As a Concorde lover i can't wait to put my hands on this one and by the way: the sound from the Vid where the Concord starts at Heathrow is just outstanding..👍🏽😎

cheers 😉

Hi folks,

Thought I'd drop by and share a few notes now that Concorde's pricing is out of the bag. There have been a huge number of comments across the Internet, the vast majority positive, but a small number who have assumed that because I have chosen to price Concorde quite low, that it isn't going to be a "complex" aircraft.

While I think that most know that I avoid building true high-fidelity aircraft in terms of their systems, everything else I quite like to be very realistic. In the case of Concorde, it's the most realistic aircraft I have built so far on any platform. While I would definitely hesitate to call it a true "study-level" product, its systems and operational performance is probably about as close as I've ever got to producing something like that.

The price I have chosen reflects todays economic reality for many, not the product itself. One commenter I saw said that they were hoping it would "cost $100 as that would mean a more realistic product". I think that for many users the days of $100+ aircraft for flight simulator are no longer a realistic prospect, and I would not have pitched that high anyway. My business model is always to target the broadest market, something which I'm glad to say has worked spectacularly well, however some aircraft are a bit more special than others and Concorde fits very much into that category. However, I also have to consider the broader market that now includes console users who cannot modify their products in the same way that PC users who buy outside the Marketplace can. Therefore, I have to come up with a cunning plan that provides for as many users as possible the Concorde ( or any other aircraft for that matter ) that they're hoping for.

My solution is simply to ensure that every single switch, button, dial and knob aboard Concorde is present and animated. Not every single one will be required to operate Concorde in its published form, but with everything present and correct, there is essentially no limit to how the aircraft can be modified for those that want to. I can already hear a few who will claim that this is "leaving the work to the user". It isn't - it's providing a Concorde that probably 80%+ of users will be perfectly happy with, while also leaving the door open for the other 20% to have the Concorde that they are hoping for as well.

There are no easy answers to the question of how to provide an aircraft product that suits everybody. Building two different versions myself isn't on the cards as the workload would be doubled and so would the cost, defeating the object. Providing an aircraft that technically has no limits on how detailed it could become, on the other hand, provides all options without cutting out the majority market that wants something detailed but "accessible".

I hope that this makes sense. Normally, I just go ahead with publishing my aircraft, knowing that my target market will enjoy them, but Concorde has a huge appeal across all users, and as my only civilian aircraft to date, I thought it worthwhile sharing what I am hoping to achieve with it 🙂

57 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

Hi folks,

Thought I'd drop by and share a few notes now that Concorde's pricing is out of the bag. There have been a huge number of comments across the Internet, the vast majority positive, but a small number who have assumed that because I have chosen to price Concorde quite low, that it isn't going to be a "complex" aircraft.

While I think that most know that I avoid building true high-fidelity aircraft in terms of their systems, everything else I quite like to be very realistic. In the case of Concorde, it's the most realistic aircraft I have built so far on any platform. While I would definitely hesitate to call it a true "study-level" product, its systems and operational performance is probably about as close as I've ever got to producing something like that.

The price I have chosen reflects todays economic reality for many, not the product itself. One commenter I saw said that they were hoping it would "cost $100 as that would mean a more realistic product". I think that for many users the days of $100+ aircraft for flight simulator are no longer a realistic prospect, and I would not have pitched that high anyway. My business model is always to target the broadest market, something which I'm glad to say has worked spectacularly well, however some aircraft are a bit more special than others and Concorde fits very much into that category. However, I also have to consider the broader market that now includes console users who cannot modify their products in the same way that PC users who buy outside the Marketplace can. Therefore, I have to come up with a cunning plan that provides for as many users as possible the Concorde ( or any other aircraft for that matter ) that they're hoping for.

