the audio is missing because of "copyright issues"

 

But only a bit of it. Just go slightly forward and it should be okay.

This question should probably be posted in the FSL forums, but since I'm not yet a customer I don't want to tie up support bandwidth, so I'll post it here instead in the hope that informed "civilians" can answer.  I'm on a single widescreen monitor - Dell 3415W, with a native resolution of 3440x1440 - driven by a single EVGA GTX 980ti.  Can I expect the same VAS challenges as others who are operating beyond the 1900x1200 limit?  Or would the resolution be less of a challenge since it's a single monitor, not a multiple-monitor setup?

 

I'm guessing the pixel count is the real issue, independent of the number of monitors.  If so, I'll probably have to steer clear and wait for the A320... which is fine, as noted earlier that's more my style anyway.  But if anyone can advise one way or the other, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks in advance!

Who in the world have time to count pixels during a Concorde flight !

 

Regards,

 

Richard Portier

Co-incidentally, the 1011 has a fully functional FE panel in VC.

 

Yes it does but if you count the number of buttons and switches it probably equals just the fuel panel on concorde and you still have 20 other panels to simulate.  Same with the 727.

This question should probably be posted in the FSL forums, but since I'm not yet a customer I don't want to tie up support bandwidth, so I'll post it here instead in the hope that informed "civilians" can answer.  I'm on a single widescreen monitor - Dell 3415W, with a native resolution of 3440x1440 - driven by a single EVGA GTX 980ti.  Can I expect the same VAS challenges as others who are operating beyond the 1900x1200 limit?  Or would the resolution be less of a challenge since it's a single monitor, not a multiple-monitor setup?

 

I'm guessing the pixel count is the real issue, independent of the number of monitors.  If so, I'll probably have to steer clear and wait for the A320... which is fine, as noted earlier that's more my style anyway.  But if anyone can advise one way or the other, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks in advance!

 

Good question and I don't really know the answer but I am guessing you will have issues.  You might want to ask Matt Davies (or look at his channel) to see what he runs.  He was able to make it from JFK to EGLL today but yesterday he had an OOM on the trip from EGLL to KJFK.

On the subject of OOMs it's worth reminding folk that in FSX up to 250Mb can be recovered by toggling full screen / windowed modes. Which ever mode you run in just temporarily switch to the other mode then back to your original. This is on top of the memory released when 2D panels are closed.

 

And why am I talking about FSX here? Because the Concorde thread was locked in the FSX forum with everyone being directed to this topic.

 

I have flown from T2G's KSEA down to FSDreamteam's KLAX and had no OOMs. Also Dubai Rebooted to Sharm el Sheikh again without problem. Yesterday, KMCO to MMMX and again, no problems with two heavy 3rd party airports.

 

I've flown EGLL-KJFK more times than I've had hot dinners in testing and again, not a single OOM.

 

This version of Concorde is a revelation compared to v1.2.

This question should probably be posted in the FSL forums, but since I'm not yet a customer I don't want to tie up support bandwidth, so I'll post it here instead in the hope that informed "civilians" can answer.  I'm on a single widescreen monitor - Dell 3415W, with a native resolution of 3440x1440 - driven by a single EVGA GTX 980ti.  Can I expect the same VAS challenges as others who are operating beyond the 1900x1200 limit?  Or would the resolution be less of a challenge since it's a single monitor, not a multiple-monitor setup?

 

I'm guessing the pixel count is the real issue, independent of the number of monitors.  If so, I'll probably have to steer clear and wait for the A320... which is fine, as noted earlier that's more my style anyway.  But if anyone can advise one way or the other, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks in advance!

If you go back few pages you will find another user had OOMs just loading at this resolution with default scenery.

If you go back few pages you will find another user had OOMs just loading at this resolution with default scenery.

 

Thanks - I probably read that post but wasn't thinking yet about my own setup so it didn't register at the time.

 

Thanks also to MarkW and to Ray - I'll check out Matt's info and might also play with the windowed/full-screen toggle.

 

If on the other hand I have to stay subsonic, that's cool - the little Bus will keep me going for years...

 

I appreciate the info!

 Thanks also to MarkW and to Ray - I'll check out Matt's info and might also play with the windowed/full-screen toggle.

 

If on the other hand I have to stay subsonic, that's cool - the little Bus will keep me going for years...

 

I appreciate the info!

Alan, I hope you can find a way to fly this iconic aircraft. Once you've flown at Mach 2 the sub-sonic Boeings and Airbuses are so slow. There's a real adrenalin rush flying Concorde. By the time the main gear leaves the tarmac it's doing close to 220mph! What other passenger aeroplane can offer that level of performance?

Yes it does but if you count the number of buttons and switches it probably equals just the fuel panel on concorde and you still have 20 other panels to simulate.  Same with the 727.

