7 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

What other information are you after exactly?  What's missing from your point of view?

An awful lot. The fluid flow and thermodynamic stuff is quite different.  Though admittedly, if you just want to fly really fast and sight see probably not much.

Sonic boom aside - the biggest issue will be transonic flight and things like control reversal.

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

26 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Yes. Yes it is.

Was that a new flyby camera at the beginning?

I'm guessing that as the Hornet is coming as a default plane it will be open to modding...?

14 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Was that a new flyby camera at the beginning?

I'm guessing that as the Hornet is coming as a default plane it will be open to modding...?

I wish but no, it was me doing it manually because the lock on function still sucks 😛

The hornet is indeed default level systems-wise with LOTS of inop stuff (but the fly by wire controls seem to work very well, much unlike the default A320, so that's a perk). I have checked the files, and nothing is encrypted, so yes, modders will have a field day with it 😄

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Abriael

8 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For FS Labs to even contemplate a Concorde for MSFS the SDK would have to be far more complete than now.

If you are referring to the systems part of the SDK, FSLabs can practically bypass the MSFS SDK and use their own external program to emulate the systems.  Fenix is doing this exactly by using an external program (ProSim in this case) to emulate the A320 systems.

So at least with respect to systems, no, FSLabs doesn't have to wait for the MSFS SDK to be more complete, if they are targeting the PC market.

From my understanding, full adherence to the MSFS SDK is only needed if the 3rd party dev wants to sell their aircraft on X-Box. So for example, PMDG fully used the MSFS SDK so that's why they are able to sell the DC6 on the X-Box.  Ditto for Aerosoft's CRJ.

But 3rd party devs are free to go the Fenix route and use an external program to emulate their own systems, in which case their plane would only be available for PC.

Now if you are referring to other aspects of the MSFS SDK that concern supersonic flight specifically, then there may be limitations.

4 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

An awful lot. The fluid flow and thermodynamic stuff is quite different.  Though admittedly, if you just want to fly really fast and sight see probably not much.

Sonic boom aside - the biggest issue will be transonic flight and things like control reversal.

Yes, I wonder if there are other key physical aspects of supersonic flight that is missing from MSFS after SU7, that would impede FSLabs from making a Concorde for MSFS.

I can't of course speak for FSLabs, but at this time MSFS does now support supersonic flight and afterburners ( reheat ) so some aspects of Concorde are now possible. Developers can build their own entire template systems for aircraft, in principal allowing for far more complex aircraft than the stock templates in MSFS would allow, but with the current flow of Sim Updates breaking things routinely, I doubt that something as complex as the FS Labs Concorde would be possible simply for that reason alone - it would never be "up to date" and would probably require constant work.

The DCD Concorde will be much more complex than that which I built for FSX / Prepar3D, but it's still mid-level in terms of systems depth as that's my target market ( I think most are aware of that by now ) and also, importantly, the target-price band that I aim for. I don't think a $100 aircraft will be attractive for much of the console generation 🙂

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

If you are referring to the systems part of the SDK, FSLabs can practically bypass the MSFS SDK and use their own external program to emulate the systems.

I’m no programmer so can’t comment on what’s possible and what isn’t. All I can tell you is they’re working on the P3D version and whatever their intentions are for MSFS they will announce those in due course.

I imagine their Airbus series would take priority anyway. And - at the danger of repeating myself - they have said there will only be one 64-bit version of Concorde so don’t expect one for MSFS unless there’s a dramatic change of planning.

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

- at the danger of repeating myself - they have said there will only be one 64-bit version of Concorde so don’t expect one for MSFS unless there’s a dramatic change of planning.

They are so right  !

Hey, why going to a strong and expanding market when you can go to a shrinking one with an uncertain future !

Because P3D is ultimately a training tool and there is a large pro market to train future Concorde pilots ?

 

 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

30 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

And - at the danger of repeating myself - they have said there will only be one 64-bit version of Concorde so don’t expect one for MSFS unless there’s a dramatic change of planning.

They say this but at the end of the day, they are a business so it's about $$$.

And right now, the amount $$$ they can get from P3D home market users is dwindling by the day (hence so many 3rd party devs that used to develop for the P3D home user market have left P3D).

