DC Designs Concorde on sale.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

@JasonPC, thanks for that. Updates to MSFS were frustrating for PMDG too with their DC-6 I think it was. It must be very frustrating for developers when an aircraft gets “broken” by an update. Better liaison with Asobo would help.

It makes you wonder if FSL will encounter the same problems. Time will tell I suppose.

[GCBraun 2,390]

31 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@JasonPC, thanks for that. Updates to MSFS were frustrating for PMDG too with their DC-6 I think it was. It must be very frustrating for developers when an aircraft gets “broken” by an update. Better liaison with Asobo would help.

It makes you wonder if FSL will encounter the same problems. Time will tell I suppose.

Well, based on PMDG's previous feedback that the DC-6 for MSFS sold more than all other platforms combined in a matter of hours, I believe they are not too bothered with the very welcome platform updates. MSFS is a healthy ecosystem precisely because of its constant updates that keep users happy and, therefore, improves profitability for Devs. 

I guess it is easier to develop to a dead sim like FS2004, but I am not sure it is worth it financially. 

Currently I am actively flying the PMDG 737, Fenix A320, Leonardo Maddog and many different light aircraft and none seem to be significantly affected by recent updates or even by the AAU Beta. Things are also clearly improving on Asobo's rollouts. 

Besides, if a developer is not able to update their software from time to time, then this is not a developer I want to purchase from.

Edited January 29, 2023 by GCBraun

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

1 minute ago, GCBraun said:

Currently I am actively flying the PMDG 737, Fenix A320, Leonardo Maddog and many different light aircraft and none seem to be significantly affected by recent updates or even by the AAU Beta. Things are also clearly improving on Asobo's rollouts. 

With 13 fuel tanks Concorde is very different to any of those. How many fuel tanks do those have? 3 at most.

Jason was specific that the problem related to fuel transfer. If that isn’t modelled correctly it will affect the balance and therefore the performance. These are problems that are unlikely to affect any other aircraft. Don’t be so harsh on the developer especially given the very generous price.

[GCBraun 2,390]

27 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Don’t be so harsh on the developer especially given the very generous price.

Even though I am not the target audience for the DC Concorde, I don't think it is harsh to expect software to be properly maintained. The leading simulator platforms (MSFS, DCS and XP12) are constantly being updated and some of those updates do require add-ons to be patched. The snail pace development of ESP-based sims is out of fashion in the current market, and that is a great thing.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

1 minute ago, GCBraun said:

The snail pace development of ESP-based sims is out of fashion in the current market, and that is a great thing.

But those aircraft work as opposed to the mayhem with the never ending Sim Updates of MSFS. P3D is a very stable platform whatever your views on it are.

Developers have been forced to embrace MSFS if they want to earn money. But let’s not kid ourselves it’s a stable platform. Quite the opposite actually and they must fear every update given its propensity for breaking things.

Another reason why I won’t consider it for any serious flying.

[GCBraun 2,390]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But those aircraft work as opposed to the mayhem with the never ending Sim Updates of MSFS. P3D is a very stable platform whatever your views on it are.

Developers have been forced to embrace MSFS if they want to earn money. But let’s not kid ourselves it’s a stable platform.

Not sure what you mean by stable. As I mentioned in another topic, MSFS is rock solid for me, especially in comparison to what I experienced over the years with P3D. Proof of that is that an AVSIM CTD Guide is not needed for MSFS.

Getting updates and evolving is a good thing. Take a look at what these new updates are bringing to MSFS. The Avionics update is a massive game changer and will bring study level capabilities to multiple aircraft for free. How can someone complain about this?

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Another reason why I won’t consider it for any serious flying.

What is serious simming for you, frankly? Here is a picture from this very moment:

After cruising in IMC conditions, here I am preparing the RNP approach for RW08 on my GTNXi in a half-frozen C172 into Hof-Plauen, Germany on VATSIM.

Is this serious enough, even though the awesome Just-Flight C172 Classic Enhancement won't add 11 fuel tanks to the Cessna or make it go as fast as a Concorde? 

Edited January 29, 2023 by GCBraun

[psolk 3,037]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But those aircraft work as opposed to the mayhem with the never ending Sim Updates of MSFS. P3D is a very stable platform whatever your views on it are.

Developers have been forced to embrace MSFS if they want to earn money. But let’s not kid ourselves it’s a stable platform. Quite the opposite actually and they must fear every update given its propensity for breaking things.

Another reason why I won’t consider it for any serious flying.

Then I must ask why you are here posting in the MSFS forum if this is your opinion of the platform? 

A post like that in the P3D or XP forum would quickly be met with "if you don't even use the platform why are you here" and your repeated comments about how you won't consider it for "serious" flying are also well known and without merit or basis as MSFS is more than adequate for serious flying...

So you basically came to the MSFS forum and insinuated that the Concorde is too difficult for MSFS users to master,  then told us we are kidding ourselves if you think MSFS is a stable platform,  and finished it with how MSFS can't be used for serious flying for you.   

Got it, thank you for that but if this was reversed and an MSFS user talking about P3D negatively in the P3D forum I am fairly certain we know the outcome.  

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by psolk

[qqwertz 770]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But let’s not kid ourselves it’s a stable platform. Quite the opposite actually and they must fear every update given its propensity for breaking things.

