msfs concorde

[Paul Jepson]

Any news on this module coming to msfs 2020 & 2024 please?

[EricLin]

I am also waiting for news on Concorde, I thought Concorde would be released first before the A3XX series. It could be that Concorde sales were not as good as expected in P3D (due to the impact of the MSFS 2020 platform), and competitors exceeded expectations in the MSFS market, so the company decided to put more resources into the A3XX series

[Robert Sutherland]

30 minutes ago, EricLin said:

I am also waiting for news on Concorde, I thought Concorde would be released first before the A3XX series. It could be that Concorde sales were not as good as expected in P3D (due to the impact of the MSFS 2020 platform), and competitors exceeded expectations in the MSFS market, so the company decided to put more resources into the A3XX series

That's just supposition. It was (from everything I've read) always the plan for FSL to bring their Airbus product to MSFS first. They've said the Concorde will follow.

[Maury Aymeric]

On 12/11/2024 at 4:56 PM, Robert Sutherland said:

That's just supposition. It was (from everything I've read) always the plan for FSL to bring their Airbus product to MSFS first. They've said the Concorde will follow.

It's clear that releasing a Concorde add-on for Prepar3D (P3D) when the majority of the player base has shifted to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (FS2020) and its forthcoming version, FS2024, could be seen as a misstep. The community had been vocal about where the active users were, and ne Navigrph annual survey confirm it year after year...

[Norman Blackburn]

2 minutes ago, Maury Aymeric said:

It's clear that releasing a Concorde add-on for Prepar3D (P3D) when the majority of the player base has shifted to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (FS2020) and its forthcoming version, FS2024, could be seen as a misstep. The community had been vocal about where the active users were, and ne Navigrph annual survey confirm it year after year...

You perhaps also missed where we have said that Concorde, a very niche product, for us as a team is something of love.  It matters not what a survey - which to be fair is very loaded, says when it comes to Concorde that passion comes first. 

[Ray Proudfoot]

@Maury Aymeric, I see you’re a new poster. These complex aircraft cannot be knocked up in a few months you know. A 64-bit Concorde has taken several years to build for P3D. The MSFS one should take less time but you don’t start work until it’s clear which sim will be the popular one.

And as Norman has said it was a work of passion and the FSX Concorde was their flagship product. When you’re above 50,000ft over ocean I’m not sure any sim offers an advantage over the others.

[Peng Jia]

I bought airbus series products just to support concorde. I dont know how mant users are like me,  so the data  and surverys  I saw may not be true( The sales of airbus products is much greater than that of concorde,which means airbus  market is much larger than the concorde‘s)

[Maury Aymeric]

While I fully understand that Concorde is a niche product, it’s important to highlight that the player base for Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) is significantly larger now than it ever was during the P3D era. Yes, niche markets might not represent the majority, but the absolute number of players interested in such high-quality, iconic aircraft has undoubtedly grown with the expansion of the MSFS community.

The criticism about the Navigraph survey being biased or "loaded" doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The survey in question, conducted by Navigraph, is one of the most comprehensive and respected studies in the flight sim community, with over 25,000 respondents worldwide. It gathers data from a diverse pool of users across multiple platforms and regions, ensuring a balanced view of the community's preferences and trends. This isn’t some quick poll with leading questions—it’s a carefully constructed report that provides valuable insights. Dismissing it as "loaded" undermines the effort to understand what simmers truly want.

According to the survey:

• 78.4% of respondents primarily use MSFS, compared to just 12.8% for P3D. This demonstrates the overwhelming dominance of MSFS in the current market.
• Over 60% of MSFS users joined in the past 1–3 years, highlighting the platform's continuous growth and its ability to attract new simmers.
• Even if Concorde appeals to only 5% of MSFS users, that’s still a larger potential audience than the entire P3D player base combined.

This data clearly shows that MSFS has become the dominant platform for flight simulation, with a majority of users investing their time and resources there. This reflects where the community’s interests lie and underscores the missed opportunity in focusing development efforts exclusively on P3D, a platform with a dwindling user base.

