it:

REVERSE ASOV’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHECKED/18-24 DEG/NORM . . . . . . . .Aft Leg/Nozzle Override
• Set all 4 throttles to idle.
• Set 27° Security Switches to Test PIDU. . . Nozzle Override Panel
o Observe associated Blue Warning Lts ON
• Set both NOZ AIR SOV & WIND DOWN test sels. direct to E
• Observe
o all 4 Reverse lts. flashing
o all 4 Wind Down lts. on. ... Engine Control Panel (CTRL+SHIFT+2)
NOTE: N2s may increase or decrease slightly.
• Set throttle levers to-mid travel
o Observe N2 do not increase by more than 6%
• Set throttle levers to idle.
• Select reverse idle on all 4 engines
o Observe:
o buckets rotate to between 27° and 37° then stop . . Engine Control Panel (CTRL+SHIFT+2)
▪ Wind Down lts. extinguish . . . Engine Control Panel (CTRL+SHIFT+2)
▪ Reverse lts. continue to flash
▪ N2 increases to reverse idle
• Cancel reverse by maintaining a steady downward pressure on the reverse levers. The forward baulk will remain engaged until the following action is take-:
• Rotate both test sels. through D to OFF and check,
o buckets return to between 18° and 24°
o 27° Security Switches NORM . . . Nozzle Override Panel
o Associated Blue Warning Lts OFF
o N2 at idle
NOTE: Position D opens the electrical latch circuit on the ASOVs thus permitting them to re-open.
• Set 27° Security Switches to Test NTRC and repeat the process. . . Nozzle Override Panel

[Ray Proudfoot]

Steve, I’ve never performed that check. There has to be a balance between checks and completing your flight. Remember too there were three people to share that workload in the real aircraft. In the sim it’s just you.

When you have a ‘serious’ P3D Concorde user considering buying the DCS version then he may not be alone. I’m not because it’s the platform I have fundamental problems with namely no historical weather and forced updates.

[Andrew Wilson]

2 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

It's being sold for MSFS, if it is the one I'm reading about, oh and just how many of your users Andrew use X box? 

None of our titles support XBox Steve - and that's not our target audience. Our customer base is formed primarily of users who seek high-fidelity and immersion - and use our titles knowing that systems are faithfully and accurately represented. The success of our Airbus series is primarily because it continues to generate entertainment for our customers for months, even years after their initial purchase - and that is partly due to the level of immersion and complexity it offers; no two flights are the same, so the product continues to deliver. 

31 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

When you have a ‘serious’ P3D Concorde user considering buying the DCS version then he may not be alone.

Actually we are anticipating the DC Designs title to compliment our work in the market. We've seen this with our Airbus series - these 'more accessible' titles attract new customers into the community and a subset will then seek out more complexity and immersion. I welcome any interest they can generate for Concorde and wish them success with their release.

41 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Steve, I’ve never performed that check. There has to be a balance between checks and completing your flight. Remember too there were three people to share that workload in the real aircraft. In the sim it’s just you.

I couldn't agree more with this statement Ray - and it is why Concorde enthusiasts are going to really enjoy flying our new title, which offers a true to life Concorde immersive experience from the captains seat (including the ASOV check ).

Best get back to it...

[Steve Prowse]

Andrew, I meant X box in general... I mean heaven forbid FSL supporting X box..eh  .

Anyway

22 minutes ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Actually we are anticipating the DC Designs title to compliment our work in the market. We've seen this with our Airbus series

Well  the problem with this is your not in the same market, in this case FSL produce aircraft etc for P3D. DCS produce add-ons for MSFS in this case.  Consider this, if a person wanted to upgrade to your Concorde version then that would involve buying the aircraft plus a new flight simulator ie P3D.  Can't see it happening.  Very expensive idea, don't you think?  Anyway I'm plodding on with Concorde for FSX even after all these years Andrew I still love it, even though it would seem I've been using a toy, if you get my meaning....take care all the best 

[Andrew Wilson]

16 minutes ago, Steve Prowse said:

Anyway I'm plodding on with Concorde for FSX even after all these years Andrew I still love it, even though it would seem I've been using a toy, if you get my meaning

I do 

I was crossing the pond the other evening on VATSIM and chatting to another Concorde pilot on the network - he was using SSTSIM in FS9! Very touching to hear people are still enjoying that software so many years down the line - and as I said in my reply earlier this morning, it's no bad thing that there is still so much interest for Concorde. I really hope we'll see customers enjoying our next iteration for years to come. 