I must, respectfully, disagree. MSFS is the most stable simulator I ever had. I think it took a year until I had my first CTD, and it was caused by me meddling with a config file. I only had a handful of CTDs since, mostly when I was using a public beta version of MSFS and shortly afterwards.

Peter

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

Not sure what you mean by stable. As I mentioned in another topic, MSFS is rock solid for me, especially in comparison to what I experienced over the years with P3D.

I look at the number of posts in this forum as part of my duties. I'm glad it's rock solid for you. Others aren't as fortunate.

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

Take a look at what these new updates are bringing to MSFS. The Avionics update is a massive game changer and will bring study level capabilities to multiple aircraft for free. How can someone complain about this?

I have no doubt those will enhance the sim but how does it help the developer of Concorde which is what this topic is about?

37 minutes ago, psolk said:

Then I must ask why you are here posting in the MSFS forum if this is your opinion of the platform? 

My post was about the silence about Concorde in the last 6 months. As it turns out an update 'broke' the fuel system and for whatever reason the developer can't fix it which perhaps explains why people aren't flying it.

37 minutes ago, psolk said:

So you basically came to the MSFS forum and insinuated that the Concorde is too difficult for MSFS users to master,  then told us we are kidding ourselves if you think MSFS is a stable platform,  and finished it with how MSFS can't be used for serious flying for you.   

I made a suggestion, not an insinuation. I'm entitled to an opinion just as you are. An update 'broke' something that previously worked.

37 minutes ago, psolk said:

but if this was reversed and an MSFS user talking about P3D negatively in the P3D forum I am fairly certain we know the outcome.  

There's no rule preventing someone expressing an opinion on any sim providing it's done in a reasonable way. I believe my comments were. If you disagree that's fine. You have the option of reporting my post if you feel it broke forum rules.

Incidentally, I asked you a few questions about your Concorde experiences which you haven't replied to.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

21 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

I must, respectfully, disagree. MSFS is the most stable simulator I ever had. I think it took a year until I had my first CTD, and it was caused by me meddling with a config file. I only had a handful of CTDs since, mostly when I was using a public beta version of MSFS and shortly afterwards.

Peter

Peter, I'm pleased it's stable for you. It perhaps depends on how many addons you have.

[Zangoose 1,631]

Quote

I look at the number of posts in this forum as part of my duties. I'm glad it's rock solid for you. Others aren't as fortunate.

You also have to remember which is often posted - You'll see people voice their complaints/issues more than the people who have no problems and are enjoying the sim.

MSFS is not any less stable than P3D or X-Plane is considered and I really can't remember that many 3rd party addons being broken by a sim update.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Zangoose

[GCBraun 2,390]

11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no doubt those will enhance the sim but how does it help the developer of Concorde which is what this topic is about?

Well, looking at their Facebook page, they sure don't sound like a desperate developer to me.

Besides planning to launch multiple new add-ons for MSFS, they also seem to be quite active updating their older offerings. Perhaps the Concorde is not as broken as it being reported here?

Edited January 29, 2023 by GCBraun

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

12 minutes ago, Zangoose said:

You also have to remember which is often posted - You'll see people voice their complaints/issues more than the people who have no problems and are enjoying the sim.

MSFS is not any less stable than P3D or X-Plane is considered and I really can't remember that many 3rd party addons being broken by a sim update.

Agreed that people tend to post when they have a problem rather than to express delight at a sim. But it's clear that one update 'broke' the Concorde fuel system and for whatever reason it hasn't been fixed.

Unless the developer explains the reasons we're unlikely to know how involved any fix was. One owner of that aircraft has given his reasons why he doesn't use it. Unless others join in I have the answer why discussion has been so quiet.

[Bobsk8 12,492]

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But those aircraft work as opposed to the mayhem with the never ending Sim Updates of MSFS. P3D is a very stable platform whatever your views on it are.

Developers have been forced to embrace MSFS if they want to earn money. But let’s not kid ourselves it’s a stable platform. Quite the opposite actually and they must fear every update given its propensity for breaking things.

Another reason why I won’t consider it for any serious flying.

Windows XP  is a stable platform too, if you want to look at it that way. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Bobsk8

[DC1973 522]

I rarely post here now but wanted to chime in to say that Concorde is not broken and is both selling extremely well and still being used by many happy customers. Ray is entirely correct about the updates messing with Concorde's fuel system - the sim itself is not unstable, but the updates do often make certain aircraft within it unstable until fixes are rolled out. Simpler airplanes are usually unaffected but Concorde has thirteen tanks, 60 or so junctions and 138 fuel lines. There are now no less than three fuel system set-ups in MSFS, and Asobo seems unable to decide which one to use - the sim uses system 1, the SDK tells developers to use system 3. We found system 2 to currently be the most stable at this time.

Contrary to several incorrect posts above, we update all of our aircraft routinely, however the constant SU breakages have much delayed Concorde's planned improvements for the above reason - we've had to prioritise fixing what Asobo breaks all the time. However, we are just starting now on a comprehensive update that focuses on better modeling and textures, while also adding the INS for those that wish to use it. As long as the next SU doesn't break anything, we should have the work done and released by the summer. Concorde, even at our mid-level fidelity, is a complex beast so these things do take time.