Now, I fully appreciate the tremendous complexity of developing an aircraft like Concorde. Creating something so detailed and iconic takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and expertise. I don’t mind how long the development takes; I’d rather it be done right than rushed. However, out of respect for the community—especially those who have been waiting patiently for years—it would be good to have some solid updates.

Clear communication doesn’t just build excitement; it shows respect for the customers and fans who have supported FSLabs over the years. We’re not asking for impossible deadlines or guarantees—just an honest roadmap or progress update. This isn’t only about managing expectations but maintaining trust with your audience.

The Concorde community has been incredibly patient. We’ve waited years for substantial news and progress, and we’re not asking for miracles—just clear communication about when this legendary aircraft will finally take flight in the sim that most of us now call home. It’s time for FSLabs to recognise the shift in the community, respect the data, and deliver the experience that so many have been eagerly anticipating.

By embracing the numbers, respecting the data, and adapting to where the market is today, FSLabs can fulfil its promise to the Concorde community and succeed in bringing this iconic aircraft to the sim where it belongs. The passion is evident, but it needs to be channelled toward MSFS—the platform that represents the future of flight simulation.

 

To make myself clearer, I genuinely admire the commitment FSLabs has shown in taking on the monumental task of bringing Concorde to life, but I do think everyone is craving for news

Cheers all and HAPPY Xmas

[Maury Aymeric]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Maury Aymeric, I see you’re a new poster. These complex aircraft cannot be knocked up in a few months you know. A 64-bit Concorde has taken several years to build for P3D. The MSFS one should take less time but you don’t start work until it’s clear which sim will be the popular one.

And as Norman has said it was a work of passion and the FSX Concorde was their flagship product. When you’re above 50,000ft over ocean I’m not sure any sim offers an advantage over the others.

Hello Ray,

Long time reader and new poster :

• Joined

  April 30, 2015

[Ray Proudfoot]

31 minutes ago, Maury Aymeric said:

Hello Ray,

Long time reader and new poster :

• Joined

  April 30, 2015

AKA Lurker. 

[Maury Aymeric]

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

AKA Lurker. 

#1% rule

[Norman Blackburn]

39 minutes ago, Maury Aymeric said:

The criticism about the Navigraph survey being biased or "loaded" doesn’t hold up under scrutiny

Except it does.  If a survey has a question then it is loaded in either the way it is written, or the potential answers available.  For the record I'm a huge navigraph fan and have given them my hard earned cash evey single month from day 1.  I'm, just not a fan of surveys, no matter what their subject.   

[Jarga Mboge]

38 minutes ago, Maury Aymeric said:

While I fully understand that Concorde is a niche product, it’s important to highlight that the player base for Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) is significantly larger now than it ever was during the P3D era. Yes, niche markets might not represent the majority, but the absolute number of players interested in such high-quality, iconic aircraft has undoubtedly grown with the expansion of the MSFS community.

The criticism about the Navigraph survey being biased or "loaded" doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The survey in question, conducted by Navigraph, is one of the most comprehensive and respected studies in the flight sim community, with over 25,000 respondents worldwide. It gathers data from a diverse pool of users across multiple platforms and regions, ensuring a balanced view of the community's preferences and trends. This isn’t some quick poll with leading questions—it’s a carefully constructed report that provides valuable insights. Dismissing it as "loaded" undermines the effort to understand what simmers truly want.

According to the survey:

• 78.4% of respondents primarily use MSFS, compared to just 12.8% for P3D. This demonstrates the overwhelming dominance of MSFS in the current market.
• Over 60% of MSFS users joined in the past 1–3 years, highlighting the platform's continuous growth and its ability to attract new simmers.
• Even if Concorde appeals to only 5% of MSFS users, that’s still a larger potential audience than the entire P3D player base combined.

This data clearly shows that MSFS has become the dominant platform for flight simulation, with a majority of users investing their time and resources there. This reflects where the community’s interests lie and underscores the missed opportunity in focusing development efforts exclusively on P3D, a platform with a dwindling user base.

