16 minutes ago, garlicbread11 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahX6xmEBThM

'Full Preview' (8-minute video) is now out:
 

 

Edited March 25, 20224 yr by F737NG
I'm in the 2000 posts club!

Modelling and textures somewhere between FSX and MSFS-freeware-quality, in my opinion. You can do so much more with MSFS (look at the 414 just released, this is night and day). Hopefully it has a high systems fidelity to make up for it - anyway me I'll happily wait for FSLabs, even if it takes years.

Modelling looks quite poor indeed.

Hmmm...don't normally pay too much attention to pre-launch videos but that does look pretty rough.....

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Modelling and textures somewhere between FSX and MSFS-freeware-quality, in my opinion. You can do so much more with MSFS (look at the 414 just released, this is night and day). Hopefully it has a high systems fidelity to make up for it - anyway me I'll happily wait for FSLabs, even if it takes years.

 

1 hour ago, Johnny Wyatt said:

Modelling looks quite poor indeed.

DC Designs were pretty blunt and upfront about their technical skill limitations with visuals.
If folks feel that strongly about the graphics they can always contact Juan Caratino and try and negotiate another Concorde build. I'm sure it will cost well over $40 though and he probably isn't really experienced in releasing a working fully functioning flight sim aircraft🙃

Edited March 26, 20224 yr by blueshark747

Not something I would normally pick up but for $40..yeah I'll hit that.

I'll let the product speak for itself when it's released. There were several similar comments over at the MSFS forums, so I posted a couple of shots from my ( GTX1080 rig ) that were not so washed-out in appearance. Totally different reaction as a result. Can't share images here easily, but here's the link;

Cockpit shots

I don't build for prettiness like other devs, I build for performance first. As my Concorde model is well over one million polygons, I have to tread carefully. It would be easy to use 8K textures like others ( totally against the SDK guidance ) and so on, but that's not how I do things. Stick to the SDK, avoid the problems suffered by other airplanes, then build upon that. And, as Big Radials so aptly put it, "Fly the damned plane!" 🙂

ETA: I just watched the video again, to see if I agreed with the comments - I don't. It looks perfectly okay. Could more detail be added? Sure, but anybody who says it's like FSX freeware is just trying to make themselves sound "clever". I've seen similar comments on my F-14s, the SC Designs F-16s and so on - two of the best-selling airplanes to ever hit MSFS and with ratings to match on the Marketplace. This is a case of "I'm sticking to what is already proven to work, not what others say" 🙂

Edited March 26, 20224 yr by DC1973
Added extra video view

Hmm, I was expecting to buy this on release but the texturing is making me wince a bit.  I'm sure its functionality will make up for it and perhaps I've just been spoilt by FBW's a320.  Still, I'll await reviews before rushing in on this.

Anyone who has the FS Labs 32-bit Concorde will know some pretty severe compromises had to be made to keep the VAS within the 4Gb limit otherwise the sim ran out of memory. Some of the graphics look far worse than what I’ve seen on the DCD release.

Did that stop us flying the aircraft? Of course not. You’re flying the fastest civilian aircraft ever made. If you’re used to Boeing or Airbus you’re going to be astonished at the speed you’re flying and the performance of Concorde both on takeoff and during the transonic climb.

3h 20m from Heathrow to JFK instead of around 7.5 hours. Accelerating at supersonic speed without reheat couldn’t even be achieved by military jets.

You’ll overtake a 777 at Mach 1.2 - that’s 800mph! You’ll be flying faster than a bullet fired from a rifle. 23 miles a minute compared to 8 in a Boeing or Airbus.

At 11 miles up you’re on the edge of space. Lesser aircraft are over 20,000 feet below you flying at less than half your speed.

With reheats on the engines will eat 52T of fuel per hour! But don’t worry, you don’t have to pay for it. 😁 And if you follow the guidance you’ll have plenty on arrival at your destination.

If you take the time to learn how to fly her correctly you’ll have a lot of fun. I have for the last 10+ years. Whatever limitations you perceive will just fade away when flying this iconic aircraft.

If you’ve never flown Concorde before prepared to be amazed.

Since MSFS is the last sim I'll ever buy, there has to be a few unique aircraft in my hangar. The Concorde is unlike any other and not easily replaced by freeware.

Thanks for posting the additional screenshots. Definitely look much better.

