If so as I see it , the two best alternatives are 1) The Flight Sim Labs ConcordeX in FSX2) SSTSIM Concorde in FS9I suspect ConcordeX is a better product than SSTSIM but in what way? But for me the choice is still tricky. Main reason my fairly low end system stated below. For what I have heard the real Concorde only took off and landed in New York London and Paris. These big cities will put a heavy load on performence. So could FSX really be an option for me? Or put it another way. How much and which sliders is going to be turned down? On the other hand I think FSX simulates extreme altitudes better than FS9. Also isn't ConcordeX more realistic than SSTSIM? System moddeling is most important here. Eyecande will propable strain my system to much.A final question. Like in the 727 the Concorde is flewn by a crew of three. In DF727 I found it tricky to fly it since I need to do many things simultaneously that in real life is performed by three persons.Making the flight feeling unrealistic in a way. Is it the same for the two Concordes mention above?My systemAMD X2 6000 3.1 GHz4 Gb PC6400 RAMNVIDIA GTS 250 1 Gb VideoWin 7 x64 Home Premium

I havent tried the SSTSim, but I do own Concorde-X, and I have to say that its probably the single worst payware in my hangar when it comes to framerate. Other than that I'd say its very, very good. I believe the same team have developed SSTSim and Concorde-X and I've read comments on FSLs forum that Concorde-X is superior in most ways. I couldnt sign my name on that statement tho, as I havent tried the SSTSim.

Concordes flew many more routes than Paris and London to New York.Initially, they flew from London to Bahrain when entering service with BA and from Paris to Rio with Air France. This is because the US banned it from their airspace owing to a lot of ill-understood notions about it going supersonic over land, which it in fact rarely, if ever did. Eventually, common sense prevailed and Concorde was approved for flights into Washington, which both Air France and BA made. Later it was also cleared to New York too. Most that previous ban was due to the rather stupid actions of democratic politician Carol Berman, whose main motivation was the fact that it would fly over her home on the way into JFK (there's a surprise eh?). However, when it was pointed out to her and the supporters of her campaign, that Air Force One (at the time a version of the Boeing 707) was in fact louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds coming in for a landing, she ended up looking stupid, and it became apparent that her motivations were not entirely above board. This was what led to the ban campaign falling apart in 1977 and opening up routes to the US.Other destinations also commenced for Concorde, including a shared service between BA and Singapore Airlines, which is why Concorde G-BOAD ended up in Singapore Airlines Livery (on one side only), but it remained a BA aircraft despite the paint job. That didn't last long however; the Malaysian Government complained about the noise, it was thus rerouted outside Malaysian airspace, over India, but could not go supersonic over land, so that made the flight uneconomical and the route only lasted about a year.Air France flew their Concordes to Mexico City via Washington, but again, the flight had to go subsonic over Florida, so it was not economical. Sometimes the Concorde also flew to Acapulco when making this trip.Braniff were going to buy Concordes, but ended up leasing some instead, five from BA and five from Air France. They flew from Dallas to Washington and back (subsonically). Braniff pilots flew that part of the route and Air France and BA pilots then took over for continuing flight over the Atlantic to Paris or New York. This only lasted about two years, but it did lead to the Airport '80 disaster movie being centered around a Concorde flight. The film is crap incidentally, but worth a watch for a laugh.Other Concorde flights were conducted on special pleasure flight routes, for example, you could fly a Concorde up to the Arctic, going up to 50,000 feet and hitting supersonic speeds of mach 2 purely for the experience, the aircraft turning around and coming back to where it departed from (usually Paris, with Air France).Concorde itself was a frequent visitor to Manchester Airport for a variety of reasons. Sometimes these were charter flights, other times it would divert there if the weather at Heathrow was crappy. I used to see it come over my house perhaps once a month or so when that sort of thing went on.Carol Berman wasn't totally wrong though, it is noisy, you could definitely tell that it was coming when you heard those engines. In my home town, many people would go outside upon hearing it and stand in the street looking up at it as it dropped its wheels just prior to coming over our street at about 230 mph with the nose drooped down, as it is a site to behold. It sounds like a flight of jet fighters, but it was not as noisy as the Vulcan bombers which also used to fly into nearby Woodford fairly often. They would set off car alarms because of the vibration and they'd usually make small babies cry as well, as the noise from a Vulcan is really staggeringly loud.Back with FS though, it is a complex aeroplane to operate, but that's where you can make use of either the pause or slowed time features of FS. Which is a sensible thing to do, as typically it is the flight engineer who operates the throttles for example. It's not very conventional at all on cockpit procedures. More like flying a spaceship or some such.Al

I havent tried the SSTSim, but I do own Concorde-X, and I have to say that its probably the single worst payware in my hangar when it comes to framerate. Other than that I'd say its very, very good. I believe the same team have developed SSTSim and Concorde-X and I've read comments on FSLs forum that Concorde-X is superior in most ways. I couldnt sign my name on that statement tho, as I havent tried the SSTSim.

That's strange because it runs like a banchee on my system. If the CX had a negative impact on my system, I'd have to say it was miniscule.