My solution is simply to ensure that every single switch, button, dial and knob aboard Concorde is present and animated. Not every single one will be required to operate Concorde in its published form, but with everything present and correct, there is essentially no limit to how the aircraft can be modified for those that want to. I can already hear a few who will claim that this is "leaving the work to the user". It isn't - it's providing a Concorde that probably 80%+ of users will be perfectly happy with, while also leaving the door open for the other 20% to have the Concorde that they are hoping for as well.

There are no easy answers to the question of how to provide an aircraft product that suits everybody. Building two different versions myself isn't on the cards as the workload would be doubled and so would the cost, defeating the object. Providing an aircraft that technically has no limits on how detailed it could become, on the other hand, provides all options without cutting out the majority market that wants something detailed but "accessible".

I hope that this makes sense. Normally, I just go ahead with publishing my aircraft, knowing that my target market will enjoy them, but Concorde has a huge appeal across all users, and as my only civilian aircraft to date, I thought it worthwhile sharing what I am hoping to achieve with it 🙂

Thank you. It looks great and it brings back some great memories of watching the bird land at JFK. For that alone, I'm in!

It will still fly right over some folk's heads and they'll complain and cry about it not being "study level" enough as with the FSX/P3D version.🤣

Edited February 6, 20224 yr by blueshark747

@DC1973  I really like the idea.  I appreciate you are trying to do your best to cover all areas of the market, and satisfy almost all tastes.  Let's face it, in the over picky privileged / entitled world of today, you will never satisfy absolutely everyone - impossible.

Mods are becoming the way anyway it seems. 
There are so many good ones out there, from the mods for the default aircraft mods, through to the recently released Twin Otter - Even Aerosoft have said they are fine with any modifications to improve their product if people feel that way.

Sometimes people just want options to at least have the opportunity to expand and improve functionality.
Lets face it, nobody on flightsim.to will be bringing out a decent freeware Concorde, but people do have time to tinker with things in the background.
I really think this is the new business model going forward, and lots of people appreciate this approach - it is basically open ended. 

Without changing your base product due to workload, and not wanting different versions as you say, are you open to communicating with these modders if they need some assistance?  Especially if it could help update / improve the product over time?

Speaking as someone who has flown Concorde in flight sim for several years I would suggest the workload for new pilots would greatly reduced with a virtual Flight Engineer who looks after fuel transfers since that is an aspect of a flight that requires continuous attention.

And if more than nine waypoints can be entered into the navigation system that too would reduce workload.

The most difficult things remain aircraft performance dependent on outside temperature. That must be unbelievably complex. For those testers who want to fly Heathrow to JFK around 92T of fuel is needed for the trip. The accel point is just south of Cardiff when you should be flying at 395kts / Mach 0.95 at FL280.

Full power with reheat is then applied with autothrottles off. Climb rate is determined by pitch ensuring Vmo is not exceeded.

Reheats on for no longer than 10mins but Mach 1.7 is usually achieved around FL430 after 6-8 mins.

Reheats off at Mach 1.7 and the speed and climb rate depends on outside temp and pitch. Concorde has a MAX CLB/CRS option on the AFCS to set this. You should never reach FL600 on this route. The troposphere isn’t cold enough. FL540-570 is typical.

At the other end the Decel Point is around 57nm before KENDA. I’m sure the developer will have access to this data. Congratulations in bringing an iconic aircraft to this simulator.

I want this aircraft with a FMS for LNAV, Sids Stars and approaches, it was planned in real life, or a first officer that does that inserting the full flight plan selected, in the INS?

@bobcat999  While we would not be able to support every endeavour, I do always try to offer what help I can to modders, repainters etc, so yes, we'd always be keen to assist with data and coding advice should folks start work on adding all the extra functions and inter-linked systems that Concorde has the potential to model in MSFS.