10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Anyone who has the FS Labs 32-bit Concorde will know some pretty severe compromises had to be made to keep the VAS within the 4Gb limit otherwise the sim ran out of memory. Some of the graphics look far worse than what I’ve seen on the DCD release.

Did that stop us flying the aircraft? Of course not. You’re flying the fastest civilian aircraft ever made. If you’re used to Boeing or Airbus you’re going to be astonished at the speed you’re flying and the performance of Concorde both on takeoff and during the transonic climb.

3h 20m from Heathrow to JFK instead of around 7.5 hours. Accelerating at supersonic speed without reheat couldn’t even be achieved by military jets.

You’ll overtake a 777 at Mach 1.2 - that’s 800mph! You’ll be flying faster than a bullet fired from a rifle. 23 miles a minute compared to 8 in a Boeing or Airbus.

At 11 miles up you’re on the edge of space. Lesser aircraft are over 20,000 feet below you flying at less than half your speed.

With reheats on the engines will eat 52T of fuel per hour! But don’t worry, you don’t have to pay for it. 😁 And if you follow the guidance you’ll have plenty on arrival at your destination.

If you take the time to learn how to fly her correctly you’ll have a lot of fun. I have for the last 10+ years. Whatever limitations you perceive will just fade away when flying this iconic aircraft.

If you’ve never flown Concorde before prepared to be amazed.

That might all be true, but maybe THIS is exactly the reason why the devs didn't care about modelling or textures, because it will sell anyway because it's the Concorde. That reminds me of CaptainSim (not in the same amplitude of course) or Aerosoft, those "I will only do as much to maximize profit"-vibes don't go well along with me, sorry.
Anyway I fear you might be disappointed if you expect this to be on the level of FSL, but I'd be happy to stand corrected, so let us know.

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

That might all be true, but maybe THIS is exactly the reason why the devs didn't care about modelling or textures, because it will sell anyway because it's the Concorde. That reminds me of CaptainSim (not in the same amplitude of course) or Aerosoft, those "I will only do as much to maximize profit"-vibes don't go well along with me, sorry.
Anyway I fear you might be disappointed if you expect this to be on the level of FSL, but I'd be happy to stand corrected, so let us know.

The comparison with Captainsim is absolutely ludicrous and that goes for both Aerosoft and DC Designs. 

Captainsim released aircraft that are basically an external model with a tacked on default systems, which isn't that much better compared to bredok3d or deimos. 

Both Aerosoft and DC Design work for months or even years on every aspect of the aircraft they make, on different scales because DC design is one person with another person helping (recently) while Aerosoft is a full-fledged company. 

The difference is absolutely enormous. You being not satisfied by their products has absolutely no relevance to the fact that they're full-fledged products result of a TON of work on all of their aspects, unlike Captainsim's. 

Edited March 26, 20224 yr by Abriael

Just now, Abriael said:

The comparison with Captainsim is absolutely ludicrous and that goes for both Aerosoft and DC Designs. 

Captainsim released aircraft that are basically an external model with a tacked on default systems, which isn't that much better compared to bredok3d or deimos. 

Both Aerosoft and DC Design work for months or even years on every aspect of the aircraft they make, on different scales becaise DC design is one person with another person helping and Aerosoft is a full-fledged company. 

The difference is absolutely enormous. The fact that you're not satisfied by their products has absolutely no relevance to the fact that they're full-fledged products result of a TON of work on all of their aspects, unlike Captainsim's. 

I never said they are the same, I said "that reminds me of" and afterwards clearly stated the commonality with those three devs. Having something in common is not equal to being the same. Stop getting triggered because you want to get triggered.
By the way: Working on every aspect of an aircraft does not mean their work is necessarily good. I don't buy their working hours, I buy the result and I judge the result. This is not high school where students get appraisal for working hard.

2 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I never said they are the same, I said "that reminds me of" and afterwards clearly stated the commonality with those three devs. Having something in common is not equal to being the same. Stop getting triggered because you want to get triggered.
By the way: Working on every aspect of an aircraft does not mean their work is necessarily good. I don't buy their working hours, I buy the result and I judge the result. This is not high school where students get appraisal for working hard.

Sophistries. 

The lack of respect for the work put on these aircraft in comparing with an external model attached to default avionics is absolutely appalling. 

Your (very subjective) judgement of the quality of their products doesn't change that one bit. 

Edited March 26, 20224 yr by Abriael