I noticed over on the Just Flight site that Concorde is sheduled for release this month. Only a banner announcing the development so far on their main page.

here

Oooh well spotted!! Should be an interesting one. Nice to finally have a "heavy" getting released!

Surely near impossible for one person to operate a simulated Concorde? I wonder if it will include a virtual FO/ FE?.. 

"3, 2,1 - NOW" Me: "NOT YET!" 

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by gb09f

Based on the update & screenshots on Feb 4 I'm shocked they would be able to get a March release unless we are being set up to be disappointed in quality but I guess they know what they are doing! 

53 minutes ago, gb09f said:

Surely near impossible for one person to operate a simulated Concorde? I wonder if it will include a virtual FO/ FE?.. 

"3, 2,1 - NOW" Me: "NOT YET!" 

I don't think it is super high fideflity. A concorde for the masses rather than for the nitty gritty.

55 minutes ago, gb09f said:

Surely near impossible for one person to operate a simulated Concorde? I wonder if it will include a virtual FO/ FE?.. 

"3, 2,1 - NOW" Me: "NOT YET!" 

Near Impossible....or crazy challenge!

1 hour ago, gb09f said:

Surely near impossible for one person to operate a simulated Concorde?

In a simulation we have one big advantage that is not available in the real world; we can slow down or even pause time. This allows us to do the work of several people. Of course this requires us to have the skills/knowledge which three people possess, but that's something anyone who wants and buys a realistically-simulated aeroplane has chosen to take on, and isn't what the pilot of a Concorde would do in reality anyway, or indeed any other commercial airliner for that matter. Operating any of these aeroplanes is, and always has been, a team effort. You can't even board most airliners and start them up without the assistance of numerous people on the ground to place and remove steps and airbridges, load the thing, fuel it, push the thing out to a taxiway and start the engines etc, but nobody complains that a simulated airliner isn't realistic because of these things being automated in most simulator programs. Trust me, if you had to throw 200 heavy suitcases into the hold of an aeroplane, supervise the engine starts etc, all in the rain for the sake of realism, you'd probably be looking at getting into another hobby. 🤣

Beyond this, many of the in-flight operations which simply could not be automated on the real Concorde back in the late 1960s when computers were the kind of thing which took up an entire room, nowadays can be with the computing power and AI routines we often take for granted, and if they could have been automated back in 1969, you can be sure the Concorde engineers would have chosen to do that. We live in a world where the technology of the mobile phone in your pocket dwarfs that of the computers available in 1969, so there is no real reason not to take advantage of this simply because one claims to be a purist. Or, as is more likely for what is not going to be a full-on simulation of all the systems on board the real aeroplane, to simplify these into an approximation of all the things several crew members do to make the thing available to a pilot. Purists may not like this if various roles are not available in full, but if they are interested in taking on the role of the person in the left seat, having some of this stuff happen for them via AI assistance or indeed simplification, is not too different from how this pilot role was carried out in reality, for example, with the flight engineer operating the thrust levers for various stages of the flight and controlling the engine management and the shifting about of fuel to balance the aeroplane etc. This happens on other airliners too of course, and nowadays usually with some AI assistance as well as another crew member.

Concorde was a really complex aeroplane which made supersonic commercial transport look a lot easier than it actually is, and in reality, this is still true with most aeroplanes capable of Mach 2. An F-16 can make it up to Mach 2, but it needs to use full afterburners to get there and maintain that speed, which means it will be out of fuel in probably less than ten minutes. The Concorde did this without keeping its afterburners on once up at that speed, all the way across the Atlantic, which is one of the many things that make it an amazing achievement; it's worth bearing in mind that many of the Apollo spacecraft engineers - a craft which debuted its Lunar mission at around the same time that the prototype Concorde was being test flown - are on record as stating that creating the Concorde was a more complex and impressive task than creating the Apollo spacecraft and they are probably right in saying that. Prior to the Concorde being built, anyone who wanted to fly at Mach 2 was going to have to don a pressure suit and board a craft which was not typically one that could be turned around at a commercial airport in a matter of hours to then perform another Mach 2 flight, rather than sit in their normal clothes and drink champagne whilst blistering through the skies at well over a thousand miles per hour. With all this in mind, we don't have to feel too cheated to be able to fly a simulated version and have some of those complexities in operating the real thing, be managed for us to allow us to fly a simulated one.

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by Chock

I had a video on this but looks like YouTube may have take it down.