Your post from last year when FSLabs announced the 64 bit Concorde for P3D v4 and v5 was from October of 2020.  Mind you, October of 2020 was probably still before the home market for P3D "imploded" (please note I am not here to dunk on P3D, but I do want to state the fact that many devs still thought the P3D home user market back in October of last year was still healthy).

I still think FSLabs will probably release the Concorde for P3D if they have spent a lot of work on it already.  But at the same time, if a lot of the code for the Concorde can be ported to use for a version with MSFS and MSFS satisfies what they need for a Concorde, I'm sure FSLabs would be more than interested to release it for MSFS because at the end of the day, they are a business and for a business, it's about $$$ - and the $$$ for the home market is in MSFS.

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

5 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

An awful lot. The fluid flow and thermodynamic stuff is quite different.  Though admittedly, if you just want to fly really fast and sight see probably not much.

Sonic boom aside - the biggest issue will be transonic flight and things like control reversal.

Yes, these aspects of the physics happen in real life of course, but as sim pilot, how would we get to interact with the fluid flow and thermodynamic issues in the sim?  Would we even notice them?

33 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

I can't of course speak for FSLabs, but at this time MSFS does now support supersonic flight and afterburners ( reheat ) so some aspects of Concorde are now possible. Developers can build their own entire template systems for aircraft, in principal allowing for far more complex aircraft than the stock templates in MSFS would allow, but with the current flow of Sim Updates breaking things routinely, I doubt that something as complex as the FS Labs Concorde would be possible simply for that reason alone - it would never be "up to date" and would probably require constant work.

The DCD Concorde will be much more complex than that which I built for FSX / Prepar3D, but it's still mid-level in terms of systems depth as that's my target market ( I think most are aware of that by now ) and also, importantly, the target-price band that I aim for. I don't think a $100 aircraft will be attractive for much of the console generation 🙂

I just want to say if the 3rd party developer is using their own external program to emulate the systems rather than going through the SDK, the Sim Updates don't have as much of an impact as 3rd party developers that are primarily going through the SDK.

In the case of Fenix, they mentioned that SU5 did not affect their Fenix A320 as much, compared to the other 3rd party dev planes, and the assumption is probably because Fenix is using their own external program to emulate the systems (ProSim), rather than going through the SDK.

So if FSLabs decides to go the Fenix route and use an external program for systems emulation, the Sim Updates probably won't "break" their Concorde as much.

2 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Yes, these aspects of the physics happen in real life of course, but as sim pilot, how would we get to interact with the fluid flow and thermodynamic issues in the sim?  Would we even notice them?

This is an interesting question.  Does the FSLabs Concorde require fluid flow and other thermodynamics issues to be implemented in MSFS and the SDK?  If they do, then perhaps MSFS is still missing components that FSLabs would want.

Would be interested to hear from FSLabs after SU7 is released and they have had a chance to evaluate SU7 and comment on what other elements of supersonic flight is missing in MSFS.

29 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

They say this but at the end of the day, they are a business so it's about $$$.

And right now, the amount $$$ they can get from P3D home market users is dwindling by the day (hence so many 3rd party devs that used to develop for the P3D home user market have left P3D).

In this context it’s also important to note that I was one of the users that indicated interest via e-mail when FSLabs tried to gauge the potential market for a 64-bit Concorde 4 years ago. I am absolutely sure that I’m not alone in having moved on and left P3D behind me, with no intention of ever going back, Concorde or not. 
However, should Andrew and Lefteris decide to work their magic on a Concorde in MSFS I would buy on day 1.

@abrams_tank and @Dominique_K, you’re asking the wrong person. I know nothing about FS Labs’ plans other than what they’ve said on their forum.

I’m tagging Andrew Wilson in case he wants to clarify anything or answer your questions. @MachTwo, care to comment? 😉

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@abrams_tank and @Dominique_K, you’re asking the wrong person. I know nothing about FS Labs’ plans other than what they’ve said on their forum.

 

I was just commenting what you reported the FSLabs position was on this matter, Ray. It is a bit surprising but this their bottom line after all.