In my opinion a FSL level concorde wouldn't really appeal to the masses in MSFS.  A massive percentage of MSFS users have zero experience flying a complicated airplane.  I'm sure some will want to learn.  But unfortunately I think the bigger seller there would be a captainsim level plane for a much lower cost.  

8 minutes ago, micstatic said:

In my opinion a FSL level concorde wouldn't really appeal to the masses in MSFS.  A massive percentage of MSFS users have zero experience flying a complicated airplane.  I'm sure some will want to learn.  But unfortunately I think the bigger seller there would be a captainsim level plane for a much lower cost.  

There's already one on the way, DC Designs, who made a simplified Concorde for P3D is redeveloping it for MSFS, I imagine it will do very well.

Don't think there's anything wrong with it in principle, I started off my simming with the CLS 747 Classic and enjoyed flying that a ton, FSL Concorde was what brought me to study level. But the study-level offerings in MSFS remain disappointingly few.

Edited December 12, 20214 yr by SimeonWilbury

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

No offence taken, Ray. I have never flown Concorde in a simulator, and I do appreciate what you are saying. In fact, it is worth noting that my recent full motion flight simulation experience in Manchester (report and photos coming soon) involved very little scenery viewing, and more concentration on the flight director lines on the MFA!

If it was anything like my 737 experience, the scenery is just barely recognisable. Everything is about flying and controlling the flight.

Ray said:

"And as there is no historical weather in MSFS how do you depart various airports around the world using weather for the local time? Example: Honolulu or Sydney daytime departures when you live in Europe?"

In Active Sky doesn't using live weather give you the weather live? 

I understand that there is an 11 hour difference but that puts Sydney ahead of you, but there isn't a future time option.

So when would you want an historical option unless the flight was in the past?

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand something that I have never thought about.

30 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

Ray said:

"And as there is no historical weather in MSFS how do you depart various airports around the world using weather for the local time? Example: Honolulu or Sydney daytime departures when you live in Europe?"

In Active Sky doesn't using live weather give you the weather live? 

I understand that there is an 11 hour difference but that puts Sydney ahead of you, but there isn't a future time option.

So when would you want an historical option unless the flight was in the past?

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand something that I have never thought about.

When flying in a time zone that is ahead like that it usually makes sense to do the flight in the past.

For example when I do Hong-Kong to Taipei I set the weather to how it was very early in the morning in the UK, but day time in China. Historical weather is very useful in that respect as it means I have appropiate daytime weather to match the time of day that's set.

I also use historical weather all the time when I do long cargo flights, I can start off on Live weather, fly one 7-9 hour leg and then come back the next day and fly the next leg(s) from where I left off.

7 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Whilst I am certain that the MSFS SDK is currently not as advanced as the P3D SDK, I do wonder if FSLabs are having second thoughts about releasing Concorde for P3Dv5. I would not rule out the lack of information regarding development progress being because they are thinking about switching to MSFS. If sales of P3D products really have fallen off a cliff this year, then would it be commercially viable for them to release it for P3Dv4/5 only?

So how a rational company would approach this is that because of the change in market conditions (ie. the fall in P3D sales for so many 3rd party devs), a rational company would consider how much more it will cost to develop a product and bring it to market on a specific platform, versus the expected profit once that product is brought to market on that platform.

All past costs spent on developing the product are irrelevant at this point, because those are "sunk costs."

For example, let's say it costs C dollars to bring a product to market on a specific platform.  And if that product is released, the company expects R revenue.

If the future costs are greater than the expected revenue - that is, if C > R - then it's in the best interest of the company to stop developing this product.  This is because continued development of the product will generate a negative return.  However, if future costs are less than the expected revenue - that is, C < R, then, it's in the best interest of the company to finish the product and bring it to market, because the company will generate a profit (but remember, the overall project could still net the company a net loss because of the sunk costs from before, but if the future costs is still less than the expected revenue, the company can minimize their losses so it's still in their best interest to bring the product to market).

Notice I said "rational" company.  That is, the company is thinking rationally. This isn't always the case and some companies don't always think rationally.

If we apply this to FSLabs, what FSLabs has spent in the past developing the Concorde are sunk costs.  Those costs cannot be recovered.  What FSLabs needs to think about is how much will it cost to develop the Concorde in the future (variable C in the above example), and what revenue they expect to generate if the Concorde is released for P3D (variable R in the above example).  If the future costs are greater than the expected revenue, then it's in FSLab's best intertest to stop the development of the Concorde for P3D.

Now what can change the strategy is if FSLabs believes much of the costs they put into developing the Concorde can be ported to MSFS.  In this case, FSLabs may consider that if they can release their Concorde on MSFS, it may generate a lot of revenue.  The formula would change a little, probably something like C(p3d) + C(msfs) for costs, and R(p3d) + R(msfs) for revenue.  But you get the idea, which is FSLabs should be considering the best way to maximize their profit and minimize their losses.

Edited December 12, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

2 hours ago, psolk said:

What policy are you referring to?  They have already added MSFS to their control center and to not bring the Concorde to MSFS would make those years of development a financial disaster for them.

The last public statement was there would only be one 64-bit Concorde produced. That statement remains their policy until or unless it’s changed. As they’re producing one for P3D that would currently mean no MSFS version.

2 hours ago, psolk said:

Trying to say you don't need high quality scenery for a Concorde flight doesn't mean it's not better with it...  That is a bit of a cop out to say you are flying so fast and are so busy scenery doesn't matter.  You know I am still a big P3D user but at ANY altitude and ANY speed MSFS looks light years better plus for me it performs far better and yes, that is even supersonic.

