FS Labs Concorde "Unpaused"

[sd_flyer 6,042]

8 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I see MFS as a VFR simulator and P3D as an IFR one.

VFR and IFR are just the rules you fly by. It either visual or by reference of instruments . You can do both in P3D and MSFS easily! 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

VFR and IFR are just the rules you fly by. It either visual or by reference of instruments . You can do both in P3D and MSFS easily! 

I am aware of the rules. I phrased it like that to show how I would use each sim. It wouldn’t be easy to fly VFR in P3D if a road or railway wasn’t visible. It should be in MFS.

[sd_flyer 6,042]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I am aware of the rules. I phrased it like that to show how I would use each sim. It wouldn’t be easy to fly VFR in P3D if a road or railway wasn’t visible. It should be in MFS.

I know P3D is not satellite representation of the terrain but still we can use dead reckoning for VFR!

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

7 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I know P3D is not satellite representation of the terrain but still we can use dead reckoning for VFR!

I suppose if you don't have any helpful ground objects that is an option. 👍

[travelabroad 177]

Given this statement from Lefteris on Facebook, I say it's pretty safe to assume it's for P3Dv5:

Quote

Fantastic to see some life being breathed into her. Some steam gauges in P3D5 are going to look absolutely incredible. But even more so. Thesounds!

 

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I can't wait to see Ray take the 64bit version of Concorde up for a test flight

[MrNuke 59]

On 9/3/2020 at 8:04 AM, Chock said:

But unless FSL is really well advanced with making their Concorde and envisage being able to get it out of the door within a year, I suspect making it for P3D would be commercial suicide. It's an iconic aeroplane, and we know everyone likes it (especially in the UK), but I just don't see enough people buying a niche aeroplane for the best part of 150 quid for P3D when it is a sim which many people are, or probably will be, waving goodbye to. Lots of people have even stopped buying 20 quid airports for the thing so they're hardly gonna stump up the cash for an FSL Concorde.

As a Concorde enthusiast on the other side of the pond, who never made the jump to P3D I'd tend to agree. I still have FSX installed just for Concorde X at this point, but I'd have a hard time justifying $199 for another potentially dying simulator and another ~100 for a single aircraft for said simulator.

On 9/3/2020 at 8:14 AM, Christopher Low said:

If it is confirmed as P3Dv5, you could argue that maybe FSL do not see the new Microsoft Flight Simulator as a (currently) viable platform for complex "study level" airliners.....

I doubt that is the case as their Boeing competitor seems to have reached the exact opposite conclusion. If you asked me which would sell more a study level A320 in MSFS or a new Concorde in P3D I think the answer is fairly obvious. I think the more likely scenario in play here is that FSL has likely reached a point where they are waiting for the SDK to be finalized before they can do any more work in MSFS.

On 9/3/2020 at 8:32 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Hard to say how much extra work was involved in converting from the 32-bit version. I doubt they started with a clean sheet of paper. The beta may be imminent.

We will see, but I doubt this. As was discussed on one of the threads on their forums when they announced the postponement @trumpetfrazz1 noted had a 32 to 64 bit port been easy it would've been done. And without knowing how much time they've spent on it so far since "un-pausing," had they been that close to a beta before pausing... it also seems like it wouldn't have been paused.

On 9/3/2020 at 9:13 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I see MFS as a VFR simulator and P3D as an IFR one.

What exactly constitutes an IFR simulator? Putting the appropriate gauges or systems on the plane to fly IFR can be done in any simulator. And quite frankly assuming a given simulator allows flying up to 60,000 feet, things aren't going to look all that different out the window over the Atlantic Ocean in Concorde.

Edited September 4, 2020 by MrNuke

[G-RFRY 1,712]

The problem for me i have been flying in FS for over 20 years so much so that in the UK i can fly VFR without instruments and high detailed scenery, the novelty has worn off, now it`s IFR and high detailed airports and the ability with tools to make changes that will keep me flying P3D. Something i can do without issues and with all ORBX scenery except TE and some 100 addon airport`s, and i have not installed my new MB and CPU yet.   

Edited September 4, 2020 by G-RFRY

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

1 hour ago, MrNuke said:

We will see, but I doubt this. As was discussed on one of the threads on their forums when they announced the postponement @trumpetfrazz1 noted had a 32 to 64 bit port been easy it would've been done. And without knowing how much time they've spent on it so far since "un-pausing," had they been that close to a beta before pausing... it also seems like it wouldn't have been paused.

What exactly constitutes an IFR simulator? Putting the appropriate gauges or systems on the plane to fly IFR can be done in any simulator. And quite frankly assuming a given simulator allows flying up to 60,000 feet, things aren't going to look all that different out the window over the Atlantic Ocean in Concorde.

On your first para we can speculate until the cows come home. I just put my take on how I reread the situation.

An IFR simulator would have lots of accurate upper wind and temp data which is especially relevant to Concorde. Active Sky provides that but as far as I know they have no current access into MFS.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

Well the roadmap is not encouraging SDK updates though November, and the wish list what not being worked on "in progress " 2021 or later for them. 