Now, I fully appreciate the tremendous complexity of developing an aircraft like Concorde. Creating something so detailed and iconic takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and expertise. I don’t mind how long the development takes; I’d rather it be done right than rushed. However, out of respect for the community—especially those who have been waiting patiently for years—it would be good to have some solid updates.

Clear communication doesn’t just build excitement; it shows respect for the customers and fans who have supported FSLabs over the years. We’re not asking for impossible deadlines or guarantees—just an honest roadmap or progress update. This isn’t only about managing expectations but maintaining trust with your audience.

The Concorde community has been incredibly patient. We’ve waited years for substantial news and progress, and we’re not asking for miracles—just clear communication about when this legendary aircraft will finally take flight in the sim that most of us now call home. It’s time for FSLabs to recognise the shift in the community, respect the data, and deliver the experience that so many have been eagerly anticipating.

By embracing the numbers, respecting the data, and adapting to where the market is today, FSLabs can fulfil its promise to the Concorde community and succeed in bringing this iconic aircraft to the sim where it belongs. The passion is evident, but it needs to be channelled toward MSFS—the platform that represents the future of flight simulation.

 

To make myself clearer, I genuinely admire the commitment FSLabs has shown in taking on the monumental task of bringing Concorde to life, but I do think everyone is craving for news

Cheers all and HAPPY Xmas

I completely agree with your sentiments. I think fslabs should communicate more with Thier loyal base . It's more respectful than just keep us hanging. 

To say I am frustrated with fslabs is an understatement. I like everyone else moved to msfs, but once fslabs released the Concorde , I recall lefteris posted a picture of Concorde for msfs , to me this implies that release shouldnt be too far away and he promised a discount. Based on this and being a loyal supporter of fslabs, I purchased Concorde to try it out and support fslabs. Since then , no news . This is partly reason I didn't purchase a321 msfs . I don't know where is company is going. Things are very unpredictable and am just fed up of being in the dark . Talking to customers is not a taboo ! 

Anyway my blood pressure is rising.

Merry Christmas to you all 

[Sabine Meier]

15 minutes ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Except it does.  If a survey has a question then it is loaded in either the way it is written, or the potential answers available.  For the record I'm a huge navigraph fan and have given them my hard earned cash evey single month from day 1.  I'm, just not a fan of surveys, no matter what their subject.   

The main criticism I have is that they have full control over the way questions are worded and presented.

[Maury Aymeric]

15 minutes ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Except it does.  If a survey has a question then it is loaded in either the way it is written, or the potential answers available.  For the record I'm a huge navigraph fan and have given them my hard earned cash evey single month from day 1.  I'm, just not a fan of surveys, no matter what their subject.   

I will stay on topic of the concorde and not go into a debate about surveys or surveys bias.  It's just the data we have now. (and some from steam)
 

[Jeffrey M. Gerbert]

I love the Airbus but do miss my Concorde. I will wait for it as I love the aircraft.

JeffG

[James Walker]

4 hours ago, Maury Aymeric said:

While I fully understand that Concorde is a niche product, it’s important to highlight that the player base for Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) is significantly larger now than it ever was during the P3D era. Yes, niche markets might not represent the majority, but the absolute number of players interested in such high-quality, iconic aircraft has undoubtedly grown with the expansion of the MSFS community.

The criticism about the Navigraph survey being biased or "loaded" doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The survey in question, conducted by Navigraph, is one of the most comprehensive and respected studies in the flight sim community, with over 25,000 respondents worldwide. It gathers data from a diverse pool of users across multiple platforms and regions, ensuring a balanced view of the community's preferences and trends. This isn’t some quick poll with leading questions—it’s a carefully constructed report that provides valuable insights. Dismissing it as "loaded" undermines the effort to understand what simmers truly want.

According to the survey:

• 78.4% of respondents primarily use MSFS, compared to just 12.8% for P3D. This demonstrates the overwhelming dominance of MSFS in the current market.
• Over 60% of MSFS users joined in the past 1–3 years, highlighting the platform's continuous growth and its ability to attract new simmers.
• Even if Concorde appeals to only 5% of MSFS users, that’s still a larger potential audience than the entire P3D player base combined.

