Is this true about the PSS Concord???

[oqvist 11]

Professional writers always achieve free review copies. That is standard procedure. Imagine how expensive it would be otherwise if that would not be the case? Also you do the game publishers a favour by "hopefully" writing a positive review so game publishers are more than happy to give free copies if the web site/news paper is big enough ;).Now I ain

[Dillon 2,197]

The problem is Par your not working for any of the major FlightSim sites, that was my point above. If you were on staff at Avsim I could see your point.Anyway I bought the PSS Concord and I'm finding it very interesting comparing the two versions (Altitude's Concord). I'll write a little about my findings when I have time in the General Forums area... ;-)

[oqvist 11]

We should perhaps have a user review section though we may not need any more forums to browse through. It

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

Pars,<

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

<>Here here! This thread has stayed polite and the discussion has been interesting. If people don't want to read it then don't!

[oqvist 11]

>Pars,>><

[Dillon 2,197]

I wrote up a little something on the PSS Concord in the General Forums area. The thread is called, "A tale of two Concords Part 1"... Since I own both payware versions it's interesting to see the differences.... :-)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

Par,Okay, I accept you don't have a desire to get rid of 2D panels as you believe that 3D panels will look identical. Maybe you've seen more examples of what 3D software can achieve because you buy other games - I don't. My only serious software for my PC is FS.Let's return to this subject in 5 years and see what's on offer then eh? ;-)Cheers,

[oqvist 11]

Yup very interesting :). As for the VC comments it looks like it

[Bluescaster 21]

Dillon....... pleased to see you're reconsidering your position, well done:-) Also credit to you for having character enough to share that in this medium. However I feel I must set the record straight as to my position. I am not biased either way. None of my posts you will see, did anything other than ask for reasoned consideration from your good self. These forum are an excellent medium for discussion and expressing ones likes and dislikes; however I feel it must be done in a reasonable and balanced way, if one wishes those points of view (opinions :-) ) to be taken seriously.To harp on endlessly in a reproachful and negative fashion; first about one thing and then about another connected with a company/model/organisation etc. only provokes discord and upset. Further the individual acting thus is counter productive as they then tend to be dismissed by the majority, even when they have in fact a genuine point to impart.Several people "posting" to this thread have made some excellent points. It is easy to see those who have considered the issues and shared their thoughts in a balanced way. Whereas others have clearly allowed their personal feelings and emotions to colour their submissions. On balance that is fine - takes all sorts. However, those explaining their viewpoint in a balanced way tend to be better received and credible.Good luck with Concorde, a wonderful aviation milestone.Regards Blue

[Bluescaster 21]

Michael, I for one have been encouraged by the various views and counter views, put forward by all those posting to this thread and find your intervention puzzling. Forgive me if I've missed something (as you point out it is a long thread) but I don't recall you posting to this subject earlier and now am curious; almost suspicious as to your motive.I cannot believe I am the only one still reading this thread each day when I find time to log on. It has not degenerated into an embarrassment to the forum and my beleif is that discussions such as this are self policing in many ways and certainly do not warrant untimely closure.I would ask that it be allowed to remain pending developement at present:-)Regards Blue.

[Dillon 2,197]

I bought the video, "How they flew the Concord"... It gives a decent overview of flying the Concord. Both PSS and Altitude have done a great job in giving us a good experience within the confines of FS2k4. Like I said before PSS is just fun and Altitude is more serious add-on...

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

It will, unless things "head south", and then we'll do what we have to do. Until then, open discourse is good.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

Tom,O ye of little faith :7 Just about everyone here has been on their best nehaviour and will probably remain so.Cheers,

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!It seems to me the best of both worlds is a pannable 2D as in the FLY series. EVERY knob, switch or guage visible with no popups. Plus when looking at the throttle quadrant or overhead you can snap back to Home cockpit instantly. I admit 3D makes flying the patten easier than even panning but as soon as I'm on final I usualy go back to 2D in FS2004. The default panels of FS2004 bear very little correlation to the real world aircraft and 3D is just a pannable version of the same. That's as real as it gets? FS2004 does have better ATC and scenery but systems are a joke. You start a jet engine by opening the high pressure cok (censor can't spell that one right) and holding the start switch? Goood way to fry an engine. ROTW just released a DVD of addons and improvements for FLY 2 so maybe TRI can be convinced to give Microsoft some healthy competition again. Ain't it funny that Microsoft made the same mistake FLY did not having gyros linked to the master switch and insisting in the manual that in the real world gyros are only powered by vaccuum? Actually they are called ELECTROmechanical gyros because they have a dual power source. Setting "previous flight as my default reminds me of "persistent world" option in FLY. Since the days of the far superior Sublogic Microsoft has unabashedly copied features from the competitors it squelches.:-jumpy P.S. Psychic prediction future MSFS vill have pannable 2D as well as #D.