We would need to know how many 777s they sold before to make that determination. I agree.  Larger market now. But I don’t agree that it’s an exponentially larger market for the high level stuff 

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

This is pretty naive. DC Designs' Concorde is absolutely competition and not irrelevant competition. 

Definitely not everyone interested in Concorde is also interested in high-fidelity modeling of all of its systems. DC Designs' Concorde may have shortcomings, but it's plenty to satisfy many people's needs, which means that it's definitely going to make a dent in the addressable market for a second Concorde released much later likely at a much higher price, no matter how high its quality is. 

Naive? I don’t think so. If the developer has admitted it lacks most of the systems required to fly it correctly then that must be true.

Have you tried flying Concorde in any simulator? It has a unique profile and unless that is adhered to you won’t get it up to FL500 at Mach 2. Fuel has to be pumped rearwards to maintain the CoG. If it isn’t the whole balance of the aircraft is wrong and it could well stall and crash.

Yes, people will fly it and may be satisfied. Are they flying it correctly? Probably not because the flight model doesn’t allow them to.

Search this subforum for DCD Concorde. You’ll find very little. It was released over a year ago for a modest price.

1 hour ago, micstatic said:

I’ll take the contrarian view. Yes msfs has expanded the user base. But expensive and complicated payware. I don’t know. I suspect many are just using the default planes. Which of course even those have become far more detailed than the control e engine start planes we had in past sims. 

I don't know even 5% of the functionality of the PMDG 737-800. But there waa no other decent 737 in 2022 and I alao thought it was cool that I was using the same add-on that real life 737 pilots were praising and using on their live steams (.ie Stearmandriver). So I paid $70 USD for the PMDG 737-800.

People like me didn't exist before MSFS 2020. That's how MSFS grew the "hardcore" flightsim market. Plus some simmmers returned to flignt simmimg and they are purchasing expensive add-ons. One example is Squirrel, who is a real life pliot who streams an assortment of video games. Squirrel generally doesn't stream any other flight sims other than MSFS - and even then, Squirrel rarely streams MSFS. But if there is a very high profile add-on for MSFS, he may buy it and stream it. If MSFS didn't exist, I don't think Squirrel would stream any flightsims at all.

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

I own the DCD Concorde. While I agree that it isn't anywhere near on the level of the FSLabs in terms of systems modelling and technical accuracy, I think it's unfair to dismiss it in the lineup of sim Concordes.

I actually managed to complete a few full flights across the Atlantic with it, not deviating too far from real procedures. The numbers were indeed a bit off, but the general principles of it's operation are there - including the fuel transfer system, which wasn't a million miles from the real process.

The biggest drawback for me was the navigation aspect. DC are working on a realistic INS unit for the upcoming update, but it hasn't yet materialised. Once this is in there I think it will actually be a very faithful rendition of Concorde for MSFS.

And let's not forget that (I think), DCD is one person working on these projects. But I'm sure someone will correct me on that. That in itself is quite something.

11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Naive? I don’t think so. If the developer has admitted it lacks most of the systems required to fly it correctly then that must be true.

Have you tried flying Concorde in any simulator? It has a unique profile and unless that is adhered to you won’t get it up to FL500 at Mach 2. Fuel has to be pumped rearwards to maintain the CoG. If it isn’t the whole balance of the aircraft is wrong and it could well stall and crash.

Yes, people will fly it and may be satisfied. Are they flying it correctly? Probably not because the flight model doesn’t allow them to.

Search this subforum for DCD Concorde. You’ll find very little. It was released over a year ago for a modest price.

I’ve flown it quite a bit. It’s not bad.

You do need to do the things you mention - balancing fuel between fore and aft - to fly it properly and hit Mach 2.

I flew it with real Concorde checklists. 

I won't support that company after they basically called people who use MSFS kids. Goodluck to them.

We don't know the full story yet as FSL are being very secretive despite this "leak".. but I wonder if there's even a remote chance they will release both their A32x and Concorde at the same time, given that both have been in development for what seems like ages... naa, probably not 😅

In any case, it's overall goodness that FSL finally have something for MSFS, and the SDK no longer is a blocking or limiting factor for them (it stopped being so around a year or more ago I guess when they changed their tune about MSFS and decided to go all-in on the sim). Even if the first release is a A32x CEO, perhaps the NEO won't be too far behind.

