47 minutes ago, Dutch727 said:

Another supersonic aircraft of some repute is the SR-71.

Right now the Milviz SR-71 for MSFS has a complete, textured exterior model and the interior model is complete and is being textured.  We anticipate that texture work will be done in January.  Serious, intense development on the systems and flight model will begin at that point.  It will not be a simplified version.  Every system and control in the real thing will work authentically and we have a former SR-71 pilot to help keep us straight. It'll be 100% custom code.  The flight model will also be custom because we don't believe the current MSFS flight model can accurately reproduce the unique characteristics of the SR.  Top speed is about Mach 3.4 before it gets too hot to go faster, depending on atmospheric conditions.  Top altitude is about 88,000 feet, again depending.

Unless we run into major unanticipated hitches it'll be ready sometime in the summer of 2022.  That's not a promise, it's a target.
 

Not trying to stir the pot, but after this post I really want to hear someone still say MSFS isn't capable of running sophisticated aircraft addons, the SDK (even though evidently still lacking parts) doesn't support complex aircraft, it's not a serious sim, ... If an aircraft like the SR-71, which falls well out of the standard commercial jet category which usually seems to be the benchmark, is possible and being actively worked on without having to dumb it down, I dare say we're full speed heading in the right direction here. I personally can't wait to jump over to MSFS and fly complex aircraft in this eye candy game. 😉

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by threegreen

2 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Anything sold through any shop costs a percentage to the developer, whether it's the MSFS official store, Simmarket, Orbx, Aerosoft, or anything else. Savvy developers eat that cost because they know reaching that audience is worth it. 

That’s why FSL only sell direct. Doesn’t seem to be a problem for them so far.

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s why FSL only sell direct. Doesn’t seem to be a problem for them so far.

Some are happy to dance in their small world and ignore anything outside. The fact that it keeps them afloat doesn't mean that they thrive as much as they could.

It's their business and their choice. As I said, others will eat their lunch. Fenix will likely do it with the 320, others will do it with the Concorde. Bon appétit. 😁

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Abriael

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 

Why not reinstall P3D when Concorde is available? If you’re going to wait for a MSFS version you may be in for a very long wait. And that’s if you’re lucky.

Only if you are waiting for FSL.  

By the looks of it DC Designs will get to market first with the Concorde and it will be in MSFS.   Not many are going to be "so hardcore" in their Concorde needs to re-install P3D for FSL if they already have one in MSFS... 

Now the SR71 in MSFS... OMG!!!  

1 minute ago, Abriael said:

Fenix will likely do it with the 320, others will do it with the Concorde.

To paraphrase a line from a Bond film... “nobody does it better than FS Labs”. 😉

Andrew Wilson wrote the code for the British Airways Concorde simulator at Brooklands Museum. You don’t get any better than that.

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

To paraphrase a line from a Bond film... “nobody does it better than FS Labs”. 😉

The history of flight simulators teaches that no supremacy lasts forever. FS Labs isn't manned by aliens with superpowers. They can certainly be equalized and overtaken.

And even assuming that FS Labs' product may be marginally better, other products that got to the market earlier will still eat a large portion of their lunch. 

2 minutes ago, Abriael said:

The history of flight simulators teaches that no supremacy lasts forever. FS Labs isn't manned by aliens with superpowers. They can certainly be equalized and overtaken.

And even assuming that FS Labs' product may be marginally better, other products that got to the market earlier will still eat a large portion of their lunch. 

As long as the main Concorde programmer remains at FSL they will produce the best Concorde bar none. Their Concorde isn't 'marginally better' than the competition. It blows them out of the water. Visually it was lacking because of the 4Gb VAS limit in P3D v3 but that restriction no longer applies.

DC Designs have openly admitted their model is not fully representative of the aircraft systems.

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

As long as the main Concorde programmer remains at FSL they will produce the best Concorde bar none. Their Concorde isn't 'marginally better' than the competition. It blows them out of the water. Visually it was lacking because of the 4Gb VAS limit in P3D v3 but that restriction no longer applies.

DC Designs have openly admitted their model is not fully representative of the aircraft systems.

Visually it won't compare with anything MSFS offers by any semi-proficient developer. That's not even a question simply by virtue of the lighting tech. 

As for the systems, as I said, not everyone's willing to keep an obsolete simulator going in 2021-almost-2022, especially when its developer has been resting for years on laurels they no longer have.

I'll reserve judgement on the difference in quality when the competing product comes out, but again, DC Design will eat a big part of FSLabs' lunch sales-wise regardless of the differential. And they deserve to for making the wise business decision of embracing the generational leap when they did instead of stubbornly sticking to the old ways. 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Abriael

26 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

To paraphrase a line from a Bond film... “nobody does it better than FS Labs”. 😉

Andrew Wilson wrote the code for the British Airways Concorde simulator at Brooklands Museum. You don’t get any better than that.