This data clearly shows that MSFS has become the dominant platform for flight simulation, with a majority of users investing their time and resources there. This reflects where the community’s interests lie and underscores the missed opportunity in focusing development efforts exclusively on P3D, a platform with a dwindling user base.

Now, I fully appreciate the tremendous complexity of developing an aircraft like Concorde. Creating something so detailed and iconic takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and expertise. I don’t mind how long the development takes; I’d rather it be done right than rushed. However, out of respect for the community—especially those who have been waiting patiently for years—it would be good to have some solid updates.

Clear communication doesn’t just build excitement; it shows respect for the customers and fans who have supported FSLabs over the years. We’re not asking for impossible deadlines or guarantees—just an honest roadmap or progress update. This isn’t only about managing expectations but maintaining trust with your audience.

The Concorde community has been incredibly patient. We’ve waited years for substantial news and progress, and we’re not asking for miracles—just clear communication about when this legendary aircraft will finally take flight in the sim that most of us now call home. It’s time for FSLabs to recognise the shift in the community, respect the data, and deliver the experience that so many have been eagerly anticipating.

By embracing the numbers, respecting the data, and adapting to where the market is today, FSLabs can fulfil its promise to the Concorde community and succeed in bringing this iconic aircraft to the sim where it belongs. The passion is evident, but it needs to be channelled toward MSFS—the platform that represents the future of flight simulation.

 

To make myself clearer, I genuinely admire the commitment FSLabs has shown in taking on the monumental task of bringing Concorde to life, but I do think everyone is craving for news

Cheers all and HAPPY Xmas

I echo the sentiments here. Nobody is asking FSL to commit to a timeline. But expectations and showing some appreciation for loyal fans, many of whom have been loyal for well over a decade..

I admit I was surprised the A320 came first - it was inferred at the release time of Concorde for P3d5 that efforts were switched to Concorde for MSFS. responses for changes, bugs and others were given that it'll be fixed in the MSFS version.im not saying any definitive promise was made, but I think it's fair that he community saw what was being said and made certain assumptions. It certainly felt quite clear to me at the time that Concorde for MSFS was months away, rather than years.

All we ask for is some clarity. Yes I know FSL historically has been reluctant to share news, but the SIM community had changed over the last 15 years. Customers generally expect a level of transparency and open dialogue with developers - hence the shift to discord and direct engagement for many of even the oldest companies in the Sim genre.

I'm tremendously enjoying the FSL A320 in MSFS, it's the best release in that platform so far. But I long and hope to see my favourite airliner over there too soon..

[Troy Kretzul]

As I eagerly await Concorde for MSFS, I agree that more communication from FS Labs would be preferable, and I believe they have alluded to modifying their communication strategy in recent podcasts.

Personally, as I have been looking forward to my favourite aircraft since MSFS launched, I would at least like to know if we are talking months or years.

I agree given the first tease of an FS Labs product for MSFS was Concorde, I do not really appreciate the uncertainty around its sequence/approximate timeline now.

[Jarga Mboge]

12 minutes ago, Troy Kretzul said:

As I eagerly await Concorde for MSFS, I agree that more communication from FS Labs would be preferable, and I believe they have alluded to modifying their communication strategy in recent podcasts.

Personally, as I have been looking forward to my favourite aircraft since MSFS launched, I would at least like to know if we are talking months or years.

I agree given the first tease of an FS Labs product for MSFS was Concorde, I do not really appreciate the uncertainty around its sequence/approximate timeline now.

Hello Troy, what podcast was that ? I would like to hear that 

[Troy Kretzul]

7 hours ago, Jarga Mboge said:

Hello Troy, what podcast was that ? I would like to hear that 

Edit: Hi Jarga, found it. Please see below.

 

[Jarga Mboge]

17 hours ago, Troy Kretzul said:

Edit: Hi Jarga, found it. Please see below.