[Steve Prowse]

21 minutes ago, Andrew Wilson said:

he was using SSTSIM in FS9

Yes it was/is a fine version Andrew a credit to you, and thanks for all your work in producing outstanding sim versions of an out standing aircraft Concorde.  We all thank you. I must tell you (getting old here best tell you now before I forget) I've had endless hours of enjoyment flying your Concorde

 

[Ray Proudfoot]

2 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Actually we are anticipating the DC Designs title to compliment our work in the market. We've seen this with our Airbus series - these 'more accessible' titles attract new customers into the community and a subset will then seek out more complexity and immersion. I welcome any interest they can generate for Concorde and wish them success with their release.

I couldn't agree more with this statement Ray - and it is why Concorde enthusiasts are going to really enjoy flying our new title, which offers a true to life Concorde immersive experience from the captains seat (including the ASOV check ).

Best get back to it...

Hi Andrew, I've no doubt the DCD Concorde will do well in MSFS for those who have moved from P3D. But I wonder how many might decide that whilst it delivers part of what they want they reinstall or buy P3Dv5 and buy your version for the complete experience. Not many I suspect. But that brings me onto my main concern.

P3Dv1 lasted 3 years before being replaced by v2 in Nov 2013. v3 arrived in Sept 2015 with v4 arriving May 2017. Finally v5 arrived in April 2020.

That's a time span of 3 years; 1.8 years; 1.6 years and 2.9 years. Assuming v6 arrives around Spring 2023 that's just 12 months away and still no sign of your Concorde being released. Even if it was released in 3 months that leaves less than a year before a new P3D arrives.

Now given your main income comes from the Airbus fleet the conversion of those to v6 compatibility would have to take priority. Would you then make Concorde compatible for v6 and if so how long would it take? You can't answer that and I wouldn't expect you to since there are too many unknowns.

I suppose what I'm trying to say this Concorde could be released into a very small window before v6 arrives. So the sooner you make it available the better your sales will be. After all, who will buy Concorde for a obsolete version of P3D? Hence why you've abandoned compatibility for v4.

[Andrew Wilson]

Hi Ray,

We have invested into this new Concorde title for the foreseeable future. Much of the work has been centered around bringing the code base inline with our Airbus series - which now puts us in a position to continue to support the title going forward.

If you've followed our Airbus series over the years, you'll have seen that we've supported the various iterations of P3D throughout the life cycle of the A320-X. 

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Andrew, I’ve never bought the Airbus preferring the Boeing. Two reasons really. I prefer to use a yoke over a joystick and I never liked the look of the Airbus virtual cockpit. Nothing against FSL. This goes back to before FSL existed.

The shared code concept is encouraging but would you support multiple versions of Concorde in P3D or just the latest one? Does support for Airbus users running v4 still exist?

[Will Fibich]

4 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

I do 

I was crossing the pond the other evening on VATSIM and chatting to another Concorde pilot on the network - he was using SSTSIM in FS9! Very touching to hear people are still enjoying that software so many years down the line - and as I said in my reply earlier this morning, it's no bad thing that there is still so much interest for Concorde. I really hope we'll see customers enjoying our next iteration for years to come. 

I can attest to that, I used v3 all the time for the Concorde for a few years. It being outdated didn't mean much to me. I've just recently uninstalled Prepar3D in preparation for release (imminent?- I'm not sure, I may have made a mistake in that I could start missing my old Concorde after a while). v5 is all geared up and ready to go. It was tough saying goodbye to my old Concorde X and v3 after it supplied me with 2 years of fun, but I'm hoping to put v5 to good use soon!

[Will Fibich]

Some more I found...