If so as I see it , the two best alternatives are 1) The Flight Sim Labs ConcordeX in FSX2) SSTSIM Concorde in FS9I suspect ConcordeX is a better product than SSTSIM but in what way? But for me the choice is still tricky. Main reason my fairly low end system stated below. For what I have heard the real Concorde only took off and landed in New York London and Paris. These big cities will put a heavy load on performence. So could FSX really be an option for me? Or put it another way. How much and which sliders is going to be turned down? On the other hand I think FSX simulates extreme altitudes better than FS9. Also isn't ConcordeX more realistic than SSTSIM? System moddeling is most important here. Eyecande will propable strain my system to much.A final question. Like in the 727 the Concorde is flewn by a crew of three. In DF727 I found it tricky to fly it since I need to do many things simultaneously that in real life is performed by three persons.Making the flight feeling unrealistic in a way. Is it the same for the two Concordes mention above?My systemAMD X2 6000 3.1 GHz4 Gb PC6400 RAMNVIDIA GTS 250 1 Gb VideoWin 7 x64 Home Premium

I think you should explain you concerns at the FlightSimLabs forum. They most likely have a better idea as to how your system will handle the CX.

That's strange because it runs like a banchee on my system. If the CX had a negative impact on my system, I'd have to say it was miniscule.

Yes, that is indeed weird. I have a similar system to yours, except for the gfx card. My gfx card is only a gtx260. Otherwise its very similar, with a bloomfield at 4ghz, 6 gig ram etc. I'm getting like 8-10 fps on short final to KJFK RWY 31R, default scenery

Ditto.That's for the VC though, I get a bit better in the 2D - I never fly the 2d though. So it's hangared for now.

Yes, that is indeed weird. I have a similar system to yours, except for the gfx card. My gfx card is only a gtx260. Otherwise its very similar, with a bloomfield at 4ghz, 6 gig ram etc. I'm getting like 8-10 fps on short final to KJFK RWY 31R, default scenery

Yes, that is indeed weird. I have a similar system to yours, except for the gfx card. My gfx card is only a gtx260. Otherwise its very similar, with a bloomfield at 4ghz, 6 gig ram etc. I'm getting like 8-10 fps on short final to KJFK RWY 31R, default scenery

So low fps and such a powerful system. Far over mine. It seems performence is going to be a big issue for me and the FSX alternative.

Strange.....flying VC I see around 22-25 fps on approach to JFK (fsdreamteam) with a LOT of autogen and it's very smooth, once on the ground they shoot up to the 30's

I also get very good performance with the ConcordeX both in 2D and VC (much better than many of my other addons), and my PC is over 3 years old.

Concordes flew many more routes than Paris and London to New York.Initially, they flew from London to Bahrain when entering service with BA and from Paris to Rio with Air France. This is because the US banned it from their airspace owing to a lot of ill-understood notions about it going supersonic over land, which it in fact rarely, if ever did. Eventually, common sense prevailed and Concorde was approved for flights into Washington, which both Air France and BA made. Later it was also cleared to New York too. Most that previous ban was due to the rather stupid actions of democratic politician Carol Berman, whose main motivation was the fact that it would fly over her home on the way into JFK (there's a surprise eh?). However, when it was pointed out to her and the supporters of her campaign, that Air Force One (at the time a version of the Boeing 707) was in fact louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds coming in for a landing, she ended up looking stupid, and it became apparent that her motivations were not entirely above board. This was what led to the ban campaign falling apart in 1977 and opening up routes to the US.Other destinations also commenced for Concorde, including a shared service between BA and Singapore Airlines, which is why Concorde G-BOAD ended up in Singapore Airlines Livery (on one side only), but it remained a BA aircraft despite the paint job. That didn't last long however; the Malaysian Government complained about the noise, it was thus rerouted outside Malaysian airspace, over India, but could not go supersonic over land, so that made the flight uneconomical and the route only lasted about a year.Air France flew their Concordes to Mexico City via Washington, but again, the flight had to go subsonic over Florida, so it was not economical. Sometimes the Concorde also flew to Acapulco when making this trip.Braniff were going to buy Concordes, but ended up leasing some instead, five from BA and five from Air France. They flew from Dallas to Washington and back (subsonically). Braniff pilots flew that part of the route and Air France and BA pilots then took over for continuing flight over the Atlantic to Paris or New York. This only lasted about two years, but it did lead to the Airport '80 disaster movie being centered around a Concorde flight. The film is crap incidentally, but worth a watch for a laugh.Other Concorde flights were conducted on special pleasure flight routes, for example, you could fly a Concorde up to the Arctic, going up to 50,000 feet and hitting supersonic speeds of mach 2 purely for the experience, the aircraft turning around and coming back to where it departed from (usually Paris, with Air France).Concorde itself was a frequent visitor to Manchester Airport for a variety of reasons. Sometimes these were charter flights, other times it would divert there if the weather at Heathrow was crappy. I used to see it come over my house perhaps once a month or so when that sort of thing went on.Carol Berman wasn't totally wrong though, it is noisy, you could definitely tell that it was coming when you heard those engines. In my home town, many people would go outside upon hearing it and stand in the street looking up at it as it dropped its wheels just prior to coming over our street at about 230 mph with the nose drooped down, as it is a site to behold. It sounds like a flight of jet fighters, but it was not as noisy as the Vulcan bombers which also used to fly into nearby Woodford fairly often. They would set off car alarms because of the vibration and they'd usually make small babies cry as well, as the noise from a Vulcan is really staggeringly loud.Back with FS though, it is a complex aeroplane to operate, but that's where you can make use of either the pause or slowed time features of FS. Which is a sensible thing to do, as typically it is the flight engineer who operates the throttles for example. It's not very conventional at all on cockpit procedures. More like flying a spaceship or some such.Al

