6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Absolutely no chance of that. It has extremely complex systems including a full Flight Engineer’s panel. In P3D over 24Gb of RAM is used when systems are started. No way can it work with XBox.

I have purchased and flown the Concorde in P3Dv5, and I didn’t find it significantly more complex to operate than aircraft like the PMDG DC-6—especially considering the built-in flight crew assistance. The DC-6, which is already available on Xbox, features a comparable number of knobs, switches, and dials.

At the very least, consoles offer a highly optimized and stable platform, providing far more consistency and ease of development compared to Windows and its nearly infinite range of hardware configurations. This is why games often perform better on Xbox compared to similarly spec. PCs.

That being said, I do recall FSLabs mentioning that they are not planning to develop for Xbox (source). When considering their A320 and similar offerings already available on that platform, I believe this decision is less about insurmountable technical limitations of the console and more about the company’s notably ultra-conservative approach.

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by GCBraun

8 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Can't really say that with absolute certainty.

I can because i mentioned XBox users last year on their forum and Andrew Wilson said it wouldn’t run on Xbox.

8 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

If an aircraft with the complexity of a PMDG 777 can be run on an XBox, I don't see why a Concorde cannot.

Have you ever owned an FSL Concorde? It’s extremely complex with a FE panel and 13 fuel tanks with all switches and valves operational. Time will tell but unless there’s been something transformational it won’t happen.

I should also add performance is pretty poor even on my system. It took some good detective work by a fellow member to identify the issue but it does impact on fuel movement on the FE panel.

I finally got decent performance by using Lossless Generation.

3 hours ago, GCBraun said:

I have purchased and flown the Concorde in P3Dv5, and I didn’t find it significantly more complex to operate than aircraft like the PMDG DC-6—especially considering the built-in flight crew assistance.

One big difference. Speed. What’s the Vr speed of a DC6? Much slower than Concorde of course so you need to keep one step ahead or you’re in trouble. With virtually everything being done for you by the VC the initial workload is small. Many aren’t happy they can’t control fuel transfer.

Anyway, you’ve confirmed Xbox isn’t an option so that’s put that to bed. As for performance in MSFS time will tell.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have you ever owned an FSL Concorde? It’s extremely complex with a FE panel and 13 fuel tanks with all switches and valves operational. Time will tell but unless there’s been something transformational it won’t happen.

Stuff like this can be done in WASM so from a technical standpoint it is possible. However if FSL is more comfortable working with their own framework that uses an external software that's entirely okay.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I can because i mentioned XBox users last year on their forum and Andrew Wilson said it wouldn’t run on Xbox.

Have you ever owned an FSL Concorde? It’s extremely complex with a FE panel and 13 fuel tanks with all switches and valves operational. Time will tell but unless there’s been something transformational it won’t happen.

I should also add performance is pretty poor even on my system. It took some good detective work by a fellow member to identify the issue but it does impact on fuel movement on the FE panel.

If you've struggled with your high specs (4090 and i9-13900K) I'd say FSL Concorde is barely useable on a PC, no mind an Xbox! Rather than any limitation of hardware it sounds like hideously inefficient code or graphics (both from FSL and LM) because there's no reason having 13 fuel tanks (or other system complexity) should make it run that poorly when Concorde doesn't do FMS computations and draw a multitude of in-cockpit displays with moving maps.

Fenix A320 is running possibly the most in-depth system simulation on any addon ever (e.g. heat from the generators affecting fuel temperature when at low thrust settings or fuel sloshing about in the tanks causing pumps to briefly starve) and graphically demanding too with a full cabin, and whilst it wasn't playable on my i5-2500k and GTX980, it's buttery smooth on my new system that's far behind Ray's. Having said that, it's still by far the heaviest addon I run and it'll never make Xbox as it's so externalised (Prosim base). I'm still a bit gobsmacked how FSL had such a headstart on FSL and yet they've still not got a single product out on MFS, even with their decisions to continue some P3Dv5 development.

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by ckyliu

15 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

If you are struggling on your specs (4090 and i9-13900K) I'd say it's barely useable on a PC, no mind Xbox. Rather than any limitation of hardware it sounds like hideously inefficient code or graphics (both from FSL and P3D)

There have been many comments about performance. Developers have apparently abandoned any P3D fixes whilst they work on the MSFS version.

I have lots of AIG Ai so at places like Heathrow and JFK performance was impacted by that. No Ai, far better performance.

I didn’t say it’s barely useable. I said performance is poor given my hardware and compared to the 32-bit version.

But Lossless Generation has vastly improved things where I can now get 60fps over London with 230+ Ai at Heathrow.

No, I said it was barely useable on a PC based on you struggling with your high specs; perhaps it would've been clearer if I'd added "barely usable on a typical simmer's PC"? i.e. most of us aren't in the position of owing a 4090 paired with an i9 so what hope have we got of having a nice experience with the product?

Unless FSL do something transformational with the port to MFS of Concorde (is that confirmed?) it's going to catch a lot of flak for performance that will hurt sales of an already niche product. And I would imagine FSL really need the sales revenue now since the P3D market has shrunk so much, maybe they'll focus on getting some Airbus A320 derivative out the door the first to try and get more cash in?

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by ckyliu

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I can because i mentioned XBox users last year on their forum and Andrew Wilson said it wouldn’t run on Xbox.