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by MarkW

1 hour ago, Chock said:

In a simulation we have one big advantage that is not available in the real world; we can slow down or even pause time. This allows us to do the work of several people. Of course this requires us to have the skills/knowledge which three people possess, but that's something anyone who wants and buys a realistically-simulated aeroplane has chosen to take on, and isn't what the pilot of a Concorde would do in reality anyway, or indeed any other commercial airliner for that matter. Operating any of these aeroplanes is, and always has been, a team effort. You can't even board most airliners and start them up without the assistance of numerous people on the ground to place and remove steps and airbridges, load the thing, fuel it, push the thing out to a taxiway and start the engines etc, but nobody complains that a simulated airliner isn't realistic because of these things being automated in most simulator programs. Trust me, if you had to throw 200 heavy suitcases into the hold of an aeroplane, supervise the engine starts etc, all in the rain for the sake of realism, you'd probably be looking at getting into another hobby. 🤣

Beyond this, many of the in-flight operations which simply could not be automated on the real Concorde back in the late 1960s when computers were the kind of thing which took up an entire room, nowadays can be with the computing power and AI routines we often take for granted, and if they could have been automated back in 1969, you can be sure the Concorde engineers would have chosen to do that. We live in a world where the technology of the mobile phone in your pocket dwarfs that of the computers available in 1969, so there is no real reason not to take advantage of this simply because one claims to be a purist. Or, as is more likely for what is not going to be a full-on simulation of all the systems on board the real aeroplane, to simplify these into an approximation of all the things several crew members do to make the thing available to a pilot. Purists may not like this if various roles are not available in full, but if they are interested in taking on the role of the person in the left seat, having some of this stuff happen for them via AI assistance or indeed simplification, is not too different from how this pilot role was carried out in reality, for example, with the flight engineer operating the thrust levers for various stages of the flight and controlling the engine management and the shifting about of fuel to balance the aeroplane etc. This happens on other airliners too of course, and nowadays usually with some AI assistance as well as another crew member.

Concorde was a really complex aeroplane which made supersonic commercial transport look a lot easier than it actually is, and in reality, this is still true with most aeroplanes capable of Mach 2. An F-16 can make it up to Mach 2, but it needs to use full afterburners to get there and maintain that speed, which means it will be out of fuel in probably less than ten minutes. The Concorde did this without keeping its afterburners on once up at that speed, all the way across the Atlantic, which is one of the many things that make it an amazing achievement; it's worth bearing in mind that many of the Apollo spacecraft engineers - a craft which debuted its Lunar mission at around the same time that the prototype Concorde was being test flown - are on record as stating that creating the Concorde was a more complex and impressive task than creating the Apollo spacecraft and they are probably right in saying that. Prior to the Concorde being built, anyone who wanted to fly at Mach 2 was going to have to don a pressure suit and board a craft which was not typically one that could be turned around at a commercial airport in a matter of hours to then perform another Mach 2 flight, rather than sit in their normal clothes and drink champagne whilst blistering through the skies at well over a thousand miles per hour. With all this in mind, we don't have to feel too cheated to be able to fly a simulated version and have some of those complexities in operating the real thing, be managed for us to allow us to fly a simulated one.

The new Ford F-150 has more lines of code than the Concorde and even a 787... 

Quote

According to Motor Authority a Ford GT has over 10 million lines of code, that is much more than what an aircraft needs to fly (2 million lines of code for the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and 7 million lines for the 787 Dreamliner). But don’t think that is the top!
Actually, there is an amazing (at least for me) infographics outlining the number of lines of codes in a variety of products and the car software tops them all, reaching the 100 million mark (along with the mouse DNA pairs in a genome that can be considered as the mouse software coding…).
At CES 2016, Ford indicated that they have 150 million lines of code in their new pickup, the F150!

 

53 minutes ago, psolk said:

The new Ford F-150 has more lines of code than the Concorde and even a 787... 

 

LOL

If you own the FSX/P3D Concorde from DC Designs then you should know what to expect.

DC has always been pretty blunt about the quality and "study levelishness"🤣of their upcoming Concorde.

It will look and feel better than the FSX/P3D version I'm sure!

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by blueshark747

Does this Concorde have a INS system "some claim it doesn't" can't really call it a Concorde if it doesnt don't think it had a GPS system in it I could be wrong though and probably is.

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by jbdbow1970

10 minutes ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Does this Concorde have a INS system "some claim it doesn't" can't really call it a Concorde if it doesnt don't think it had a GPS system in it I could be wrong though and probably is.

Someone asked on Facebook and they came back with "Later - cannot be done right now as WASM gauges do not work on consoles."

 

Not fully sure what sort of navigation system it's being shipped with.

22 minutes ago, Zangoose said:

Someone asked on Facebook and they came back with "Later - cannot be done right now as WASM gauges do not work on consoles."

 

Not fully sure what sort of navigation system it's being shipped with.

Hate to say it like many others say MSFS is limited by the "Console" whether the believers know it or not. its true. Not saying any more I use this sim for enjoy and use FSX to be serious about flight simming.

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by jbdbow1970

I thought that topic is about FSLabs Concorde 😒, i start to believe that this one is vaporware...