1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

And what’s your opinion of how she flies?

It could fly 1:1 with the real thing and it wouldn't make their comment any less valid. I'm not purchasing Aerowinx. It's not unfair to expect at these price points that the aircraft looks and sounds just as good as it flies.

5 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

It could fly 1:1 with the real thing and it wouldn't make their comment any less valid. I'm not purchasing Aerowinx. It's not unfair to expect at these price points that the aircraft looks and sounds just as good as it flies.

Having owned the 32-bit Concorde for many years the 64-bit version was a huge upgrade. Aerowinx? What have they got to do with FSL Concorde?

12 hours ago, VHOJT said:

What's the state of this hobby if a real airliner pilot can't give his valuable insight?

My absolute "favorites" are the guys actively saying that IRL ATP pilots can't be trusted because they're not "hard core" flight simmers!!!! 🤣

51 minutes ago, bendead said:

You are quite optimistic, from the stream the dev said after the airbus line, so it could well be after an A330.....

That would be ridiculous. It must surely be at an advanced stage of development already, considering that a lot of work was already done on the P3Dv5 version?

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Having owned the 32-bit Concorde for many years the 64-bit version was a huge upgrade.

I don't think that matters if its still considered a low-standard even P3D-wise

 

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Aerowinx? What have they got to do with FSL Concorde?

I think you're missing the comparison. Aerowinx is known for making the most complex simulation of a 747, but it's just 2D panels. FSL OTOH, creates whole aircraft, which in my opinion, is much more immersive than what Aerowinx presents despite its fidelity.

With that in mind, FSL's products, considering their price points, should be the gold-standard in all areas, not just systems at these price points because we all know, it can be done. Therefore while their Concorde offering is amazing from a simulation standpoint, it's fair to comment on it's less than stellar areas which greatly bring up the immersion factor. From what we've seeing with the upcoming 321 CEO for a sim who's main highlight is visual fidelity, the same comments are fair to bring up.

9 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

I don't think that matters if its still considered a low-standard even P3D-wise

Considered low grade by whom? You? Others? I’m more concerned with how well it flies compared to the real Concorde. It achieves that with ease.

10 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

I think you're missing the comparison. Aerowinx is known for making the most complex simulation of a 747, but it's just 2D panels. FSL OTOH, creates whole aircraft, which in my opinion, is much more immersive than what Aerowinx presents despite its fidelity.

Ah yes, I remember that 747. Procedural flying only.

12 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Therefore while their Concorde offering is amazing from a simulation standpoint, it's fair to comment on it's less than stellar areas

Which would be…? Please be specific.

5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Considered low grade by whom? You? Others? I’m more concerned with how well it flies compared to the real Concorde. It achieves that with ease.

and this is genuinely really great that that's enough for you. There is a lot of people, who aren't satisfied with just systems/fm alone. I feel like we're going in circles.

It may bear useful to re-read my comment specifically the last two paragraphs.

Though to put it short, payware at these price points should, look as good as it flies, sound as good as it looks, and perform as good as it flies (you get the point)  especially when we have new graphical and sound engines to work with. if it fails in doing that, it bears calling out.

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Which would be…? Please be specific.

The subject of how I started this conversation.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

My absolute "favorites" are the guys actively saying that IRL ATP pilots can't be trusted because they're not "hard core" flight simmers!!!! 🤣

Yeah, I thought that was quite funny….

11 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

and this is genuinely really great that that's enough for you. There is a lot of people, who aren't satisfied with just systems/fm alone. I feel like we're going in circles.

It may bear useful to re-read my comment specifically the last two paragraphs.

Though to put it short, payware at these price points should, look as good as it flies, sound as good as it looks, and perform as good as it flies (you get the point)  especially when we have new graphical and sound engines to work with. if it fails in doing that, it bears calling out.

The subject of how I started this conversation.

I wonder, do you own the fsl concorde?

10 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Though to put it short, payware at these price points should, look as good as it flies, sound as good as it looks, and perform as good as it flies (you get the point)  especially when we have new graphical and sound engines to work with. if it fails in doing that, it bears calling out.

I paid 80USD and for that price consider it excellent value for money. If you feel it represents poor value for money that’s your call.

15 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

I wonder, do you own the fsl concorde?

Ha, you must be new here!!!

Anyone that's been around knows about Ray and his wait for the FSL Concorde 😉  

Back to the topic of FSL and MSFS?

Edited December 2, 20241 yr by psolk

3 minutes ago, psolk said:

Ha, you must be new here!!!

Yep, since 2004, quite new indeed. That comment wasn't at Rays direction.

It's just that nowadays I noticed that the less people are familiar with something, the firmer their assertions tend to become. Cream of the crop are those who don't have an addon (or indeed the platform) but pop on every other thread with their "insights"... But I digress....

50 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

I wonder, do you own the fsl concorde?

If I didn’t own the aircraft would it make my comments wrong? 

 

53 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you feel it represents poor value for money that’s your call.

I still don’t get how you made that assertion from what I’ve said. Nor is that what I’m saying. I’m not really sure how else to convey my point.

Just now, Lucky38i said:

I still don’t get how you made that assertion from what I’ve said. Nor is that what I’m saying. I’m not really sure how else to convey my point.

You have a better chance of getting something useful out of an old KGB agent than having an actual discussion with the P3D brigade about the shortcomings of their addons. It's just a stonewalling game. 

8 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

I still don’t get how you made that assertion from what I’ve said. Nor is that what I’m saying. I’m not really sure how else to convey my point.

Perhaps if you actually addressed the things you find unacceptable it would help.

I’ve asked for baked reflections on the gauges to be removed. That was a year ago. Still waiting whilst they work on MSFS aircraft. I can live with it.