[Milton Kuser]

I'll be flying it no matter the simulator.  (And yes, I always did my ASOV checks! ) While I have MSFS installed, I haven't spent a lot of time in it due to the lack of sophisticated aircraft.  As they start to come online, I expect to be spending more time in it, but I do miss the Concorde.  I am more than ready for it in P3D, regardless of the version!  From what little the team has released, it looks like it is going to be amazing. 

Something tells me the SDK is still a ways off from rising to the level needed to do an aircraft like the Concorde.  Therefore, I am more than happy it will be coming to P3D as soon as it is ready, versus waiting for who knows how much longer for FSL to get the SDK they need and to learn all the programming quirks of MSFS.  Other developers have made it clear that it has been a long process for them so far in their efforts to program for MSFS. 

As far as the other developers working on a Concorde, they may look pretty, but the lack of systems would drive me nuts having learned to fly that aircraft to the level the FSL FSX/P3D3 version has allowed us to do.  And I'm sure given a little bit of time, FSL will start to have their products in MSFS too.  

[Steve Prowse]

3 hours ago, Milton Kuser said:

From what little the team has released, it looks like it is going to be amazing. 

It always has been amazing Milton; it is a miracle of an Aircraft..now and for always, no doubt in it.  The longer we can all keep her alive in the sim market and in the memories of new and old sim pilots the better.  The FSL FSX version is, and continues to be, excellent.  I've no reason,  whatsoever, to think the new version will be anything other than excellent.  I'm sure all those that purchase it will be delighted with it.

[Martin Richards]

Those screenshots really are stunning, my favourite P3D aircraft (that I own) in regards to externals remains the Leonardo Maddog MD80, but I reckon I may well have a new favourite after this releases...

[Will Fibich]

Re: news post from yesterday. Glad we'll be getting some previews soon! Anticipation is definitely building..

[Fabrice Estienne]

On 3/7/2022 at 2:21 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Hi Andrew, I’ve never bought the Airbus preferring the Boeing. Two reasons really. I prefer to use a yoke over a joystick and I never liked the look of the Airbus virtual cockpit. Nothing against FSL. This goes back to before FSL existed.

Hi Ray,

As for me, I’m a supporter of piloting with the sidestick.

But my main complaint to Airbus is that the pilots’ commands are not combined. In other words the sidesticks on Airbus aircraft are not interconnected nor they move in response to flights control deflection induced by the autopilot.

The captain and first officer inputs are algebraically summed and the maximum resulting input is limited to a full deflection input of a single sidestick.

It’s computing, even better this feature is nonsensical about piloting, this is my personal opinion, but many others have the same stance. At the beginning of the A320, Airbus was asked to provide the pilots’ flight controls interconnected. As the only answer was “we do not because it weighs 24 kg more”.

Boeing made another choice. The conventional control wheels, columns and rudder pedals are connected through a jam override mechanisms like what is done on Concorde. Moreover, always as on Concorde, Boeing features control feel and pitch responses to speed and trim change. Which just shows one can FBW and piloting worthy of the name.

The logic of sidestick priority works fine in normal situation when the airline pilots are required to pass efficiency checks in a simulator. In case of dual input performed by both pilots, the pilot flying (PF) can deactivate the pilot not flying (PNF) sidestick by pressing the priority takeover pushbutton. Then if the sidestick is pressed for more than 40 seconds (lowered to 30 seconds as regards A330, A380 and A350), the priority is latched and the other sidestick is maintained deactivated. At any time, a deactivated sidestick can be reactivated by momentarily pressing the sidestick pushbutton.

In critical situations, with the feeling of imminent death, as in the Rio-Paris flight, the dual input is almost certain, it happened, and the ‘Dual Input’ aural message is not heard in these circumstances. What else can be said, this is a significant plane crash factor. It’s unfortunately what happened.

Fabrice

[Ray Proudfoot]

7 hours ago, Fabrice Estienne said:

But my main complaint to Airbus is that the pilots’ commands are not combined. In other words the sidesticks on Airbus aircraft are not interconnected nor they move in response to flights control deflection induced by the autopilot.

 

7 hours ago, Fabrice Estienne said:

In critical situations, with the feeling of imminent death, as in the Rio-Paris flight, the dual input is almost certain, it happened, and the ‘Dual Input’ aural message is not heard in these circumstances. What else can be said, this is a significant plane crash factor. It’s unfortunately what happened.

