2 hours ago, F737NG said:

Undeniably a great aircraft and as a Brit, I'm glad our industrial heritage produced half of her.

That said, Concorde's been out of commercial service for 15+ years now. You can exclude nearly everyone under the age of 25, possibly even 30, from having any nostalgia for the aeroplane - that's a rather consequential part of the gaming market.
Now price it at over $150 and suddenly what was a relatively limited target audience has become smaller again.

747-200, L-1011, 757, DC-10, MD-80 were all produced in much greater quantities so more people got to see and experience them to drive the sentimental attachment.
Everything else currently flying is sought after for the realism factor.

Try telling Americans 15 years after the 747 is withdrawn that it won’t sell in flight sim because it no longer flies. You’ll need to be quick at ducking! 😉 The whole point of a simulator is that anything goes.

All those aircraft you list have one thing in common. They’re all subsonic and slow. Mach 0.85 maximum I would guess. Concorde’s maximum speed was, as you know, Mach 2.02. That’s almost 2.5 times faster. It’s beautiful, fast and fun to fly but because it’s not currently operational hardly anyone will want to fly it?? I just can’t believe that of people who love flight. Young people marvel at the Spitfire! That hasn’t flown in anger since 1945! I just don’t get your argument.

Lots of young people visit G-BOAC located at Manchester Visitor’s Park. They also watch when I have flown it in P3D at flight sim shows. Concorde excites like no other aircraft. Age and operational status is irrelevant.

 

35 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Young people marvel at the Spitfire! That hasn’t flown in anger since 1945! I just don’t get your argument.

Ray, I sympathize - I really do - so don't take my comments the wrong way, but...  The difference is, people can still go to shows and see Spitfires flying, just as they can so many other iconic planes of yesterday.  Unfortunately that's not the case with the Concorde.  Couple that with the fact that, even when it was flying it flew such limited routes that few EVER got to see it, even in its heyday.

I'm fortunate to have seen it fly on a number of occasions at Oshkosh.  And then there was that memorable evening when I was sitting on the runway at Heathrow, number two behind the Concorde on a British Airways flight to Milan with a full view of it departing with burners lit into the setting sun.  Our plane shook as it began its takeoff roll.  Magic!

I get the appeal, big time.  But compared to most other planes, very few got to experience the thrill of seeing it so they don't carry those visceral memories like you and I do.

Scott

Edited June 21, 20196 yr by tttocs

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Try telling Americans 15 years after the 747 is withdrawn that it won’t sell in flight sim because it no longer flies. You’ll need to be quick at ducking! 😉 The whole point of a simulator is that anything goes.

All those aircraft you list have one thing in common. They’re all subsonic and slow. Mach 0.85 maximum I would guess. Concorde’s maximum speed was, as you know, Mach 2.02. That’s almost 2.5 times faster. It’s beautiful, fast and fun to fly but because it’s not currently operational hardly anyone will want to fly it?? I just can’t believe that of people who love flight. Young people marvel at the Spitfire! That hasn’t flown in anger since 1945! I just don’t get your argument.

Lots of young people visit G-BOAC located at Manchester Visitor’s Park. They also watch when I have flown it in P3D at flight sim shows. Concorde excites like no other aircraft. Age and operational status is irrelevant.

Ray, you're wilfully ignoring or mis-understanding my earlier points.

Just because you desparately want there to be a 64-bit version doesn't mean enough others do.

There is an attachment to Spitfire because of all the war stories, films, archive clips, oh and the flying appearance of an example every summer around all corners of the country, whether BBMF or other air show. But is there the same level of excitement for it from simmers outside of Britain?

There is an attachment to the 747 because it's carried the equivalent of  world's population in passengers from all corners of the globe. Therefore, there's very likely to be first-hand experience of it, driving it's popularity as a sim add-on. Give it 15 years after its retirement and let's see how popular a sim version is with the kids, teenagers and young adults at that point.

An aeroplane for the very well-to-do, flown by just two European airlines for the majority of her service life, not experienced by the majority of simmers either on-board or spectating, nor seen in flight for a decade and a half.

That all adds-up to a niche sim aircraft, no matter how much of a technical marvel it was in real world.