 

Hi Troy thank you very much 

 

[mikkel]

Just chipping in to say, that I bought the first Concorde for FSX, did not enjoy it, even had bought a DVD with a real Concorde flight to learn before booting it up, but are looking forward to a much improved and polished version in MSFS '24! It would be awesome if you could get into some dialog or partnership with Asobo to get the simulator to handle its advanced aerodynamics realistically within the CFD-system.

Never bought any Airbus from FSLabs, but _will_ buy the new Concorde.

[Steve Browne]

Soooo, after all that debate, what's the update regarding concorde, ..no reason what's so ever then not to provide any info, let's keep things moving forward people!!!

[Maury Aymeric]

Well only @Norman Blackburn can answer to that, if he/Fslabs want, I do respect the fact that the might have a marketing strategy in place.

[Michele Benedetti]

I’m carefully opening this forum everyday hoping to find some news about Concorde in MSFS… we just need to wait patiently 

[Steve Browne]

11 hours ago, Michele Benedetti said:

I’m carefully opening this forum everyday hoping to find some news about Concorde in MSFS… we just need to wait patiently 

Yes, me also, but has got a tad monotonous , regarding the result always..... 

[Kevin Hall]

On 12/24/2024 at 10:51 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Maury Aymeric, I see you’re a new poster. These complex aircraft cannot be knocked up in a few months you know. A 64-bit Concorde has taken several years to build for P3D. The MSFS one should take less time but you don’t start work until it’s clear which sim will be the popular one.

And as Norman has said it was a work of passion and the FSX Concorde was their flagship product. When you’re above 50,000ft over ocean I’m not sure any sim offers an advantage over the others.

Yes there is Concorde for 64bit P3D, but only for v5. v4 and v6 are not supported, which is a shame. I would have been much happier if FSLabs had supported all three versions. P3Dv4 at least, since dev must have begun on that platform. The A320 works on v4 and v5, so why not Concorde? Buying another version of P3D just to fly a better version of Concorde makes little sense to me. I still have Concorde for FSX but the user interface of that version, while good at the time, has not aged well.

[Ray Proudfoot]

27 minutes ago, Kevin Hall said:

Yes there is Concorde for 64bit P3D, but only for v5. v4 and v6 are not supported, which is a shame. I would have been much happier if FSLabs had supported all three versions.

The original plan was to make it for v4. But it’s such a long process v5 then appeared so it was logical to develop for that one. There may have been a time when they planned for both but that was later dropped. Given the diminishing number of prospective customers having one for multiple versions made no sense financially.

27 minutes ago, Kevin Hall said:

The A320 works on v4 and v5, so why not Concorde?

No idea. Both are complex aircraft but only FSL can answer that.

27 minutes ago, Kevin Hall said:

Buying another version of P3D just to fly a better version of Concorde makes little sense to me. I still have Concorde for FSX but the user interface of that version, while good at the time, has not aged well.

v5 is streets ahead of v3 in so many ways but you’ll need to treat yourself to a new computer.

64-bit so no 4Gb VAS limit. Concorde in v5 peaks at 24Gb! Detailed coastlines for the whole world. Far better lighting and multiple CPU cores allowing the load to be spread far better than v3.

Given the mayhem of MSFS2024 you’re far better off with a stable P3D than the visually better MSFS but so dependent of Microsoft servers being able to deliver consistent performance.

[Thiago Braun]

MSFS 2024 is now working pretty well for me in terms of connectivity. Besides, MSFS 2020 is still available and runs flawlessly whenever I want to fly PMDG and FSLabs aircraft.

P3D had its purpose, but at this point, it feels outdated and clunky. No new aircraft are being developed for it, and existing add-ons won’t receive significant updates moving forward. While it might still make sense for some to keep using it, there’s no future for it at all.

That's why I've purchased and flown the latest Concorde version just five times. With so much content available for modern sims, I’ve found a better use for my disk space.

Looking forward to the MSFS release as well.

[Ray Proudfoot]

2 hours ago, Thiago Braun said:

Besides, MSFS 2020 is still available and runs flawlessly whenever I want to fly PMDG and FSLabs aircraft.