@Ray Proudfoot  The flight model is already pretty close to those parameters. Believe it or not, MSFS does not naturally model a delta wing - I had to get creative to make that happen. But so far, we have most factors in place and are now working to refine the flight model to ensure that Concorde can only achieve in MSFS what the real Concorde could manage. My FDE guy, Codenamejack, always works off the official manual for whichever aircraft I'm building, and matches the data point for point. Some aerodynamic factors like vortex lift are proving more difficult, but the atmospheric modeling in MSFS is outstanding and temperatures very much affect performance ( as, ironically, we all saw when they were bugged in an update and performance was lost for jets above 28,00ft ).

The INS is currently my biggest dilemma - it's beyond the scope of my target market really. I will be modeling the INS for sure, but its functionality will almost certainly be simplified. The fuel-transfer system will also have automation, to reduce workload and allow the user to take breaks without worrying about Concorde falling out of the sky 🙂

5 hours ago, DC1973 said:

Hi folks,

Thought I'd drop by and share a few notes now that Concorde's pricing is out of the bag. 

£27.99? Dean; you’re about to make history. For the first time in sixty years the words ‘concorde’ and ‘absolute bargain’ can be put in the same sentence!👍

 

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

Believe it or not, MSFS does not naturally model a delta wing - I had to get creative to make that happen.

How odd once they made it compatible with supersonic flight since you can’t have one without the other. Well done for your efforts.

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

The INS is currently my biggest dilemma - it's beyond the scope of my target market really.

Quite understandable really. I have no knowledge of how it’s created. There is a third party CIVA INS that is now compatible with MSFS. I don’t know if you’re aware of this from Marco Ravenello.

http://www.simufly.com/ins/features.html

Programming it was just a case of entering lat / lon for each waypoint but doing this for each flight was tiresome. Some kind of utility to accept a flight plan and generate a file which can be read by the INS would help. But this adds to the cost and complexity for what is already a very attractive product.

As for an FMC. The purist shudders but then again, you’re not making this for the purist. 😉

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

The INS is currently my biggest dilemma - it's beyond the scope of my target market really. I will be modeling the INS for sure, but its functionality will almost certainly be simplified

For me, it's a buy / no buy kind of thing. A bit like the HUD for the 737 or the wear/tear/maintenance on vintage planes.

If you are able to implement the third party CIVA INS Ray mentions, it would make your addon a lot more interesting, at least for me.

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

As for an FMC. The purist shudders but then again, you’re not making this for the purist. 😉

Ray, you do realise that at £27.99 this creation from DC Designs is going to sell in truly vast numbers in the MS store,  XBox, et all and it's going to kill off any further iterations or developments of FSL's 'pure' Concorde on any platform - including P3D?

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

Ray, you do realise that at £27.99 this creation from DC Designs is going to sell in truly vast numbers in the MS store,  XBox, et all and it's going to kill off any further iterations or developments of FSL's 'pure' Concorde on any platform - including P3D?

Really? It will probably sell very well for MSFS but given plenty of people are staying with P3Dv5 there’s no direct competition.

Just like the Colimata Concorde is not a direct rival for this or the FSL’s one.

1 hour ago, bendead said:

For me, it's a buy / no buy kind of thing. A bit like the HUD for the 737 or the wear/tear/maintenance on vintage planes.

If you are able to implement the third party CIVA INS Ray mentions, it would make your addon a lot more interesting, at least for me.

Not having a CIVA wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me, but I'd like the option to use one as well. Having this as a standalone product would make sense. I haven't heard of the one Ray linked before.

In the XP "ecosystem", there is also a standalone CIVA that a few planes integrate. That's a good solution for something so special to few planes IMO.

Edited February 6, 20224 yr by rka

28 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Really? It will probably sell very well for MSFS but given plenty of people are staying with P3Dv5 there’s no direct competition.

Unfortunately the ‘plenty of people’ staying with P3D does not seem to have prevented several well known developers from abandoning further work and support for P3D.

It’s simply become uneconomic for them to do so.

Whilst plenty of sales in P3D amount to hundreds of units, perhaps even several thousand, I suspect Dean’s Concorde is going to achieve sales in the tens of thousands.