For FSL Concorde owners...

[jcomm 5,939]

For me use of P3Dv5.4 and FSLabs have come to an end...

I kept P3D mostly because of FSLabs, and last year even invested in the 321 SL, but now that I have Airlinetools A32x I am more than well served in terms of an A320 training platform while at the same time enjoying the Toliss 321 NEO in XP12 and even the airbuses in MFS 2020...

The Concorde was my other objective, but based an all I've read during the last months, I quit...

I'll install P3D v6, which I own (while v5.4 was a 6 month pro license about to end...) and use there the PMDG 777 and probably the Majestic Q-400. Eventually the iFly 737 MAX if they port it...

Edited January 31 by jcomm

[newtie 533]

I've never bought anything from FSL but based on the comments in this thread, I'd say there giving the message that they're done with it without actually having to say it. Might be bad for future MSFS business.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

4 minutes ago, newtie said:

I've never bought anything from FSL but based on the comments in this thread, I'd say there giving the message that they're done with it without actually having to say it. Might be bad for future MSFS business.

They promised they would deliver for P3D and they’ve delivered. But performance is dreadful when you consider you need a system close to what I have to be able to fly it into major airports like Heathrow and JFK.

They said they would look at performance but that was a few months ago. Silence then followed then came the bombshell they’ve switched to MSFS development.

I would have more respect for them if they were more open about their plans instead of having to drag it out of them. Of course it’s the boss who makes the decisions and those working on aircraft have to go along with that whether they like it or not.

I think it’s the complexity of the FE panel that’s killing performance but that’s just my opinion.

The other bugbear is the user cannot take control of the systems such as the FE panel which I enjoyed very much on the 32-bit version.

[craigeaglefire 197]

16 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I would have more respect for them if they were more open about their plans instead of having to drag it out of them

Judging by the FSL Concorde comments here - best to save money until a fully working & quality Concorde is actually made by FSL for MSFS (2024 version)…

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

19 minutes ago, craigeaglefire said:

Judging by the FSL Concorde comments here - best to save money until a fully working & quality Concorde is actually made by FSL for MSFS (2024 version)…

I hate to disappoint you but the MSFS version will have the same problems unless FSL takes a very different direction. Excessive use of RAM, systems locked down with no option to unlock them, and very poor performance. I monitor CPU usage and despite no core hitting 100% the fps can drop off which is a mystery.

Whilst the number of P3D owners is low they’ve generally had the earlier Concordes so are familiar with its unique handling and systems.

Those buying for the first time will have a steep learning curve as well as coping with performance. You need a top notch PC.

[craigeaglefire 197]

13 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You need a top notch PC.

Fast CPU & GPU here with 64GB RAM & 24GB VRAM with 1300W PSU (very important)…

[Afterburner 374]

This is very unfortunate. It makes me wish they would simply have ported the old Concorde-X for 64-bit P3D environment back in 2017 when they conducted the e-mail poll, which would have given us a lot of years to enjoy until the release of the current version and provided good performance on top of that. (If it ran well on P3Dv3, it would have run even better on version 4 and 5). Now we have a performance hog that uses way too much RAM and, as Ray and some others on the respective forum stated, drags down the FPS even when the CPU load is not maxed out. This doesn't normally happen. I "only" have 16 GB RAM, and I don't even get close to using it with all other airplanes, while I read that the new Concorde can easily use 24 GB RAM.

It will be really interesting to see how it will handle in MSFS. While that sim is said to have better performance than P3D, no airplane made for it has had a level of complexity equal to Concorde. I expect that with a comparable number of AI traffic, that plane will suffer from the same low performance unless changes will be made.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

@Afterburner, I wrote my earlier comments with a heavy heart. Like you I wish we could have had the 32-bit with its 2D panels made compatible with a 64-bit sim. The upside is the performance would have been wonderful; the downside it wouldn't have looked anything like it does now.

The integration of the virtual crew into performing many of their real-life actions is a masterclass in coding. It must have taken a very long time to do that. But the HP200X computer is central to its operations and when the systems are booted up the RAM usage is very high - 25Gb+. But in fairness my 32Gb systems have never crashed either with the old Chillblast with a 1080Ti or this new one with a 4090.

The new graphics card makes easy work of the visual side of things and with EA enabled it looks very good but not great. There are minor glitches in the visible model but nothing annoying for me. Baked on reflections on the gauges is irritating.