Hello Fabrice. As I understand it each pilot was not aware what the other was doing so they were effectively fighting each other’s inputs.

That’s down to the sidestick being to the side of each pilot and probably difficult for each to see what the other is doing. Plus it was dark making it especially difficult.

I’m not sure the same would have happened with a yoke-based system. The yokes are interconnected and both move in unison. The aircraft may have been saved with a yoke-based system.

Each to their own and I’m sure safety improvements will have been made since the accident.

[Duncan MacKellar]

At risk of derailing this thread even further, BAEs Active Side Stick system closes those gaps found in a conventional side stick arrangement. Having used it extensively whilst in Savannah, it really is an awesome bit of kit. 

[Peng Jia]

DC's Concorde has been released, far from study-level, 20 days have passed ,where is our preview？ I don't speek english , but I doubt if there's a mistake in the interpretation of the word "soon" in the english dictionary.

[AdrianSmith]

I note from the comments on the DC Concorde for MSFS " fully functional Flight Management Computer"

REALLY, when did Concorde get one of those.

I know they were working towards one when she was retired but no Concorde ever flew with an FMC!

[Ray Proudfoot]

8 minutes ago, AdrianSmith said:

I note from the comments on the DC Concorde for MSFS " fully functional Flight Management Computer"

REALLY, when did Concorde get one of those.

I know they were working towards one when she was retired but no Concorde ever flew with an FMC!

MSFS SDK does not cater for lat / lon so to get around that the developer has used a GPS-based system. Rudimentary but it works.

For 28GBP it’s a bargain. Prepare to wince when you see the price of FSL’s version for P3D v5. Or maybe v6 will arrive first and delay the release even further.

[Andrew Wilson]

1 hour ago, Peng Jia said:

DC's Concorde has been released, far from study-level, 20 days have passed ,where is our preview？ I don't speek english , but I doubt if there's a mistake in the interpretation of the word "soon" in the english dictionary.

We still have some work to do before we are ready to show off some details - and we're certainly not going to react to their release by releasing our own previews. 

@AdrianSmith - You're quite right, there were plans to do something with the avionics, but the IV-AC units had a few years left in them. They did the job. 

[Andrew Wilson]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For 28GBP it’s a bargain. Prepare to wince when you see the price of FSL’s version for P3D v5.

I disagree Ray. For what you're going to get in the FSL version, it makes the 'other' one look expensive. 

[Ray Proudfoot]

1 minute ago, Andrew Wilson said:

I disagree Ray. For what you're going to get in the FSL version, it makes the 'other' one look expensive. 

I’ll have to take your word on that Andrew since it’s impossible to judge without seeing screenshots or preferably, a video.

I don’t suppose you can tell us when that’s likely to happen can you? I’m sure Hadrian built his wall quicker than this is taking.

[Michael Penson]

6 hours ago, AdrianSmith said:

I note from the comments on the DC Concorde for MSFS " fully functional Flight Management Computer"

REALLY, when did Concorde get one of those.

I know they were working towards one when she was retired but no Concorde ever flew with an FMC!

Ive spoken to the Developer via FB messenger a couple of times and he told me the audience they are geared towards wont want an INS. 
He did not rule out the possibility of doing one in the future, but that would take a lot more development time.

[Craig Baillie]

11 minutes ago, Michael Penson said:

Ive spoken to the Developer via FB messenger a couple of times and he told me the audience they are geared towards wont want an INS. 
He did not rule out the possibility of doing one in the future, but that would take a lot more development time.

In the documentation they state that as they can’t code an INS that would work for the Xbox, due to MSFS limitations, they’re not coding one at all and if that changes they “intend” to create the INS experience.

 

By then I hope I’ll be blissfully happy flying the FSL about.

[Michael Penson]

Then that has changed since I spoke to him back in January.

[Will Fibich]

8 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

We still have some work to do before we are ready to show off some details - and we're certainly not going to react to their release by releasing our own previews. 

20 days sure has felt like forever . Very glad we got a news update earlier this month. 

