Ray,

 

In fairness how often do you need to access the overhead panels once airborne? Not often.

Maybe we have different flying styles. I tend to do cold-and-dark procedures, and I work for my job while cruising. So during the time when I'm busy in the cockpit, I access the overhead panel quite a bit

 

Lefteris,

 

Perhaps you are unaware, but in cases when airliners go down, lawyers tend to fire lawsuits towards every which direction.

I can completely understand this argument. What I do not understand is why Aerosoft can offer the same plane at the same price for both FSX and P3D. I am just wondering about the legal issues here, not about the features of the model. I don't think Aerosoft is willing to be more risky than FSL. Do they state that their plane is not for training, even for the P3D version? If yes, why don't you do the same? Even if you have training as a potential application in mind, you could sell the A320 under two different licenses: a more expensive one for training that includes insurance, and a "not for real life" one for consumers.

 

Peter

Perhaps those who are critical of the idea that P3D version creates a litigation risk could let us know where they're licensed to practice law, and what their area of specialization is.   :rolleyes:

 

Back on topic - I have to say I'm torn about this one.  Would love to have the Concorde experience but that said, I'm not sure how much practical use I'd get out of it.  I'm typically limited to flights of around an hour, maybe two at the outside.  So it's at risk of becoming a hangar queen, though a very beautiful one.

 

The A320 is a perfect fit.

 

Not ruling the Concorde out, just thinking about it.  

 

Maybe some time with videos and the manual is called for.

I would firstly like to see some case studies and some analysis of where this has occurred in the past.  I'm sure they would be hard to find.  This scenario would not occur, let's get real here.  Unless you, LM and Airbus agree that your simulator is certified for use as a training tool for A320 pilots.  If that was the case then yes, you would have a case to answer.  

 

EDIT:  Let me preface the above by saying that this not having a shot at your A320.  In fact I'm looking forward to its release.  I just need to get my head around the pricing methodology of P3D where I've never heard anything like this come from other developers.

Dear Hirdy,

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to continue this discussion with you, I need to support our customers. Do yourself a favor though and ask why other advanced aircraft add-on companies have a significantly higher P3D price tag (a certain Boeing comes to mind)...

 

I apologize in advance for not responding further in this thread.

Well.. I bought it. Couldn't resist.. 

 

Just had to fire it up at EGLL and KJFK. It looks promising; sitting at the tarmac with my FPS locked at 33 (ASN weather). Sure, the VC isn't the sharpest and best I've seen but I think it'll do just fine TBH. However, quickly skimming the manual it says to load the default Cub first. Is this really necessary? It seemed to load just fine and using the drop down menu to choose panel state seems to work. What am I missing?

 

 

Wonder when I'll have the time to fly it though, with a one-year old tugging at my sleeve for attention constantly.  :wub:

What price range are we talking about here now that it should cover the eventuality of a lawsuit? I mean seriously...where is FSL going with this?

 

well last time I checked a new airbus 320 cost approx £100 million plus the awards to all the passengers if  that came into the equation,mind you the price list was 2014,wonder what the Pru would want to cover the liability on that,Flight1 did place a disclaimer stating"not to be used for training" on the Ifly 737 on there tech site for about 4 yrs and they are still around,these people should talk to Majestic they seemed to have had to face the same situation with their excellent Dash Q400 sim and there pro version sells for £60,according to a poll on Aerosoft regarding P3d usage which showed that 50 % of there customers would be using P3d by the end of the yr(2015)16% using X plane and 24% using FSX  7% using the FSXSE versions,this to me seems to indicate a slowly shrinking market for FSX  therefore limiting the market potential for future FSX add ons sales,So where do the developers go? by overcharging for P3d they might be seriously limiting there sales as less people are now using FSX

Peter

Ray,

 

Maybe we have different flying styles. I tend to do cold-and-dark procedures, and I work for my job while cruising. So during the time when I'm busy in the cockpit, I access the overhead panel quite a bit

 

Peter

 

Peter,

 

I also start from C&D. I find when I need to access the 2 overheads Shift+3 and Shift+4 works just fine. :smile:

 

Well.. I bought it. Couldn't resist.. 

 

However, quickly skimming the manual it says to load the default Cub first. Is this really necessary? It seemed to load just fine and using the drop down menu to choose panel state seems to work. What am I missing?

 

Wonder when I'll have the time to fly it though, with a one-year old tugging at my sleeve for attention constantly.  :wub:

 

Richard,

 

Good decision. Yes, the Cub as the default flight is essential. I won't go into the technicalities because I don't have the required knowledge. I use the Trike in FSX and it works flawlessly.

