47 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why would you want a Concorde?

In flight sim there is nothing quite like the satisfaction of successfully flying the Concorde from EGLL to KJFK while operating all of the buttons and switches, managing the fuel and navigating using the INS system.  Its a very steep learning curve which is probably why its so good when you finally manage to do it.

Manchester to Malaga in an Airbus / Boeing. Flight time 2h 40m

In Concorde even allowing for the longer route westward towards Ireland before turning left down the Irish Sea it's 1h 28m. I can generally get up to FL560 before the descent starts abeam Porto with descent rates up to 6,000fpm. Exciting eh? 😁

58 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why would you want a Concorde?

For the same reason I wanted a Phantom, or a Blackburn Beverley.... 

I have many planes in my virtual hangar. They are there because they are unusual, I like the look of them, I "need" them to access some of the airfields in the world, I like the performance, and/or they are just beautiful to look at in flight or on the ground.

31 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

For the same reason I wanted a Phantom, or a Blackburn Beverley.... 

I have many planes in my virtual hangar. They are there because they are unusual, I like the look of them, I "need" them to access some of the airfields in the world, I like the performance, and/or they are just beautiful to look at in flight or on the ground.

In short, because they have character.  They are not generic aircraft.  It's not just because they are different, it's because they are special.  

Hook

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why would you want a Concorde?

Why wouldn’t you want one? Curious to hear your reasons.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Why wouldn’t you want one? Curious to hear your reasons.

Plane isn't in operation anymore. I'd rather Addon developers develop current aircraft. Just my opinion, though. 

5 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Plane isn't in operation anymore. I'd rather Addon developers develop current aircraft. Just my opinion, though. 

In a few years the 747 and A380 may not be operating. If you only want to fly aircraft currently operational the list is becoming shorter. Each to their own of course. I was just curious.

Why?

The one thing which simulators don't have to be constrained by, is whether the thing they are simulating is current.

The Mark I and Mark II Spitfires in the Battle of Britain stopped being operational in 1941, but it doesn't mean we don't want to have a go at flying them in our simulators.

Same with Concorde; the fact that these things were the pinnacle of aviation in their time is more than enough reason to have digital versions of them around, as it is with DC-3s, 737-100s, PBY Catalinas, Messerschmitt 262s and so on. They are among the many things which make flight simulators so compelling and interesting.

Edited September 7, 20205 yr by Chock

Imagine if we took the same attitude to airshows and only flew what was in operation. How dull would that be? A bunch of jelly mould airliners and 'multi-role fighters' performing the same routines as each other.😴

Most people appreciate some element of nostalgia in their life.

Why are they wasting time on FSX and P3D? 🤦‍♂️

Even a "lite" version, with excellent external and cockpit 3D modelling/textures but basic systems for MSFS would sell like hot cakes, IMHO. 👍

Then later on, when the SDK is ready, developed a "pro" version with full systems modelling. 🤔

These devs are their own worse enemies... dump FSX/P3D and just focus on MSFS. 🤷‍♂️

 

3 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Why are they wasting time on FSX and P3D? 🤦‍♂️

Even a "lite" version, with excellent external and cockpit 3D modelling/textures but basic systems for MSFS would sell like hot cakes, IMHO. 👍

Then later on, when the SDK is ready, developed a "pro" version with full systems modelling. 🤔

These devs are their own worse enemies... dump FSX/P3D and just focus on MSFS. 🤷‍♂️

 

Basic systems for Concorde? It isn’t a conventional aircraft. It has to be flown a certain way to keep within its operational parameters. The autopilot - AFCS - is unlike any other aircraft. No LNAV or VNAV. There’s an INS system for lateral navigation.

P3D and FSX have mature SDKs and aircraft can be developed for them. The one for MFS is nowhere near finished as you point out. Then there’s just the small issue of gleaning accurate flight info and how all the systems work. No easy task.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Basic systems for Concorde?

Yes, basic systems (including raising the nose/visor, simple reheats etc).

Think of all the potential "X-boxers" (and PC users) who would pay $5 for a basic Concorde, not caring about a study simulation, just wanting to fly it because it looks "cool", which it is.  I reckon he could easily sell 20,000+ copies of the "lite" version at $5.

Leave the "pro" version for later.... I'm sure many would happily pay $100 for a Concorde study sim, but it's a long term project (another 6+ months at least, maybe longer).

Get a lite version out asap, before someone else does... All IMHO ofc.

 

edit: And I reckon the "Lite" and "Pro" approach is something that 3PDs should adopt, including PMDG.... IMO the XBox market (and 95% of the PC market) will only care about "eye-candy" aircraft (ie "lite" versions) and not study sims.     So cheap, "lite" versions that have excellent 3D modelling are going to be popular (and a greater ROI) than study sims, IMO.

edit: Plus, with "Lite" versions there's no need to wait for Asobo to finish the SDK.  By "Lite" I mean the similar 3D modelling quality that we see in the default aircraft. Ok, maybe  he can't get access to a Concorde cockpit, but he can definitely develop a model with many times more polys and higher res textures than FSX/P3D allows.

Edited September 7, 20205 yr by MatthewS

@MatthewS, with respect have you ever flown Concorde in a sim? What you’re suggesting is just not feasible. Yes, visor and nose ops are reasonably simple to do as are reheats. They’re either on or off.

But unless they flew it as the real Concorde was flown it wouldn’t achieve Mach 1 around FL320 or Mach 2 at FL500. Mach 2 might just not be possible.

On the other hand some might decide they want to fly at Mach 2 at 10,000ft and a poorly designed flight model would allow that. Totally unrealistic.

There was a Concorde in Microsoft Flight Sim 2000. The least said about that the better.

How these versions of Concorde turn out is unknown. Good luck to the developers because it’s not an easy job. The price will be attractive no doubt. But the serious people will wait for the FSL version.

12 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

I think I read somewhere that there USED to be a sub-sonic speedlimit in game, but it has since been lifted. I'm afraid I remember where I read it, or attest to how credible the source was.

So why are you repeating information of such dubious validity and credibility?

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@MatthewS, with respect have you ever flown Concorde in a sim? What you’re suggesting is just not feasible. Yes, visor and nose ops are reasonably simple to do as are reheats. They’re either on or off.

But unless they flew it as the real Concorde was flown it wouldn’t achieve Mach 1 around FL320 or Mach 2 at FL500. Mach 2 might just not be possible.

On the other hand some might decide they want to fly at Mach 2 at 10,000ft and a poorly designed flight model would allow that. Totally unrealistic.

There was a Concorde in Microsoft Flight Sim 2000. The least said about that the better.

How these versions of Concorde turn out is unknown. Good luck to the developers because it’s not an easy job. The price will be attractive no doubt. But the serious people will wait for the FSL version.

Yes, I think it was FSL in FSX.... I get it, it has complex systems, I remember.

I'm talking about an "eye candy" lite version, for the 95% of the XBox and PC gamers that want eye candy at $5 and don't care about a study sim.

With respect, I guess you just don't get it.