FSLabs Concorde Released

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

Peter,

 

Did you raise the issue of the look of the overhead panels with the FS Labs team when you bought it?

 

The complexity of the FE panel means no switches or buttons could be modelled to work without a severe penalty, probably memory.

 

The compromise means VAS remains acceptable and with v1.3 its footprint has been reduced by around 350Mb. That makes a massive difference.

[rdtv91 73]

I also agree, absolutely love Concorde but the fact the virtual cockpit isn't up to today's graphics standards is a let down, fair enough systems wise and look wise but when you compare to even captain sim graphics of the steam gauge fleet it's quite poor and really lets down what seems to be a great product...

 

This would of been an instant purchase had they spent some time actually bringing the virtual cockpit graphics up to today's standards (would have then been worth the price), but re-packaging an old model with some changes to the textures and what are essentially 'fixed' is a sad state of affairs and I'm concerned about their upcoming Airbus if they think this is acceptable...

[MachTwo 386]

It is impossible to increase the detail of the Concorde-X VC for any of the FSX/P3D platforms. These 32bit platforms simply do not provide enough memory in order to do that, given the sheer number of dials and switches on Concorde's flight deck.
 

but re-packaging an old model with some changes to the textures and what are essentially 'fixes' is a sad state of affairs

See here.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

An enormous amount of effort was put into improving the flight model including climb and descent performance at various temperatures. This won't be apparent on a screen shot.

 

I can appreciate visuals are a big concern for many but also please consider the accuracy of the flight model. You'll need to buy it to appreciate this of course.

 

To say this is just an old model repackaged with changes to textures doesn't even begin to cover the enormous amount of work by the developers and beta testers to make this aircraft fly as close as possible to the real aircraft.

 

The reduction of the VAS footprint without any obvious degradation in panel quality is also a major success. OOMs are easly avoidable now. They weren't before.

[qqwertz 770]

Hi Ray,

Did you raise the issue of the look of the overhead panels with the FS Labs team when you bought it?

There weren't any issues. The plane worked mostly great in FSX (I had some minor issues in exterior view but was able to resolve that). I even got used to the 2D panels for the flight engineer and even found them helpful after a while, but I always disliked the look of the overhead panel in particular. It just wasn't a 2015 model, but I knew that before I bought it and so I really had no issues with the original Concorde X. And since I will very likely not buy the new Concorde X, I won't have an issue with that one either

 

Peter

[Afterburner 374]

I had the opportunity to not only take a seat in the cockpit of a real Concorde, but also to enjoy a three-course lunch with some of the former pilots and to fly with one of them on the real simulator. A dream come true for a genuine Concorde fan!  For anyone who is interested: This is only possible at the Brooklands Museum in Surrey near London. Ray, have you been there at some point in your life?  I would be surprised if not, given your proximity to the museum and your interest.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

Peter,

 

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

 

90% of the time you're looking at the VC cockpit and that is superbly modelled.

 

Your money so your choice of course. :smile:

Ray, have you been there at some point in your life?  I would be surprised if not, given your proximity to the museum and your interest.

Well Surrey is a couple of hundred miles away but the museum is on my wishlist and I hope to get down there this year.

[Hirdy2013 104]

If someone does something wrong in a real world A320, they can blame FSLabs because the P3D version will be a licensed training product. The A320 is still flying, so (even though it's beyond daft IMO), some lawyer could still come crawling out of the woodwork to hassle them. However, since Concorde is no longer in use, that "avenue of opportunity" is closed.

What a load of rubbish.  Are they seriously trying to say that if a certified pilot crashes an A320 they are going to go after a third party developer of a simulated aircraft model for P3D?  Come on............

[DavidP 1,408]

What a load of rubbish.  Are they seriously trying to say that if a certified pilot crashes an A320 they are going to go after a third party developer of a simulated aircraft model for P3D?  Come on............

That would seem a little far fetched indeed.

[lefteris 70]

Hirdy,

 

that's exactly what we're saying. And we're taking it very seriously. Perhaps you are unaware, but in cases when airliners go down, lawyers tend to fire lawsuits towards every which direction. There is little hope that they'd win a case against a 3rd party developer of a simulated aircraft model for P3D, but that's not the actual point - the actual point is that to even start to defend a case like this, the costs can very - VERY - quickly escalate to the tens of thousands of dollars, if not more.

 

We are the first to wish this was not the case. We've been told in a very stern voice that it is.

[Hirdy2013 104]

That would seem a little far fetched indeed.

Well this is what we're being told....... Seems far fetched to me as well.  The product isn't a certified trainer for a start so the prosecution ends right there.  I think FSL need to take another counsel on it as this line of justifying increased P3D pricing smells a bit........off.

[lefteris 70]

Hirdy,

 

would you be willing to sign a legally binding document that says you will be responsible for assuming all legal costs in case such a "far fetched" scenario actually becomes reality? - I am asking because it is really easy to judge from a safe distance... but if you decide to ever put yourself in that position I am quite certain your viewpoint will change very - VERY - rapidly.

[Hirdy2013 104]

Hirdy,

 

would you be willing to sign a legally binding document that says you will be responsible for assuming all legal costs in case such a "far fetched" scenario actually becomes reality? - I am asking because it is really easy to judge from a safe distance... but if you decide to ever put yourself in that position I am quite certain your viewpoint will change very - VERY - rapidly.

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.

[Glynn 405]

I thought this was exactly why developers have EULA's i.e " This product is for entertainment purposes only - tick the box if you agree"

 

I would really like an exceptionally well modelled A320 in my sim but not if the cost is going towards  paying FSL's lawyers to cover it's butt in case some rookie airline pilot inadvertently mistook the product for an actual level D simulator.

 

The hobby gets crazier by the day.

[nthabti79 17]

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?