Also, happy (nearly) April, everyone. Can't wait to see some Concorde previews in the coming months (and some Spring weather!!)

[Fraser Gale]

In my experience, you usually get what you pay for in life.  
 

Add patience is a virtue to that and I’m sure all will be well…

[Andrew Wilson]

On an engineering test flight I'm running, the current calculated supersonic profile is 56,856ft, and this is what the captains altimeter is currently showing 

Four feet out. This is the level of precision you can expect from the new title. No guess work - it sits precisely on the real world performance data.

[Martin Tornberg]

Can we get the option to have a GPS retrofitted, I don’t like those INSs?

[Fabrice Estienne]

1 hour ago, Andrew Wilson said:

On an engineering test flight I'm running, the current calculated supersonic profile is 56,856ft, and this is what the captains altimeter is currently showing 

Four feet out. This is the level of precision you can expect from the new title. No guess work - it sits precisely on the real world performance data.

OK, but at what mass, at what temperature ?

Fabrice

[Fabrice Estienne]

28 minutes ago, Martin Tornberg said:

Can we get the option to have a GPS retrofitted, I don’t like those INSs?

The INS is the charm of the planes of that time.

It's not a strap-system (IRS) but already provided the dead reckoning with the reset on the DMEs.

It was the must at that time.

Fabrice

[John Barnes]

3 hours ago, Martin Tornberg said:

Can we get the option to have a GPS retrofitted, I don’t like those INSs?

Sacked.

[Will Fibich]

5 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

On an engineering test flight I'm running, the current calculated supersonic profile is 56,856ft, and this is what the captains altimeter is currently showing 

Four feet out. This is the level of precision you can expect from the new title. No guess work - it sits precisely on the real world performance data.

Really amazing work. Is that calculated profile altitude something that is done by the performance calculator you will provide, and goes along with the release documentation for a flight? Or is that based on manuals?

[Andrew Wilson]

Hi Will,
Yes - the aircraft performance module is its own entity and our flight model, planning system and calculation utilities all reference the same mechanism. Much like we did for our Airbus titles. What this then allows us to do, is not only have our flight performance model operate to the exact specifications that the real one did for any given weight/temperature - but also develop a Concorde planning system that is able to calculate the entire flight profile to great precision. At any given point along your route - the system knows everything about the aircraft. If the fuel plan states you’ll end your super cruise at 57,800ft - that is where you’ll see your flight end up at decel.

There’s no more guess work. The 30-page flight briefing presented to you before flight contains everything required to pilot any given route - in addition to all the utilities that the real crews used for a whole range of calculations.

The whole lot is fed into our new virtual crew system and your Concorde experience then begins. It draws very few comparisons to Concorde-X.

[Will Fibich]

3 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Hi Will,
Yes - the aircraft performance module is its own entity and our flight model, planning system and calculation utilities all reference the same mechanism. Much like we did for our Airbus titles. What this then allows us to do, is not only have our flight performance model operate to the exact specifications that the real one did for any given weight/temperature - but also develop a Concorde planning system that is able to calculate the entire flight profile to great precision. At any given point along your route - the system knows everything about the aircraft. If the fuel plan states you’ll end your super cruise at 57,800ft - that is where you’ll see your flight end up at decel.

There’s no more guess work. The 30-page flight briefing presented to you before flight contains everything required to pilot any given route - in addition to all the utilities that the real crews used for a whole range of calculations.

The whole lot is fed into our new virtual crew system and your Concorde experience then begins. It draws very few comparisons to Concorde-X.

Wow, Andrew. You guys really hit the nail on the head with this. Absolutely amazing stuff. Really looking forward to trying out the planner!

A few questions, if you can answer;

1. Does the calculator give you an accel and decel point, regardless of route? Like, if I wanted to fly from Anchorage to LA supersonic, would it take into account the water/land areas based on the route and generate accel/decel points for it? Or is that info only for the real world routes? And I think you may have answered this and I just forgot, but will these calculations and plans be available for any route you want to do?

2. Do you have any pictures/references of the real world flight releases crews were given on flights? Would love to see what they looked like (if that kind of stuff isn't proprietary or anything)

Thank you for all your insight again!