Another Bond movie file states "Never say never again!" 🙂

8 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Visually it won't compare with anything MSFS offers by any semi-proficient developer.

That’s a pretty insulting comment about something you haven’t even seen. Some of us spend our time inside the flight deck so how it looks externally isn’t any great shakes. I’m sure it will be just fine.

10 minutes ago, Abriael said:

As for the systems, as I said, not everyone's willing to keep an obsolete simulator going in 2021-almost-2022

Obsolete? How can it be? P3Dv5 is still being sold.

11 minutes ago, Abriael said:

DC Design will eat a big part of FSLabs' lunch sales-wise regardless of the differential

Speculation. And given you’ve criticised every aspect of FSL and their forthcoming Concorde I don’t see any point continuing this discussion.

45 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

To paraphrase a line from a Bond film... “nobody does it better than FS Labs”. 😉

Andrew Wilson wrote the code for the British Airways Concorde simulator at Brooklands Museum. You don’t get any better than that.

Interesting, I have been using Concorde since Andrew's first release and did not know that little tidbit of information.  Certainly adds a higher level of credibility.

22 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s a pretty insulting comment about something you haven’t even seen. Some of us spend our time inside the flight deck so how it looks externally isn’t any great shakes. I’m sure it will be just fine.

Obsolete? How can it be? P3Dv5 is still being sold.

Speculation. And given you’ve criticised every aspect of FSL and their forthcoming Concorde I don’t see any point continuing this discussion.

Microsoft Flight Simulator's visual tech is overwhelmingly superior both internally and externally, as PMDG aptly proved just recently (not that there was any need of further evidence, mind you. One only needs eyes). You can spare me the elitist "some of us" spiel, because it's honestly a bit ridiculous. 

Lots of obsolete products are still sold. If you go on Amazon, you'll still find GTX 970 video cards (released in 2014), even if nowadays you'll have trouble running even something as simple as Fortnite with them.

Microsoft Flight Simulator is very actively developed. Not only its developers communicate regularly with their userbase, but they keep delivering improvements monthly and widening the gap with the competition. Today with the Game of the Year Edition they delivered a weather system that pretty literally trounces any weather add-on on the market, let alone what other sim developers offer stock, and that's only a small part of a massive update with plenty of content offered at no additional cost on top of the updated features. 

P3D's developers are doing pretty much nothing. Their conference at FSExpo was basically a "hey, we're here, don't forget about us" with absolutely zero promise of changing their passive attitude. Third parties (which are the only thing that kept P3D semi-relevant, because LM surely did not) have jumped off that ship by the droves and more will continue to jump. 

That's the very definition of "Obsolete."

Also, it's no speculation that an aircraft of the same type that reaches the market much earlier will eat into an add-on's sales. It's simply how the market works. 

Edited November 18, 20214 yr by Abriael

6 minutes ago, Abriael said:

One only needs eyes) You can spare me the elitist "some of us" spiel, because it's honestly a bit ridiculous. 

I suggest you back off now. You’re getting too aggressive with your comments.

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

Not trying to stir the pot, but after this post I really want to hear someone still say MSFS isn't capable of running sophisticated aircraft addons, the SDK (even though evidently still lacking parts) doesn't support complex aircraft, it's not a serious sim, ... If an aircraft like the SR-71, which falls well out of the standard commercial jet category which usually seems to be the benchmark, is possible and being actively worked on without having to dumb it down, I dare say we're full speed heading in the right direction here. I personally can't wait to jump over to MSFS and fly complex aircraft in this eye candy game. 😉

Most of us who talked about the limitations of the SDK back in the day were talking about what the SDK was capable of at that time. There are still some limitations that we are waiting to have addressed (PMDG is in the same boat), but for the most part many have been addressed and work is moving forward.

1 hour ago, JB3DG said:

Most of us who talked about the limitations of the SDK back in the day were talking about what the SDK was capable of at that time. There are still some limitations that we are waiting to have addressed (PMDG is in the same boat), but for the most part many have been addressed and work is moving forward.

I know a number of devs were sharing the sentiment that the SDK wasn't quite ready in the beginning, which in itself wasn't much of a surprise I guess, but the devs were usually emphasizing that they weren't writing the sim off as not/never being capable of handling a complex aircraft. I was referring to many in the sim crowd with my comment who routinely, and some still, lashed out at the "scenery sim" never supporting complex aircraft. Now that mantra had already been rebutted before, but considering than an aircraft like an SR-71 is possible and without dumbing it down... well, what more proof that MSFS can handle complex simulations does one need.