For FSL Concorde owners...

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 540]

4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no idea what you’re suggesting.

I know. I think what I meant was mistranslated: I think it may well happen that FSLabs makes a more "casual", "easy", and "less detailed" Concorde like other developers have done for MSFS. In the case of temperatures, this Concorde won't be so sensitive to that (yes, it wouldn't be quite Concorde, but I don't think the type of MSFS user cares about that...)

[DD_Arthur 1,050]

Oh boy.....🥱

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

6 minutes ago, Juliett Alfa Romeo said:

I know. I think what I meant was mistranslated: I think it may well happen that FSLabs makes a more "casual", "easy", and "less detailed" Concorde like other developers have done for MSFS. In the case of temperatures, this Concorde won't be so sensitive to that (yes, it wouldn't be quite Concorde, but I don't think the type of MSFS user cares about that...)

There is zero chance of that happening. They make the most realistic flight models for their aircraft. It’s my understanding that it will only be available for the PC so any XBox owners will be disappointed.

There is another simplified Concorde already available for MSFS.

[ATRguy 52]

8 hours ago, Juliett Alfa Romeo said:

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

What others have been dumbed down for Xbox?  

[MarkW 1,493]

I find it odd that the HP200 uses so many resources when it real life is was a very small computer using no power by modern computer standards.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

43 minutes ago, MarkW said:

I find it odd that the HP200 uses so many resources when it real life is was a very small computer using no power by modern computer standards.

It’s where you select your plan and add ZFW, departing and arrival runways. It then calculates take off speeds plus all the other settings. Plus accel and decel points but there’s a bug in the code where you can’t move the accel or decel points to where you want them.

It “phones home” to get some other data. Some data is held remotely on their servers so you need an internet connection. It would probably fail without one.

I wish they would open their forums to all then prospective users could better judge whether it’s a good buy.

[Patco Lch 1,465]

Ray, it sounds like the best course for you is reinstalling P3DV3 and keep flying your first FS Lab Concord. Disappointing I’m sure but you can keep enjoying your favorite aircraft.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

15 minutes ago, Patco Lch said:

Ray, it sounds like the best course for you is reinstalling P3DV3 and keep flying your first FS Lab Concord. Disappointing I’m sure but you can keep enjoying your favorite aircraft.

That’s not going to happen. I have very few decent airports for v3 and reverting to 4Gb VAS would result in a huge drop off in visual quality.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

As Concorde enthusiasts cannot view the FSL's forums I'm showing a post I submitted yesterday. To date no one has answered and it's been viewed 23 times.

EGLL-GCLP. Plan attached. I didn't change the accel and decel points on this flight. The accel one was fine.

However the point at which Mach 1 was required was around 60nm too early. See the attached image showing the relevant points on Aivlasoft's EFB.

The U003 point is 125nm from GCLP. That's the point at which I'm required to be at Mach 1. But why? Close to U004 you can see a green arc. That's centred on the northernmost tip of Gran Canaria. It has a 60nm arc.

Now look at U004. According to the Descent Tables that's the point I need to start descending from FL350 / Mach 0.95 to reach the GDV VOR at FL100.

The distance between U003 and U004 is around 60nm. Why does it require me to fly it subsonically when the route is over ocean? Providing I'm subsonic by U004 I fail to understand why I'm started down so early.

According to the Descent Tables the distance to descend from FL600 to FL100 is (220-17) 203nm. That suggests the decel point would be around 14nm before SAMAR with a continuous descent to FL100 with no levelling off for a subsonic leg.

Hopefully this can be addressed in the forthcoming update. Alternatively, complete freedon for the user to choose their own accel / decel points would be much appreciated.

 

[ATRguy 52]

How ARE the forums there Ray?  I can’t see anything other than the lounge but it seems like it’s quiet.  Has there been any mention of MSFS previews or anything?  

[Ted Striker 338]

Ray, I can't view the FSL forums either anymore but I remember there used to be a lot of very knowledgeable user to user discussions. Have all those folks given up on the Concorde?

Ted

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

13 minutes ago, ATRguy said:

How ARE the forums there Ray?  I can’t see anything other than the lounge but it seems like it’s quiet.  Has there been any mention of MSFS previews or anything?  

Pretty quiet. Hard to say if people are flying her with the obvious problems or have given up until an update considerably improves performance. Requests for news in the MSFS version are told it’s under development but nothing more. Certainly no previews and their website still has a 2020 copyright.

6 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

Ray, I can't view the FSL forums either anymore but I remember there used to be a lot of very knowledgeable user to user discussions. Have all those folks given up on the Concorde?

Ted

The quality and amount of discussion has dropped significantly Ted. Hard to know why that is. Perhaps because so much is automated there’s little for the user to do. I manually control pitch from the accel point to Mach 1.7 to give me something to do. Those who engage MAX CLIMB at the accel point have nothing to do but watch.

Shifting fuel rearwards and forwards at the appropriate points is handled by the systems which can’t be switched off. I really enjoyed that aspect which was quite challenging.

[Ted Striker 338]

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Pretty quiet. Hard to say if people are flying her with the obvious problems or have given up until an update considerably improves performance. Requests for news in the MSFS version are told it’s under development but nothing more. Certainly no previews and their website still has a 2020 copyright.

The quality and amount of discussion has dropped significantly Ted. Hard to know why that is. Perhaps because so much is automated there’s little for the user to do. I manually control pitch from the accel point to Mach 1.7 to give me something to do. Those who engage MAX CLIMB at the accel point have nothing to do but watch.

Shifting fuel rearwards and forwards at the appropriate points is handled by the systems which can’t be switched off. I really enjoyed that aspect which was quite challenging.

I agree with you Ray, handling the systems in the P3DV3 version was quite challenging but once you got the basics down it was fun. Sounds like you need to take Andrew Wilson out to dinner and have a good discussion over a pint or two.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

Andrew Wilson has just replied to my post. He will investigate this week. Some routes such as EGLL-KIAD and the return to EGLL from TBPB and KJFK did require a short levelling off sector as the aircraft had to be subsonic 55nm before landfall.

But that isn’t necessary for arrivals to the Canary Islands from the north, south or west.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

18 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

I agree with you Ray, handling the systems in the P3DV3 version was quite challenging but once you got the basics down it was fun. Sounds like you need to take Andrew Wilson out to dinner and have a good discussion over a pint or two.

He lives in Oxfordshire and I’m in Cheshire. Tricky especially when there’s probably no flight sim show again in England this year. Not had one since 2019. 😥