@F737NG ( a name would be nice 😉),

No, I’m neither ignoring or misunderstanding you.  Plenty of American WW2 plane enthusiasts love the Spitfire just as there are plenty of Brits who flock to Flying Legends show in England that has many American classic warplanes.

I appreciate not many people will have seen Concorde fly because there were only 15 or so in service. But it did make many visits overseas to flight shows amongst them Oshkosh and there’s a popular video on YT with the announcer warning people to cover their ears. Lots of “wows” when it took off even from Americans because it had that impact no other aircraft gives you.

I am probably flogging a dead horse here but it doesn’t detract from my love for this aircraft and admiration for the French and British engineers who designed and built her. Incidentally, you didn’t need to be well to do to fly on her. Plenty of subsonic charters costing around 500GBP. I could kick myself I never got to fly in her.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@F737NG ( a name would be nice 😉),

No, I’m neither ignoring or misunderstanding you.  Plenty of American WW2 plane enthusiasts love the Spitfire just as there are plenty of Brits who flock to Flying Legends show in England that has many American classic warplanes.

I appreciate not many people will have seen Concorde fly because there were only 15 or so in service. But it did make many visits overseas to flight shows amongst them Oshkosh and there’s a popular video on YT with the announcer warning people to cover their ears. Lots of “wows” when it took off even from Americans because it had that impact no other aircraft gives you.

I am probably flogging a dead horse here but it doesn’t detract from my love for this aircraft and admiration for the French and British engineers who designed and built her. Incidentally, you didn’t need to be well to do to fly on her. Plenty of subsonic charters costing around 500GBP. I could kick myself I never got to fly in her.

On reflection, your read of the overall demand for a Concorde representation is significantly coloured by your personal fondness for the aircraft. That's fair enough, everyone has at least one aircraft or scenery that they are partisan for and is desperate to see recreated in the sim.

All of what you have said is true, yet your experience and the numbers from the data gathered, don't appear to be enough to meet the levels of interest needed by FSL to get the Concorde project going with any level of significant commitment.

Maybe it's worth putting the suggestion to Just Flight for their own in-house dev team to take this on?
They have a track record of putting out historically significant British aircraft: VC10, Vulcan, Hawk and Tornado, with BAe 146 on the way.
Might not be the level you originally had hopes for, but a more likely source and surely better than nothing.

On a tangential point, do we think FSL will be invited to participate in FS2020? While the level of fidelity for the A320-series is unparalleled, the backlash and negative IT press coverage from even outside of the flight sim sphere, surely means that's a no-go?

F737NG
(a.k.a. Nick)

@F737NGaka Nick,

You're right in that my views are coloured by the fact I just love this aircraft. But FSL haven't said they're ceasing work on a 64-bit Concorde for P3D v4. Simply that they're "pausing" work until the situation regarding FS2020 and P3D v5 becomes clearer.

We know there is already an SDK for P3D and it seems possible there will be one for FS2020. If there is then that opens the way for a one-time conversion for Concorde to one of those platforms - FS2020 seems the more likely but I'm guessing.

I really don't know if FSL will be invited to contribute towards the FS2020 project. Memories are short given sales of the A3xx series seem buoyant.

I for one would love concord on the new sim. When I look at the cockpit I do find it quite intimidating though!

Quote

All of what you have said is true, yet your experience and the numbers from the data gathered, don't appear to be enough to meet the levels of interest needed by FSL to get the Concorde project going with any level of significant commitment.

It was the "numbers from the data gathered" that persuaded FSL that a 64bit version of Concorde was a viable prospect in the first place. That being the case, I am puzzled by the decision to halt the project just because a new version of Microsoft Flight Simulator has been announced. Is the entire community going to abandon P3D to pray at the Microsoft altar overnight? I seriously doubt that. Those people who convinced FSL that this project was worth undertaking are not simply going to forget about it just because a shiny new flight simulator has appeared. They want to fly an improved 64bit version of one of the world's most iconic aircraft, and I seriously doubt that the new Microsoft Flight Simulator will have anything like it for a long, long time.

8 minutes ago, Superdelphinus said:

I for one would love concord on the new sim. When I look at the cockpit I do find it quite intimidating though!