[MrNuke 59]

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

An IFR simulator would have lots of accurate upper wind and temp data which is especially relevant to Concorde. Active Sky provides that but as far as I know they have no current access into MFS.

We need to separate Concorde and most other planes for a moment that I'll circle back to. I think it is a little ironic that the argument is P3D is an IFR simulator and MSFS isn't, because of a 3rd party add-on for weather in P3D.  I just pulled up Heathrow in Active Sky and recorded upper level winds and temperatures at 24,000, 30,000, and 45,000 feet (IFR altitudes). Keep in mind that both Active Sky and Meteoblue are essentially modeling weather. MSFS' winds were within +/- 3 degrees and +/- 2 knots at all 3 altitudes. The temperatures were within 1 degree of each other at all three altitudes. Obviously there is a pretty big bug limiting where weather is currently being injected to, but I'm confident it will be fixed as MB's website has wind data for places it currently isn't being injected into in the sim.

Circling back, if we want to get Concorde specific there is 1 major weather problem in MSFS. Weather data appears to stop at 150 mb which is just under 45,000 feet. For 99% of the civilian planes that have ever flown that isn't a problem as nearly every single plane is going to have a service ceiling at or under 45,000 feet. For Concorde it obviously is an issue. Again though if the solution to IFR flying weather wise is in P3D is Active Sky it only seems fair to wait and see what they come up with for MSFS. The game has only been out less than two weeks with an incomplete SDK, a solution will be found.

Edited September 4, 2020 by MrNuke

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

@MrNuke, just to clarify I didn’t say MFS is a VFR sim and P3D is an IFR one. I said that is how I would treat them. Clearly either can be used for both purposes.

Whilst the winds and temp might be the same from both weather sources for London would they be as accurate mid-Atlantic enroute from Heathrow to Barbados? Currently no as you say. But if the weather isn’t modelled up to FL600 and beyond then MFS would never be suitable for Concorde and other aircraft capable of operating at those altitudes.

This is all moot anyway as FSL 64-bit Concorde will be for P3D. Whether they ever create a version for MFS who knows but from my conversations with Andrew Wilson at Cosford I suspect not.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

23 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I am aware of the rules. I phrased it like that to show how I would use each sim. It wouldn’t be easy to fly VFR in P3D if a road or railway wasn’t visible. It should be in MFS.

Yes, but you can make them visible if you buy the right scenery...I've been flying IFR and VFR in the sims we have for years!  True VFR isn't just "pilotage" as it's known in the US, it is also dead reckoning etc.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@MrNuke, just to clarify I didn’t say MFS is a VFR sim and P3D is an IFR one. I said that is how I would treat them. Clearly either can be used for both purposes.

Whilst the winds and temp might be the same from both weather sources for London would they be as accurate mid-Atlantic enroute from Heathrow to Barbados? Currently no as you say. But if the weather isn’t modelled up to FL600 and beyond then MFS would never be suitable for Concorde and other aircraft capable of operating at those altitudes.

This is all moot anyway as FSL 64-bit Concorde will be for P3D. Whether they ever create a version for MFS who knows but from my conversations with Andrew Wilson at Cosford I suspect not.

I find it interesting that we are stuck on weather issue that i'll state right now I'm not qualified to judge, because I don't have MFS at the moment.  As has been said, it was only released two weeks ago and we always knew it would be in a basic condition upon release, so let's give it a chance - I suspect there aren't many people who want to fly at high altitude in it right now anyway.

What I find amusing is that of all the aircraft that flew, Concorde was the least affected by upper winds, which tended to be light anyway, and with a ground speed of 1130 kts and a head wind of around 30 kts the effect of flight time was minimal.  Temperatures had a greater effect on fuel burn, but even then, how many people in flight sim land are like me and do a proper, detailed fuel flight plan before every trip....??!! 

I must say though Ray, for you to make a statement on behalf of FSL as in the above post is a little off in my opinion, and I find that you tend (whether by intention or not) to make your posts sound like your way is the only way.  I accept your opinion and your wishes, not everyone has to agree and as I've said before, let's just wait and see!!!

I'm at the stage I don't mind what sim it is for, as long as she flies well (which she will) and as it is a new build not an update (Andrew has made that public on the other forum so I'm not telling any tales) my statement about porting from 32 to 64 bit that has been quoted by others seems to have been the case after all.................

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

3 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

I must say though Ray, for you to make a statement on behalf of FSL as in the above post is a little off in my opinion, and I find that you tend (whether by intention or not) to make your posts sound like your way is the only way.  I accept your opinion and your wishes, not everyone has to agree and as I've said before, let's just wait and see!!!

Frazz, all my comments are personal opinions with some educated guesses. I have never said I speak on behalf of FSL so please don’t suggest I have.

This topic is for discussion on the “unpaused” Concorde post by Lefteris. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to speculate. That’s one of the  purposes of forum discussion.