Have Microsoft given any indication how long the 2020 server will remain available? Unlike software installed on our own PCs which remain available for as long as the drive works, streaming software relies on their server remaining available.

With 2024 now available the day may come when that server goes offline. At that point your sim stops working. P3D may feel “clunky” for some but with LS able to deliver 60fps I don’t quite follow that logic.

[Thiago Braun]

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have Microsoft given any indication how long the 2020 server will remain available? Unlike software installed on our own PCs which remain available for as long as the drive works, streaming software relies on their server remaining available.

I don’t plan on using MSFS 2020 forever, even though it has brought me more joy in four years than all sims combined since FS 5.1. That said, it has been confirmed that MSFS 2020 will be supported until at least 2028 (supported with updates, the servers will probably stay online for longer).

When the time comes to move on, MSFS 2024 will be in much better shape, having received multiple service packs and world updates, along with full support from all major developers. And no, this won’t take three years. I’m already transitioning to 2024, and all my IFR/VFR flights—except for tubeliners—are now done in 2024.

 

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have Microsoft given any indication how long the 2020 server will remain available? Unlike software installed on our own PCs which remain available for as long as the drive works, streaming software relies on their server remaining available.

With 2024 now available the day may come when that server goes offline. At that point your sim stops working. P3D may feel “clunky” for some but with LS able to deliver 60fps I don’t quite follow that logic.

The P3D die-hards were always vocal about 30 FPS being enough. I’m glad to see that LS has changed that perspective.

What external tools cannot achieve, however, is giving P3D the lighting, texturing, and terrain upgrades that enhance immersion even more than the fluidity of 60+ FPS.

Combine that with GSX, FSL, and something like BeyondATC—which injects and controls hundreds of AI aircraft—and you get a platform that is beautiful, dependable, and a joy to use. And all of that without having to edit a single text file.

[Kevin Hall]

23 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The original plan was to make it for v4. But it’s such a long process v5 then appeared so it was logical to develop for that one. There may have been a time when they planned for both but that was later dropped. Given the diminishing number of prospective customers having one for multiple versions made no sense financially.

No idea. Both are complex aircraft but only FSL can answer that.

v5 is streets ahead of v3 in so many ways but you’ll need to treat yourself to a new computer.

64-bit so no 4Gb VAS limit. Concorde in v5 peaks at 24Gb! Detailed coastlines for the whole world. Far better lighting and multiple CPU cores allowing the load to be spread far better than v3.

Given the mayhem of MSFS2024 you’re far better off with a stable P3D than the visually better MSFS but so dependent of Microsoft servers being able to deliver consistent performance.

Ray, I have P3Dv4, which is why I was annoyed FSL didn't support that for Concorde. I wasn't going to buy v5 just to fly Concorde. Other devs didn't skip sim versions like FSL do.

I'm well aware of the advantages of 64bit code in terms of memory addressing. I waited for the 64bit version before switching from FSX to P3D.

I'm sticking with MSFS, which is very stable, until FS24 can accommodate complex addons (the mayhem was shortlived). I only use P3D for aircraft that I can't fly in MSFS, mainly the 747-400.

[Ray Proudfoot]

1 hour ago, Thiago Braun said:

The P3D die-hards were always vocal about 30 FPS being enough. I’m glad to see that LS has changed that perspective

It’s not a true 60. It makes road and airport traffic more fluid but doesn’t impact on landing an aircraft where hardware inputs drop to 20 instead of my usual 30. It’s necessary on Concorde because of the dreadful performance until @Maxime Konarefffix is applied.

1 hour ago, Thiago Braun said:

When the time comes to move on, MSFS 2024 will be in much better shape,

You would hope so given it was never beta tested. The AvSim forums are still very active with issues. Anyway, each to their own.

[Ray Proudfoot]

57 minutes ago, Kevin Hall said:

Ray, I have P3Dv4, which is why I was annoyed FSL didn't support that for Concorde. I wasn't going to buy v5 just to fly Concorde.

Quite understandable