I am intrigued about the "never seen before" features they were touting earlier.. anyhow, fingers crossed for their Concorde and A330 to come along sooner versus years from now.
 

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by lwt1971

36 minutes ago, micstatic said:

We would need to know how many 777s they sold before to make that determination. I agree.  Larger market now. But I don’t agree that it’s an exponentially larger market for the high level stuff 

Perhaps not "exponentially" larger but all anecdotal and direct/indirect tidbits given by the major devs of high fidelity aircraft so far, especially those devs who've developed for other sims before MSFS (i.e. PMDG, iniBuilds, etc) all seem to point to one thing: it's not just a larger market for high fidelity aircraft due to MSFS now, but *significantly* larger compared to previous sims. And that would also align with the kind of lower price points most of them are able to set given the higher volume of sales compared to before.. also other indicators like the navigraph survey, vatsim/volanta/other numbers, etc that all arguably serve the more "serious" simmer.
 

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by lwt1971

10 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

I’ve flown it quite a bit. It’s not bad.

You do need to do the things you mention - balancing fuel between fore and aft - to fly it properly and hit Mach 2.

I flew it with real Concorde checklists. 

Did you fly the FSL 32-bit version for a comparison?

36 minutes ago, micstatic said:

We would need to know how many 777s they sold before to make that determination. I agree.  Larger market now. But I don’t agree that it’s an exponentially larger market for the high level stuff 

PMDG has mentioned much higher sales for their aircraft several times. And all of their aircraft are "high level stuff."

34 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Naive? I don’t think so. If the developer has admitted it lacks most of the systems required to fly it correctly then that must be true.

Have you tried flying Concorde in any simulator? It has a unique profile and unless that is adhered to you won’t get it up to FL500 at Mach 2. Fuel has to be pumped rearwards to maintain the CoG. If it isn’t the whole balance of the aircraft is wrong and it could well stall and crash.

Yes, people will fly it and may be satisfied. Are they flying it correctly? Probably not because the flight model doesn’t allow them to.

Search this subforum for DCD Concorde. You’ll find very little. It was released over a year ago for a modest price.

It's naive to think that it's not competition just because it's a less fully-featured simulation. 

It's a rendition of the same aircraft. It's gonna shrink the addressable market for a second rendition, and not just by a little bit. 

1 minute ago, Abriael said:

PMDG has mentioned much higher sales for their aircraft several times. And all of their aircraft are "high level stuff."

It's naive to think that it's not competition just because it's a less fully-featured simulation. 

It's a rendition of the same aircraft. It's gonna shrink the addressable market for a second rendition, and not just by a little bit. 

Higher sales because of Xbox its not rocket science. If they charge an upgrade price or claim to say its a totally new aircraft we shell see.

6 minutes ago, Abriael said:

It's naive to think that it's not competition just because it's a less fully-featured simulation. 

It's a rendition of the same aircraft. It's gonna shrink the addressable market for a second rendition, and not just by a little bit. 

Given sales numbers are never revealed we’ll never know. Your second sentence is guesswork.

2 hours ago, micstatic said:

I’ll take the contrarian view. Yes msfs has expanded the user base. But expensive and complicated payware. I don’t know. I suspect many are just using the default planes. Which of course even those have become far more detailed than the control e engine start planes we had in past sims. 

Not only do I think you're right, I think the continued investments in the core sim aircraft a la WT and the ini A320 rebuild are significant bits of supporting evidence.

6 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Higher sales because of Xbox its not rocket science. If they charge an upgrade price or claim to say its a totally new aircraft we shell see.

How is that even related. 😂

Just now, Ray Proudfoot said:

Given sales numbers are never revealed we’ll never know. Your second sentence is guesswork.

No. It's selling stuff 101. If the market includes a product that overlaps with your product, your product is going to lose a portion of its potential sales to that product. 

39 minutes ago, Tom Wright said:

I actually managed to complete a few full flights across the Atlantic with it, not deviating too far from real procedures. The numbers were indeed a bit off, but the general principles of it's operation are there - including the fuel transfer system, which wasn't a million miles from the real process

Well done when it can’t have been easy.

41 minutes ago, Tom Wright said:

The biggest drawback for me was the navigation aspect. DC are working on a realistic INS unit for the upcoming update, but it hasn't yet materialised. Once this is in there I think it will actually be a very faithful rendition of Concorde for MSFS.

It does need an INS system to be faithful to the aircraft. Whether that’s possible or not remains to be seen.