Concorde announced by Aeroplane Heaven

[331BK 96]

https://fselite.net/news/aeroplane-heaven-announces-concorde-development-for-prepar3d-and-microsoft-flight-simulator/

[Victoroos 205]

Who knows.. would be sweet if it turns out good ^^

[djbully 210]

Ooh interesting ! I know it wont be anything like FSLabs one though 😞

[JasonPC 173]

Meh why don’t they fix their current aircraft first I have low expectations here. I’m sure the model and textures will be great though.

[Afterburner 374]

I wish they would combine the flight model/systems from FSLabs with a new realistic VC and exterior model. It would be a great product without having to invent the wheel anew. Hopefully they will work with FSL on that.

Where is Ray Proudfoot? 🙂  Can't be long until he will chime in.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Afterburner

[Christopher Low 5,352]

Ray started a thread about this in the Hangar Chat forum

[TuFun 434]

There paint kits are lacking for a few models and even if you show them examples they still send out inaccurate examples,

so did my own. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by TuFun

[ErichB 3,640]

A highly complex aircraft done by a company that is not known for complexity of their systems.  It's like a Carenado Concorde.  Pass.

[vc10man 732]

42 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Carenado Concorde

🤣

[tutmeister 706]

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

How is the Colimata version for XP going?

It is still early access, if we weren't in lockdown you could try the current version at the NWFSG meet. 

This review gives a good overview of its current state. I'm fed up of waiting on fixes and it cost a lot.

https://www.thresholdx.net/review/colcon

I'm hoping this AH one will be good enough until FSL get their act together.

Stay safe,

Chris

[Chock 17,769]

3 hours ago, djbully said:

Ooh interesting ! I know it wont be anything like FSLabs one though 😞

Well, there currently is no FS Labs one since the current development has been halted pending evaluation and their previous 32 Bit version is no longer on sale and will no longer be receiving any further support from the developer from next month. so it might be a case of this one or nothing unless you already have their FSX one and are happy to run that sim.

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

A highly complex aircraft done by a company that is not known for complexity of their systems.  It's like a Carenado Concorde.  Pass.

The fact is that to develop a really complex simulation of a Concorde would take a lot of work (i.e. years) and even then there's no guarantee that it would sell in large enough numbers to recoup the investment, which is exactly why FS Labs solicited a response from this and other forums on who would buy one and even then they've still decided to put their on hold. So it's all very well slamming companies such as Carenado and Aeroplane Heaven etc for not producing super complex add-ons, but to be honest, if they didn't make what they do make, you wouldn't have any version of a lot of those aeroplanes.

Now I will happily hold such companies feet to the fire when they don't beta test stuff properly or don't fix issues on stuff which is released, but this is a completely different issue to that of making less popular add-ons. Personally, I'm very glad these companies do make what they do, because I don't see FSL or PMDG lining up to make a Sud Aviation Caravellle, a BAC 1-11 or a Beechcraft 18, they're too busy going for the safe bets. now you can't blame them for being pragmatic in terms of business, but when you have a big seller, you can afford to spend time and money on creating another one.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Chock

[Ray Proudfoot 8,947]

Thanks Chris. Very disappointing that the AFCS is not fully functional after such a long period of development. A bit of a mixed bag really. I look forward to trying it just as soon as we are allowed to meet again.

[ErichB 3,640]

44 minutes ago, Chock said:

So it's all very well slamming companies such as Carenado and Aeroplane Heaven etc for not producing super complex add-ons, but to be honest, if they didn't make what they do make, you wouldn't have any version of a lot of those aeroplanes.

Now I will happily hold such companies feet to the fire when they don't beta test stuff properly or don't fix issues on stuff which is released, but this is a completely different issue to that of making less popular add-ons. Personally, I'm very glad these companies do make what they do, because I don't see FSL or PMDG lining up to make a Sud Aviation Caravellle, a BAC 1-11 or a Beechcraft 18, they're too busy going for the safe bets. now you can't blame them for being pragmatic in terms of business, but when you have a big seller, you can afford to spend time and money on creating another one.

Fair

[Ted Striker 338]

I'm concerned that this AH Concorde announcement will put the final nails in the coffin for the FSLabs version.

Ted

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

I rarely post on here but seen as I dare not do so on a certain other forum...

In my opinion when it comes to Concorde for flightsim of any kind there are two worlds that need to collide to make it work: 1. Excellent technical knowledge of the aircraft and 2. extremely clever coding/development.

I am not getting into the business side of things as that should be worked out before you even start. 

The technical knowledge exists in full form by virtue of the fact there are still people around that flew her/worked on her (although they are getting older now) and because they loved her so much they still remember things in great detail.  Plus, all the technical documents are still in existence (including in my house) and with those alone you could make a very good simulation.  Where you need the folk that were there is for the "feel" of flying her and the little nuances like one of the fleet often had an ADC warning going through Mach 1 that they could never get to the bottom of, so it became a normal part of flying that aircraft.  Another one in the BA fleet tended to want to turn to the right constantly even though the flying controls were all setup correctly.  Things like this would probably never be simulated anyway though, so from the technical documents alone an excellent simulation could be done.

Now, the development/coding of it is the bit that takes the time and I guess the money too.  Considering that Concorde had around 90 miles (if I remember correctly) of analogue wiring in her as opposed to using data bus transfer stuff and that the only digital system on her was the air intake control units (ok, later the TCAS and the quick access recorder had microchips) to simulate things accurately like FSLabs did is difficult to do. Now I don't know anything about the company we are discussing here and it could be they know a lot about coding very complicated analogue systems with digital code, my concern is if they don't have the technical knowledge onboard fully from start to finish there is no way it will be a replacement for FSLabs. 

There again,  if they have been on the FSLabs forums and read some of the threads they might get most of the info they need!!

Frazz