You're only allowed to buy it if you can spell it correctly. 😁 Don't forget the 'e'.

Yes, it can be intimidating with all those analogue gauges but don't forget it has a superb autopilot system that will allow you time to watch and learn. What in particular do you find intimidating? Four banks of gauges for the four engines. And an autopilot that doesn't have LNAV and VNAV. But other commands still give you what is needed to fly her correctly. There is a tutorial supplied for the EGLL-KJFK hop that takes you through all the steps from C&D to shutdown at JFK 3.5hrs after take-off.

The best bit is when you slam those throttles forward for take-off. No reduced TO or CLB settings needed for Concorde. Just 38,000lbs of thrust per engine with reheat for every take-off. It goes like a bullet! The Virtual Flight Engineer will handle fuel movement for you until you feel confident to do it yourself. I do all that and I'm an old bugger - 68!

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You're only allowed to buy it if you can spell it correctly. 😁 Don't forget the 'e'.

Yes, it can be intimidating with all those analogue gauges but don't forget it has a superb autopilot system that will allow you time to watch and learn. What in particular do you find intimidating? Four banks of gauges for the four engines. And an autopilot that doesn't have LNAV and VNAV. But other commands still give you what is needed to fly her correctly. There is a tutorial supplied for the EGLL-KJFK hop that takes you through all the steps from C&D to shutdown at JFK 3.5hrs after take-off.

The best bit is when you slam those throttles forward for take-off. No reduced TO or CLB settings needed for Concorde. Just 38,000lbs of thrust per engine with reheat for every take-off. It goes like a bullet! The Virtual Flight Engineer will handle fuel movement for you until you feel confident to do it yourself. I do all that and I'm an old bugger - 68!

Eeeee

its the massive bank of steam gauges. I’d be fine getting it up and running and taking off (after many hours) but if anything went wrong...

10 minutes ago, Superdelphinus said:

Eeeee

its the massive bank of steam gauges. I’d be fine getting it up and running and taking off (after many hours) but if anything went wrong...

You'll find after a while you perform a diagonal scan on the bank of 4 engines. Easy to see if they're not all the same.

There's little to go wrong as the throttles stay full forward from the accel point (FL260, Mach 0.95) where you light the reheats and engage MAX CLB. The autopilot will pitch the aircraft up to maintain Tmo which increases with altitude. Dial 600 into the ALT ACQ and forget it. NO fixed flight levels for Concorde as nothing else was up above FL430.

The other thing is to load the next set of waypoints into the INS. Concorde could only store up to 9 so that needs doing twice enroute on the EGLL-KJFK hop. No big thing. The descent needs planning carefully to make sure you are subsonic 60nm before land. Just basic arithmetic.

The landing is the most challenging but just leave it to the autoland which does everything for you. Take a note of engines settings and try it yourself when confident. Approach speed around 180kts slowing to 155kts for landing. Everything is fast with Concorde!

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@F737NGaka Nick,

You're right in that my views are coloured by the fact I just love this aircraft. But FSL haven't said they're ceasing work on a 64-bit Concorde for P3D v4. Simply that they're "pausing" work until the situation regarding FS2020 and P3D v5 becomes clearer.

We know there is already an SDK for P3D and it seems possible there will be one for FS2020. If there is then that opens the way for a one-time conversion for Concorde to one of those platforms - FS2020 seems the more likely but I'm guessing.

I really don't know if FSL will be invited to contribute towards the FS2020 project. Memories are short given sales of the A3xx series seem buoyant.

 

41 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

It was the "numbers from the data gathered" that persuaded FSL that a 64bit version of Concorde was a viable prospect in the first place. That being the case, I am puzzled by the decision to halt the project just because a new version of Microsoft Flight Simulator has been announced. Is the entire community going to abandon P3D to pray at the Microsoft altar overnight? I seriously doubt that. Those people who convinced FSL that this project was worth undertaking are not simply going to forget about it just because a shiny new flight simulator has appeared. They want to fly an improved 64bit version of one of the world's most iconic aircraft, and I seriously doubt that the new Microsoft Flight Simulator will have anything like it for a long, long time.