Alan,as an ex-BA Concorde engineer,to read your reportage and research on the BA/AF Concorde fleet and the obstacles put in their paths to being a worldwide commercial success is spot-on.Excellent work.

Many thanks for a most interesting post, Al. :(

I havent tried the SSTSim, but I do own Concorde-X, and I have to say that its probably the single worst payware in my hangar when it comes to framerate. Other than that I'd say its very, very good. I believe the same team have developed SSTSim and Concorde-X and I've read comments on FSLs forum that Concorde-X is superior in most ways. I couldnt sign my name on that statement tho, as I havent tried the SSTSim.

Mate, sorry to hear your issues. ConcordeX has been running beautifully here! Had issues initially but after applying SP2 and Bojote's fix it works like a charm in places like Heathrow (Megascenery addon), FSDT's KJFK and many more! Love flying at Mach2 !!!Speak to FSL and they will help you out. Those lads are brilliant at what they do...

Concordes flew many more routes than Paris and London to New York.Initially, they flew from London to Bahrain when entering service with BA and from Paris to Rio with Air France. This is because the US banned it from their airspace owing to a lot of ill-understood notions about it going supersonic over land, which it in fact rarely, if ever did. Eventually, common sense prevailed and Concorde was approved for flights into Washington, which both Air France and BA made. Later it was also cleared to New York too. Most that previous ban was due to the rather stupid actions of democratic politician Carol Berman, whose main motivation was the fact that it would fly over her home on the way into JFK (there's a surprise eh?). However, when it was pointed out to her and the supporters of her campaign, that Air Force One (at the time a version of the Boeing 707) was in fact louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds coming in for a landing, she ended up looking stupid, and it became apparent that her motivations were not entirely above board. This was what led to the ban campaign falling apart in 1977 and opening up routes to the US.Other destinations also commenced for Concorde, including a shared service between BA and Singapore Airlines, which is why Concorde G-BOAD ended up in Singapore Airlines Livery (on one side only), but it remained a BA aircraft despite the paint job. That didn't last long however; the Malaysian Government complained about the noise, it was thus rerouted outside Malaysian airspace, over India, but could not go supersonic over land, so that made the flight uneconomical and the route only lasted about a year.Air France flew their Concordes to Mexico City via Washington, but again, the flight had to go subsonic over Florida, so it was not economical. Sometimes the Concorde also flew to Acapulco when making this trip.Braniff were going to buy Concordes, but ended up leasing some instead, five from BA and five from Air France. They flew from Dallas to Washington and back (subsonically). Braniff pilots flew that part of the route and Air France and BA pilots then took over for continuing flight over the Atlantic to Paris or New York. This only lasted about two years, but it did lead to the Airport '80 disaster movie being centered around a Concorde flight. The film is crap incidentally, but worth a watch for a laugh.Other Concorde flights were conducted on special pleasure flight routes, for example, you could fly a Concorde up to the Arctic, going up to 50,000 feet and hitting supersonic speeds of mach 2 purely for the experience, the aircraft turning around and coming back to where it departed from (usually Paris, with Air France).Concorde itself was a frequent visitor to Manchester Airport for a variety of reasons. Sometimes these were charter flights, other times it would divert there if the weather at Heathrow was crappy. I used to see it come over my house perhaps once a month or so when that sort of thing went on.Carol Berman wasn't totally wrong though, it is noisy, you could definitely tell that it was coming when you heard those engines. In my home town, many people would go outside upon hearing it and stand in the street looking up at it as it dropped its wheels just prior to coming over our street at about 230 mph with the nose drooped down, as it is a site to behold. It sounds like a flight of jet fighters, but it was not as noisy as the Vulcan bombers which also used to fly into nearby Woodford fairly often. They would set off car alarms because of the vibration and they'd usually make small babies cry as well, as the noise from a Vulcan is really staggeringly loud.Back with FS though, it is a complex aeroplane to operate, but that's where you can make use of either the pause or slowed time features of FS. Which is a sensible thing to do, as typically it is the flight engineer who operates the throttles for example. It's not very conventional at all on cockpit procedures. More like flying a spaceship or some such.Al

Very informative Al. Thanks. I was around 9 in 1977 and I dont remember much of the politics but I do remember the political satire cartoons and I also remember grownups talking about how horrible this new superconic airplane will be. Very ill informed people.

I also get very good performance with the ConcordeX both in 2D and VC (much better than many of my other addons), and my PC is over 3 years old.

So what are the spec for your computer?