 

The correct loading procedure is:-

Default Cub

At the Free Flight screen (FSX, P3D will be named differently) choose your airport and gate.

Press Fly Now (or equivalent)

Once the sim is fully loaded choose Concorde from the Aircraft menu.

Load the C&D panel from the FS Labs menu option.

 

You can save the panel in various states including Ready For Takeoff. If you're short of time load that option that has you ready to take-off. You can fly a long way in an hour. :smile:

 

I have a question about Spotlights.

It is stated that now Concorde is supported by Spotlights, does it mean that I need to buy this program to have new cockpit lightning ? 

No - all of our aircraft include FSLSpotlight functionality - you simply need to download and install it. 

Nice, thank U Andrew.

 

Good decision. Yes, the Cub as the default flight is essential. I won't go into the technicalities because I don't have the required knowledge. I use the Trike in FSX and it works flawlessly.

 

Is it really necessary to load the Trike each time before loading Concorde-X?  What would be wrong with loading Concorde directly from the flight (or scenario in P3D) creation menu?  I have done the latter ever since, and it worked fine. Unless I am missing something...

Is it really necessary to load the Trike each time before loading Concorde-X?  What would be wrong with loading Concorde directly from the flight (or scenario in P3D) creation menu?  I have done the latter ever since, and it worked fine. Unless I am missing something...

 

Exactly what I was thinking as I did the same; ie just load it at it seemed to work.

Dear Hirdy,

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to continue this discussion with you, I need to support our customers. Do yourself a favor though and ask why other advanced aircraft add-on companies have a significantly higher P3D price tag (a certain Boeing comes to mind)...

 

I apologize in advance for not responding further in this thread.

 

The price discussions about the A320 are actually a bit off topic, so no need to apologise, I think.

 

As long as we are talking about a price range in the realm of "another Boeing", that's ok for me as long as the same level of quality is delivered. I just got a bit scared by the justifications (lawsuits etc). I would prefer a price range closer to a certain "Bombardier" though.

 

So now I am leaving the people to discuss their Concorde. It deserves the attention after all.

Ray,

 

Maybe we have different flying styles. I tend to do cold-and-dark procedures, and I work for my job while cruising. So during the time when I'm busy in the cockpit, I access the overhead panel quite a bit

 

Lefteris,

 

 

I can completely understand this argument. What I do not understand is why Aerosoft can offer the same plane at the same price for both FSX and P3D. I am just wondering about the legal issues here, not about the features of the model. I don't think Aerosoft is willing to be more risky than FSL. Do they state that their plane is not for training, even for the P3D version? If yes, why don't you do the same? Even if you have training as a potential application in mind, you could sell the A320 under two different licenses: a more expensive one for training that includes insurance, and a "not for real life" one for consumers.

 

Peter

 

I know this is off topic, however, Aerosoft sells many products so perhaps their insurance cost is spread out over so many that the incremental cost is minor and they just absorb it. The other option is they have internally determined the risk is so low they don't need to worry about this type of insurance. Bottom line is that FSL needs to run its business as it sees fit.

Exactly what I was thinking as I did the same; ie just load it at it seemed to work.

 

The FSX loading process differs from the P3D one -

 

in FSX, the simulator loads all gauges and components ahead of time, in the Fly Now! screen, but fails to recognize that it has already done so when you then hit "fly now!" and empties them out to reload them AGAIN when you do. As such, memory consumption is not optimal (loading/emptying/reloading).

 

in P3D, this does not occur, so you can safely load (and we actually prefer that you do) in the Create Scenario screen.

Perhaps those who are critical of the idea that P3D version creates a litigation risk could let us know where they're licensed to practice law, and what their area of specialization is.   :rolleyes:

 

Back on topic - I have to say I'm torn about this one.  Would love to have the Concorde experience but that said, I'm not sure how much practical use I'd get out of it.  I'm typically limited to flights of around an hour, maybe two at the outside.  So it's at risk of becoming a hangar queen, though a very beautiful one.

 

The A320 is a perfect fit.

 

Not ruling the Concorde out, just thinking about it.  

 

Maybe some time with videos and the manual is called for.

 

Just so you know there are lots of previously real world Concorde flights that are much shorter. KJFK - TBPB is about 2 hours, plus the Around the World Tours contain many short legs of anywhere from 1 to 3 hours.  You can see all of the routes here.

 

http://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/