It is not exactly unknown for people to fib. Without skin in the game, i.e. a deposit, FSLabs probably had to make an allowance for that. However, they only have a best guess at what that level is. Combine that with even a (guess of) 5 - 10% drop from Concorde interested customers moving to the new FS and suddenly a marginally profitable project becomes loss-making.

That is purely educated conjecture on my part, however.

While it wouldn't be an overnight exodus, I wouldn't be so sure of it taking a long time for people to switch platforms. We've seen a surge in numbers to XP11 away from FSP/P3D to such an extent that previously ESP-only devs are delaying projects to get ports of existing, and moving resources to getting new, products into XP.

If FS2020 is anywhere near as good as it appears it could be, developers will throw the majority of their resources to capture the switching market *and* the sheer volume of new gamers. It will be much, much, much more profitable for them to do so (though again, I caveat that with *if* the end result is as good as it looks).

I hope Concorde is made, but the postponement on top of a lacklustre committal doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that we will see it.

Having read through this thread and knowing Ray from the FSLabs forum, a few of my thoughts:

1. I am just as annoyed at the announcement about the Concorde "pause" as Ray and many others are, if not maybe even a little more so.  They are a business who have to conduct their affairs in a way that works for them, although in this case I'm not convinced it will have a positive impact

2. Concorde was the most complex aircraft ever built bar none, even when compared with modern systems hence simulating the aircraft is also complex and takes a level of knowledge that is slowly eroding away with time.  This leads me to think that we need an accurate 64 bit simulation now before we pass the point of no return.

3. Because the aircraft was complex and was of its time I can understand why people would choose not to fly it in the sim.  It takes dedication to learn it enough to get satisfaction from it, and in some ways it is far better if you've only ever flown a Cessna or a Baron before you attempt to learn it because once you've flown a flying PC like the Airbus it is difficult to go back to the old way of flying.  Even in the real world I think it would be difficult to get the newest generation of pilots to train well enough to fly Concorde.

4. FSLabs must make a heap more money from the multiple Airbus models which (as Ray quoted me from another forum) are variations on a theme with added bits of fidelity here and there, compared with Concorde where basically all the systems have to operate fully from day one.  Incidentally, I fly the Airbus models as well so I am not criticising them, they are excellent simulations. 

5. There are ways that can make flying an addon such as Concorde less intimidating for those so called soft core sim fans, such as automating certain functions, which might help sales in the future.

6. Having seen the trailer for the new 2020 sim, it looks really good....but is it accurate?  The other thing is, will it run looking like that on my (reasonably well equipt and dedicated) PC at home, or have they made it look good for publicity on a specially built rig? 

7. We will have to wait and see what transpires in the industry but the fact is a lot of people have been waiting a long time for a 64 bit Concorde that we were told was coming and whatever way you look at it, we've been let down at the present time.  I'm not sure if the decision was made after the 2020 announcement really or if this came as an extra excuse (my personal feeling, nothing more)

Finally, the real Concorde was killed off against the will of many north of the English Channel by a collusion that perhaps one day will be recognised as the real reason.  It was political, and although BA were never going to make the profits they once did, they would never have spent the millions of pounds they did after the accident had they known they would be forced to terminate the operation just over a year later.  They had to go along with it because they were forced into a position they couldn't get out of.  She would have stopped flying commercially by now because of the environmental issues, but the ultimate insult was not being allowed to keep one in flying condition.

Great post Frazz. This comment sums up the current state of flying perfectly...”and in some ways it is far better if you've only ever flown a Cessna or a Baron before you attempt to learn it because once you've flown a flying PC like the Airbus it is difficult to go back to the old way of flying.”

I’ve just completed a flight in P3D v3 from Oslo to Heathrow. 1h 13m from take-off to wheels down. You can add another hour to that with the flying PC or any other subsonic aircraft.

All just my opinion Ray and it will be pretty worthless on here as I'm not rated - I've never bothered posting before! 

Another thing I should have added is that working with young people as my day job, they always know about Concorde without me telling them, the issue is if it isn't on their iPhone, they don't want to know, and that could affect the sim community in general not just Concorde X. 

ps Ray, carefully with some of the numbers you are quoting - approach speeds are 190kts to 800ft then down to Vref and always on autothrottle unless they aren't working!