Sorry for the delay. Just finished watching an incredible F1 race.

I’m guessing you haven’t flown it either. Once you do you’ll realise looking out of the window at the scenery is really a luxury because of the demands of flying the aircraft. Even more so if you choose to do the FE’s job with the fuel.

What scenery is there to look at once you’ve arrived at the accel point and are heading out into an ocean? There is only water. From 6 miles up I doubt that is going to look any better than in P3D. Out of JFK back to Heathrow they were supersonic with 10 mins after takeoff. Ditto with Barbados.

I have only seen MSFS videos taken at low level and slow speed. The visuals will be better but what about the accuracy of the temps at the altitudes Concorde flies at? Unless those are accurately modelled up to FL600 the aircraft will not be able to cruise climb without reheats. Temperature is everything when it comes to Concorde. An ISA of -5 compared to +5 is huge when dealing with Concorde.

9 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

If the future costs are greater than the expected revenue, then it's in FSLab's best intertest to stop the development of the Concorde for P3D.

You’ve left out the emotional aspect of FSL developing Concorde. The main programmer wrote the software than now runs the Concorde simulator at Brooklands. That clearly shows a huge emotional attachment to it and the team have always said they love Concorde. It will be delivered for P3D.

7 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You’ve left out the emotional aspect of FSL developing Concorde. The main programmer wrote the software than now runs the Concorde simulator at Brooklands. That clearly shows a huge emotional attachment to it and the team have always said they love Concorde. It will be delivered for P3D.

Ray,  you are not a business person, right?  I clearly stated in my comment that this is how a "rational" company would behave.

A company that makes business decisions purely on "emotions" is not a rational thinking business. 

If you run a business, and you make decisions purely based on "emotions" rather than sound analytical analysis, you are going to go bankrupt sooner or later.  

Edited December 12, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

4 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Ray,  you are not a business person, right?  I clearly stated in my comment that this is how a "rational" company would behave.

A company that makes business decisions purely on "emotions" is not a rational thinking business. 

If you run a business, and you make decisions purely based on "emotions" rather than sound analytical analysis, you are going to go bankrupt sooner or later.  

I can only speak about what I know. This is a pretty pointless discussion until FSL make some kind of announcement. It’s not inconceivable their Airbus profits could subsidise Concorde.

This thread has morphed somewhat into a freshman economics 101 class.  But two questions that would need to be answered.  

-Potential SDK limitations

-Speed of concorde combined with streaming scenery.  IE, is the speed of the plane faster than scenery can be practically loaded in MSFS?  

 

These threads seem to always point out how MSFS is the future and devs are crazy to not invest in the future.  But the limitations of MSFS are still very real.  Unfortunately.  

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Unless those are accurately modelled up to FL600 the aircraft will not be able to cruise climb without reheats. Temperature is everything when it comes to Concorde. An ISA of -5 compared to +5 is huge when dealing with Concorde.

MSFS does not model higher level altitudes well unfortunately. A very common bug and annoyance is that occasionally TAT during cruise for normal airliners can be high as +50C which would completely destroy the Concorde at FL600.

Possibly this bug has been fixed since, but other issues will pop up surely. Hopefully after a year of so MSFS will be stable but that is wishful thinking.

If FSL released the Concorde for V5 at least we will be entertained until MSFS becomes stable, if ever. 

28 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Speed of concorde combined with streaming scenery.  IE, is the speed of the plane faster than scenery can be practically loaded in MSFS?

That thought crossed my mind as soon as I found out MSFS was streaming scenery.

But Concorde rarely flies supersonic over land. The JFK-Vancouver leg for the 1999 Round the World tour remained subsonic until south of Hudson Bay at which point it was allowed to go supersonic over northern Canada. At that point you’re around FL300 so it’s an interesting point. At Mach 2 you cover 23 miles a minute. Only fast internet speeds might be able to load the scenery.

2 minutes ago, Ikarus280 said:

MSFS does not model higher level altitudes well unfortunately. A very common bug and annoyance is that occasionally TAT during cruise for normal airliners can be high as +50C which would completely destroy the Concorde at FL600.

Those temps would probably cause the overheating and destruction of the engines. Even with the P3D v3 version I sometimes hit warmer than usual air causing the nose temperature to exceed 127°. At that point you have to either slow down or go down. But that’s due to warm air, not bugs in the weather engine.

That’s why troposphere temps need to be modelled so accurately. I imagine FSL are biding their time about any plans for MSFS until that problem is resolved. And with 3rd party weather developers effectively blocked that doesn’t bode well.

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

In my opinion a FSL level concorde wouldn't really appeal to the masses in MSFS.  A massive percentage of MSFS users have zero experience flying a complicated airplane.  I'm sure some will want to learn.  But unfortunately I think the bigger seller there would be a captainsim level plane for a much lower cost.  

Agreed. Any knowledge acquired by flying an Airbus or Boeing is useless with Concorde. No LNAV, VNAV. Instead you have INS mode and Max Clb / Max Crs although there is a Vert Speed mode but that isn’t used for normal operations.

And horror of horrors there’s no ToD. You have to calculate your decel point manually as your final altitude isn’t known. FL600 was never achieved on the LHR-JFK route.

Concorde’s descent profile is also unique. Stay as fast and high for as long as possible then drop like a stone. All perfectly safe of course and highly enjoyable as a pilot. 😁