SSTSIM Concorde is released!!!

[Ray Proudfoot 9,053]

Hi Andrew,I'm fine thanks although very busy with final testing and sound file processing for Radar Contact v4. As a result I have very little spare time :-( Click the link below my signature if you're interested.Thanks for your reply. I know your knowledge of Concorde is very comprehensive so when I saw your name linked to this predessor (marketed by Koch) I knew it would be a quality product. The only reason I didn't buy it was because it was only available in retail outlets and also its lack of a VFE. I find it challenging enough to fly Concorde without having to manage the fuel too.PSS could only fit 7 tanks into their version and stated it was a FS limitation. If you've found a way to increase that to 11 then kudos to your programmers.If I only had more spare time I would seriously think about buying this as it sounds a very good product. It's so sad to see G-BOAC parked up at EGCC when it should be gracing our skies. But it's nice to see the old girl can still generate a lively discussion.I wish you well with it :-beerchug Cheers,

[Ray Proudfoot 9,053]

Hi Lucio,<>That's fair comment. The INS was limited to 9 waypoints anyway. I noticed some of the waypoints could be loaded into the INS when watching the ITVV Concorde DVD.<>I don't want 'easy staff'. If I did then I wouldn;t be flying with Project Magenta software and Radar Contact ATC. What I found useful on the PSS Concorde was the fuel distribution being managed for me by the Virtual Flight Engineer. If the real-world pilot had that help then there's nothing wrong in expecting similar help in a simulation.<>But not the pilot. So you still had two officers on the flight deck. I understand the desire for realism but for many the challenge of flying this aircraft and managing the fuel is too much. I'm sure there are plenty who relish the idea but I'd rather concentrate on flying just as the real-world pilot did.<< a Captain should know about all the aircraft systems, to make a correct decision.>>Knowing? Yes. Having to operate AND fly the aircraft - No.All the best with this wonderful aircraft.Cheers,

[Guest Fortress]

>The truth is it was a very rare event for Concorde to ever>reach 60,000ft. It only happened a handfull of times on the>transatlantic flights to New York in the aircrafts entire>history.In the 13-year career of Geoff Mussett, FL600 was achieved "maybe a half-dozen times"I can tell on servinfo who's flying PSS or not just from their flight levelsCheers,Paulhttp://www.bavirtual.org/images/sigs/paul_sst.jpg

[Guest pugsley]

Can the SSTSIM Concorde offer an enjoyable flightsim experience similar to that of the RealAir Spitfire for someone who is more interested in the visual, sound and handling characteristics than tedious panel procedures?

[Guest Fortress]

>PSS could only fit 7 tanks into their version and stated it>was a FS limitation. If you've found a way to increase that to>11 then kudos to your programmers.No, the FS limit is 11. PSS were wrong and it is certainly kudos to SSTSIM's programmers that this can be translated into 13.Cheers,Paulhttp://www.bavirtual.org/images/sigs/paul_sst.jpg

[Ray Proudfoot 9,053]

Dillon,<>It wasn't always possible for Concorde to climb to FL600. FL540-FL570 was more often the highest it would cruise. The outside temperature is the determining factor plus the TMO of 127C had to be considered of course.The upper air over the North Atlantic is quite warm compared to the air around the tropics strangely enough. Try a flight out of Barbados or Miami.The real Concorde's autopilot system tried to maintain Mach 2 even if it meant descending a little.<<(you have to stay below 250kts below 10,000ft anyway..>>Not with Concorde out of EGLL. It had special dispensation. I believe it was alowed up to 300kts below 10,000ft. Out of JFK then there might be a restriction.Cheers,

[Guest Fortress]

absolutely not.

[Guest VulcanB2]

>Can the SSTSIM Concorde offer an enjoyable flightsim>experience similar to that of the RealAir Spitfire for someone>who is more interested in the visual, sound and handling>characteristics than tedious panel procedures?Hi,It can, but due to the complexity of the sim, there would still be a bit of flight-deck prep to go through to fly - she isn't a "jump-in-a-fly" kind of aircraft.Once airbourne though, FL640's the limit! :D :-lolBest regards,Vulcan.Concorde SSTSIM Beta Team.

[Guest VulcanB2]

>With experience flying the PSS I was able to jump right in>and fly a vfr flight. The AP was nearly identical so I had no>problems.>Right off I notice she handles more like a fighter with a much>higher roll rate compared to the other Concorde.The nightime>cockpit lighting is Very Nice.> Only downside is she eats fps like jetfuel while in the vr>pit. Worse so than the LDS and PMDG 747.Hi,She is a lot more complex than nearly all other "complex" aircraft put together! :D She may not be glass-cockpit, but she's certainly fly-by-wire!! Best regards,Vulcan.Concorde SSTSIM Beta Team.

[Guest pugsley]

Thanks VulcanI am prepared to master the panel procedures to gain access to the other dimensions of the flightsim experience - visual, sound and handling characteristics.

[Guest VulcanB2]

>Thanks Vulcan>>I am prepared to master the panel procedures to gain access to>the other dimensions of the flightsim experience - visual,>sound and handling characteristics.Hi,Glad to hear it! You might be pleased to know she hand flies very nicely supersonic, too!Enjoy! If you have any queries/questions, you can find us at www.sstsim.comBest regards,Vulcan.Concorde SSTSIM Beta Team.

[Guest JIMJAM]

Flame suit ON. I threw in a GPS and even without reading the manual just completed a 800 mile,36000 mach 1.6 flight. I did the same with the LDS 767 and PMDG 747. I understand that will make some of you really upset but the whole idea is to have FUN. Why all add on makers do not throw in a GPS is beyond me. This would probably attract and sell alot more if they included and adverstised that the plane can be as easy or hard as you would want it. I KNOW the REAL planes do not have them but then again you do not fly any of them with a mouse either.

[Guest Fortress]

No, FL600 is the 'limit' ;)Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/conc_capt_ba.jpgConcorde Training Captainwww.BAVirtual.co.uk

[Guest Fortress]

>Not with Concorde out of EGLL. It had special dispensation. I>believe it was alowed up to 300kts below 10,000ft. Out of JFK>then there might be a restriction.400kts by 6000' (FL060) But wasn't special dispensation, but rather preplanning with ATC allowed for such 'allowances'. After all, Concorde would sort out her oceanic clearances before even pushing back.Cheers,Paulhttp://www.bavirtual.org/images/sigs/paul_sst.jpg

[airflow 0]

Hi all,She did seem to be exempt from all the usual speed restrictions endured by subsonic traffic. When I went on alpha charlie we blasted off from heathrow's 27R and judging by the display in the cabin went straight to VMO. I have a photo that shows mach 0.71 at 8500ft!A flight unlike any other.Richard