Have you ever owned an FSL Concorde? It’s extremely complex with a FE panel and 13 fuel tanks with all switches and valves operational. Time will tell but unless there’s been something transformational it won’t happen.

I should also add performance is pretty poor even on my system. It took some good detective work by a fellow member to identify the issue but it does impact on fuel movement on the FE panel.

All I'm saying is that we can't conclude for sure that the reason(s) FSL are not aiming for XBox is because of any technical/hardware limitations. As I said before, a good chunk of PCs that MSFS supports and simmers use are equivalent (or lesser even) specs wise to the XBox platforms.

Any performance and hardware resource issues that the FSL Concorde exhibits in P3D is very likely due to P3D itself, and/or FSL's inefficient coding. I still fail to see how a Concorde simulation could be significantly more complex than of a 777 like PMDG's or an A320 like Fenix's. That said, did any of the FSL's airbuses have similar performance issues in P3D like its Concorde?
 

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by lwt1971

5 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

did any of the FSL's airbuses have similar performance issues in P3D like its Concorde?

 Yes: FSL is also known for being FPS hogs. Before Lossless Scaling, I had two ways of getting a smooth Airbus simulation in P3D: either move to 2D panel and get rid of the VC, or downgrade to the Aerosoft Airbus 😝 

But I also have to admit PMDG learned their lesson: their 737 NGXu was (after the FSL buses and Concorde) the heaviest plane in P3D. In MSFS, their NG3 is one of the smoothest birds I've flown.

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by Luis Hernandez

12 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Difficult to imagine what kind of product they could put out that would entice me, personally, to do business with them.  But the market will speak... We'll see what they've got, and who buys it.

This all happened right as I discovered that FSL even existed. I found their web page, saw the price, decided that I wanted to read some reviews to see if it was worth the price (about 2.5x what I paid for the sim, IIRC), and found an article describing what went on. I made the immediate decision that I would never install anything that this company put out.

Spent the next couple of years actually fuming at them, since no other company would be putting the effort into a high fidelity A32X because FSL had already made the "best possible version". So... I never flew any A32X until the Fenix came on board (except for a brief stint with the FBW version). I missed years of Airbus flying because of that debacle, and I still hold a grudge against FSL for causing that. It was their fault, not mine. They'll never get one red nickel out of me. Ever. They could produce the absolute best piece of software on the entire planet, and I will do without. Sorry. Trust matters. 

Thank God for Fenix. Whatever FSL puts out, I hope Fenix does it too. I'll never buy the FSL version, so Fenix can keep me from being stranded on the island again. 

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by MDFlier

24 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

This all happened right as I discovered that FSL even existed. I found their web page, saw the price, decided that I wanted to read some reviews to see if it was worth the price (about 2.5x what I paid for the sim, IIRC), and found an article describing what went on. I made the immediate decision that I would never install anything that this company put out.

Spent the next couple of years actually fuming at them, since no other company would be putting the effort into a high fidelity A32X because FSL had already made the "best possible version". So... I never flew any A32X until the Fenix came on board (except for a brief stint with the FBW version). I missed years of Airbus flying because of that debacle, and I still hold a grudge against FSL for causing that. It was their fault, not mine. They'll never get one red nickel out of me. Ever. They could produce the absolute best piece of software on the entire planet, and I will do without. Sorry. Trust matters. 

Thank God for Fenix. Whatever FSL puts out, I hope Fenix does it too. I'll never buy the FSL version, so Fenix can keep me from being stranded on the island again. 

Strong opinions about something that you never owned and hence have very little or any knowledge of.

Kind of summarizes the state of affairs on these forums.

44 minutes ago, Luis Hernandez said:

 Yes: FSL is also known for being FPS hogs. Before Lossless Scaling, I had two ways of getting a smooth Airbus simulation in P3D: either move to 2D panel and get rid of the VC, or downgrade to the Aerosoft Airbus 😝 

But I also have to admit PMDG learned their lesson: their 737 NGXu was (after the FSL buses and Concorde) the heaviest plane in P3D. In MSFS, their NG3 is one of the smoothest birds I've flown.

Indeed I have found the NGXu worse than the FSL bus in P3D v5.

2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

No, I said it was barely useable on a PC based on you struggling with your high specs;

It all depends on user settings and critically how much Ai you have running. But there’s no doubt it’s very heavy on resources - the worst on my system. I’m sure it will improve when they return to it.

 

2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

Unless FSL do something transformational with the port to MFS of Concorde (is that confirmed?) it's going to catch a lot of flak for performance

They are definitely working on a MSFS version. Other than that little has been revealed as is normal for them.

5 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Strong opinions about something that you never owned and hence have very little or any knowledge of.

Kind of summarizes the state of affairs on these forums.

His "strong opinions" are about the company, not the product. At least read before bashing all of Avsim.

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by Fiorentoni

50 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

All I'm saying is that we can't conclude for sure that the reason(s) FSL are not aiming for XBox is because of any technical/hardware limitations. As I said before, a good chunk of PCs that MSFS supports and simmers use are equivalent (or lesser even) specs wise to the XBox platforms.

They have their reasons for not going with XBox but they’re unlikely to divulge the reasons.

51 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Any performance and hardware resource issues that the FSL Concorde exhibits in P3D is very likely due to P3D itself, and/or FSL's inefficient coding.

I’m not going to get into P3D as this is the MSFS forum. As for inefficient coding… Ouch! They’re extremely capable programmers. 🤨