Mark, do you own the CaptainSim L1011? It has a massive VC, with almost all buttons working. For sure the system depth is not like the Concorde X (although quite good), and the Concorde cockpit is also larger, but not by an extreme amount. I would guess it has maybe 30% to 50% more functions at the flight engineer's station.

 

Peter

Yes it does but if you count the number of buttons and switches it probably equals just the fuel panel on concorde and you still have 20 other panels to simulate.  Same with the 727

  

 

Mark, do you own the CaptainSim L1011? It has a massive VC, with almost all buttons working. For sure the system depth is not like the Concorde X (although quite good), and the Concorde cockpit is also larger, but not by an extreme amount. I would guess it has maybe 30% to 50% more functions at the flight engineer's station.Peter

CS claims hundred of switches:

 

Switches (180)

- Guarded Switches (39)

- Buttons (298)

- Selectors (46)

- Knobs (80)

- Levers (9)

 

Is there a count for ConcordeX?

 

I somehow have a feeling that 2D panels should not cause OOMs, maybe it's some rogue texture. But I don't have experience in this.

Alan A, I have the same monitor, at native resolution it will OOM instantly. Concorde truly can't support anything over 1920x1080 unfortunately.

This is the way you handle disgruntled public:
 

The process of porting over Concorde-X into P3D was a huge task, which required significant rework of the flight performance model, autoflight systems and underlying infrastructure to support the new platform and insure the continuation of that support for the foreseeable future. Unlike a conventional airliner - the extreme flight envelopes that Concorde operates within made this process even more tedious. 
 
Concorde-X is indeed entering it's sixth year on the market - and this latest upgrade, in which we have retrofitted some of the latest technologies written for our A320 series into our Concorde-X title, will ensure that people can continue to enjoy flying Concorde on the latest Flight Simulator platforms for years to come.

 
Not this way:
 

seems we're reaching a point where all you're interested in is showing how important you are and how you know better than everyone else. I actually don't doubt that you have educated yourself on the topic, so I invite you to start your own business and do better than us (and I mean that with no disrespect). Nature hates voids, so I am quite sure that you could do better for simmers worldwide..

 

 

Especially not this way:

 

We treat our customers and prospective customers with the utmost respect - you would see that if you visited our forums and saw how much help everyone is receiving, customer or not.
 
We treat trolls and people who try to show how smart they are and how self-important they are with the respect they deserve also.
 
It's up to each individual to fit themselves into one of the two categories above.

 

I am extremely impressed with what your company has accomplished.  I'm not impressed with how you handle the publics concerns, not matter how they express them ... the public and their opinions will always be much larger than any of your accomplishments, enormously significant compared to trivial.  Live with it.  There's no cockpit for public opinion; you can't control it.
 
I began to reconsider purchasing the Concorde.

Alan A, I have the same monitor, at native resolution it will OOM instantly. Concorde truly can't support anything over 1920x1080 unfortunately.

 

Thanks - I appreciate the heads-up.  Guess I'm out.

Alan, I hope you can find a way to fly this iconic aircraft. Once you've flown at Mach 2 the sub-sonic Boeings and Airbuses are so slow. There's a real adrenalin rush flying Concorde. By the time the main gear leaves the tarmac it's doing close to 220mph! What other passenger aeroplane can offer that level of performance?

 

It would have been a nice experience - but per be77solo's note, above, doesn't look like I can pull it off.  Maybe on some future platform, or maybe if I swap monitors, though I'm liking the widescreen in general.  As for the rush, I believe you.  Of course, speed is relative - I spend a lot of my flightsim time in vintage pistons (think DC-3), so from that perspective, the A320 is a speed merchant.

 

I have plenty of fond Concorde memories - never flew aboard it but saw it coming and going, once on a surprise flyover up the Hudson River, and the last time, in the summer of '03, from the deck of a cruise ship leaving New York - the Concorde was on final to KJFK.  Memorable.  That'll keep me for now.

 

Thanks to all who chimed in.

Mark, do you own the CaptainSim L1011? It has a massive VC, with almost all buttons working. For sure the system depth is not like the Concorde X (although quite good), and the Concorde cockpit is also larger, but not by an extreme amount. I would guess it has maybe 30% to 50% more functions at the flight engineer's station.

 

Peter

 

Yes I own it.  I would agree it has an impressive VC but having said that I am not a programmer and I know the FSL guys really wanted to do the VC and have it fully functional but were not able to do so.  I am not sure if they could have done it with no 2D panels but that creates other issues for many users.

 

All I know is that if you fly Concorde without the Virtual Flight Engineer you are so busy you barely have time to breathe, never mind worring about a slight blurriness on the INS  :wink:

I suspect resizing the 2D panels won't save us from OOMs either, right?