And if I didn't inject so many AIG Ai into busy airports like Heathrow I'm sure fps would stay at 30. But where's the fun in being the only aircraft in the sim? The PMDG737 can cope with 140+ but not Concorde.

The forum is now silent. Either people have accepted what they have will stay for the forseeable future and are putting up with it or maybe they've just stopped flying her. That would be a real shame but totally understandable.

My own personal grievances are not having control over the accel and decel points. The software does a reasonable job but the user should be able to override them and currently that's not possible. I can ignore the callouts and do what I want but syncing my actions with the virtual crew would be so much better. A request to make that possible has been met with silence.

I'll still fly it but not with the same enjoyment the 32-bit version gave me until the lockdown of systems is eased.

[Hamilton_ 45]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The other bugbear is the user cannot take control of the systems such as the FE panel which I enjoyed very much on the 32-bit version.

Like you I wish we could have had the 32-bit with its 2D panels made compatible with a 64-bit sim. The upside is the performance would have been wonderful;

I'll still fly it but not with the same enjoyment the 32-bit version gave me until the lockdown of systems is eased.

Perfect!  Exatly THIS  ↑↑↑↑ 

I feel (and do) the same, by the way, I still fly with the 32-bit version.

Edited February 1 by Hamilton_

[SimeonWilbury 220]

All things considered I do very much enjoy the aircraft, I waited for it for so long that I'm in the position of being glad I got something that works well enough after waiting years for the Just Flight 747 Classic and A300 to drop only to have them unceremoniously cancelled.

It has also just been fun in general to learn a bit more about the aircraft again having not flown it in-sim since 2018, but yes I do wish FSL would be a bit more transparent and forthcoming in terms of existing features and bugs.

Performance-wise while indeed you do need a good system to run it well I can just about make do with my current system which is mid-range and on the outdated side (though I do only run at 1080p which probably puts less strain on the GPU). I've long given up on ever having decent FPS in flight sims, and only at Heathrow is it really unacceptably low, so I'll cope until I can get some upgrades sorted.

My regret, as is shared by some, I guess comes down to MSFS being the sim that gets all the support and P3D being a bit left behind. Not much that can be done about it these days so I guess I'll enjoy my historical weather etc. while I can before eventually moving over.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

4 hours ago, Hamilton_ said:

I feel (and do) the same, by the way, I still fly with the 32-bit version.

I have SBGL and Cape Town airports. Despite Concorde never flying between those two cities I have plans to do it in P3Dv5. That’s the one great advantage of the 64-bit sim. No VAS to worry about. 😉

[ATRguy 52]

10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I hate to disappoint you but the MSFS version will have the same problems unless FSL takes a very different direction. Excessive use of RAM, systems locked down with no option to unlock them, and very poor performance. I monitor CPU usage and despite no core hitting 100% the fps can drop off which is a mystery.

Whilst the number of P3D owners is low they’ve generally had the earlier Concordes so are familiar with its unique handling and systems.

Those buying for the first time will have a steep learning curve as well as coping with performance. You need a top notch PC.

Not to get into a "this or that" discussion here, Ray, but with your system MSFS would be an absolute dream.  

There's no way that the performance would be as bad as it is in P3D; my frames are DOUBLE in MSFS with the PMDG 737, with everything on HIGH or ULTRA (and not even close to that on P3D), and my system isn't as beefy as yours.  I think when the Concorde arrives, you should give it a go, it may blow you away.  I get the red lines, but man, I bet it's one SMOOTH experience.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

@ATRguy, my system is a dream in P3D. All my aircraft bar Concorde run perfectly well even at busy airports with 100+ Ai. Do you have a comparable number of Ai in MSFS? If not, it’s not a fair comparison.

Until Concorde arrives for MSFS no one except FSL will know what performance is like. If it’s as disappointing as in P3D that will disappoint many.

And of course you might as well try getting blood out of a stone as get an answer from them on that.

Red lines are just that. Immovable objects until Microsoft / Asobo relent with their refusal to provide a weather api. Concorde is especially sensitive to temperatures so it’s vital weather is appropriate for the time of day.

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 540]

10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Red lines are just that. Immovable objects until Microsoft / Asobo relent with their refusal to provide a weather api. Concorde is especially sensitive to temperatures so it’s vital weather is appropriate for the time of day.

FSLabs can do like others and adapt its product to the market... casual "gaming" platform.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

4 minutes ago, Juliett Alfa Romeo said:

FSLabs can do like others and adapt its product to the market... casual "gaming" platform.

I have no idea what you’re suggesting.