MrNuke

~2.2 mb update from the beta.

I'm more than well aware of where I'm posting. I bought P3D just for this plane. My post has very little to do with alternative simulators. It is merely noting that if you are going to release a niche plane (you can argue here if you want, and I'm saying this as a lover of Concorde), on a niche platform at this point (would be more difficult to argue here), I don't think that it is an unrealistic expectation that a fairly expensive add-on for a platform that has essentially been around for 16+ years at its core to work from the get go. And as to the later, probably not. I also own it as well. It has roughly double the market penetration per last year's Navigraph survey, obviously both significantly lag MSFS. I think most neutral observers have seen the writing on the wall so to speak that this is one of, if not the last, significant add-ons for P3D. Most of the major developers already left, and even FS Labs is strongly implying that they're going to move on now as well. For someone, much as you have, that has been waiting for this plane for years, I'm very disappointed.

In this case, with this company, and the decision to pour their resources into this release it seems different.

Ahh so another purchase is necessary for this plane. Said plane is quickly becoming very expensive relative to others.

When you are releasing a plane that hasn't flown in real life in nearly 20 years on a platform that is also nearly as irrelevant, I don't think it is an unrealistic expectation for things to work "out of the box".

It is also 2023, one would've expected this to be "sorted out" before release. I'll have to go go back later and sort out issues to see if it can be resolved but with 16 GB of RAM and an RTX 2080 I shouldn't have to be loading an aircraft without an interior... This is also on a fresh P3D install without any other add-ons specifically purchasing both P3D and the plane just for this.

I don't know... Their publicly available decisions since MSFS was announced suggest otherwise. They lost their bread and butter airbus market on the new platform by either refusing to pivot soon enough and or being unable. And the decision to continue to develop Concorde for P3D for the past several years, even if it may have been technically easier for them, at this point is questionable given as you say where the market is now.

I disagree with your last sentence. They could've and arguably should've walked away. There was an opportunity cost to continuing this.

Looks a lot like PFPX.

I don't necessarily echo the sentiments of previous posters. It is a very fun and rewarding plane to fly. I had a strong interest to revisit it in this simulator. To Me this was one of the best modeled, most unique planes of the FSX/P3D cycle. That said, the fact that after already seemingly conceding the A320 market in this simulator by default to a freeware entity and a very good new payware entrant the market their business case for P3D firstsomehow irked me. Thinking that they can or should release another Concorde in dead P3D and that it is a prudent business decision is off putting.

It depends on your method of charging and more importantly your location. Again speaking here in the U.S. the primary cost driver is going to be method of charging. My electric rate at home is significantly less than what I'd pay at a 3rd party charger. The secondary driver is going to be location. My electric rate is very different than someone in say California. Here in the United States, many states (including mine) charge a fee to EV drivers to cover losses in gasoline (petrol) taxes.

I pay for my "fuel" the same way I pay for running my computer, television, refrigerator, etc. My electric utility bill. I've had my Tesla for 5 months now and have only charged it at home. For "public" charging yeah it depends. Here in the States, Tesla has a credit card on file for me. Given they have their on proprietary charging network, at a Tesla supercharger all I have to do is plug in my car. The supercharger knows the car belongs to me and would automatically bill my card on file. Public charging varies a bit depending on the network, but essentially yes. Many have apps that you can store a credit card on and then via your phone you can tell it that I'm at charger 1A at this location and it is me that will be charging. Some have RFID cards for a network which essentially functions the same as the app method and others have credit card scanners much like a traditional gas pump (or some combination of the previous 3).

It depends on the speed we are talking about and it depends on the car we are talking about. At about 70 mph Tesla's seem to do about 10-15% worse than their EPA range estimates in otherwise optimal conditions. Range is calculated be it WLTP, EPA, etc based on established testing methods that don't necessarily reflect real world driving i.e. EPA highway speeds are unrealistically low among other things. Likely No. And again it depends on what car you are driving, how fast you are driving it, and what the other environmental factors are. Running that drive in a better route planner for my Tesla Model 3 LR, I show making it to Albuquerque with no issue at all and needed to charge for about 20 minutes there to make it back to Roswell. That is where people need to do the research and figure out if it makes sense for them or not. I personally don't consider 20 minutes of charging on a 400 mile drive to be a burden especially when 95% of my regular driving involves never having to stop at a gas station.

It is a really odd plane to build. I get the nostalgia from the flight1 FSX/P3D version, but in real life they built less than 500 and phased it out when the M2 gave you a lot more capability value wise. If they were building an M2 I'd have more interest.

I don't disagree with that either, but count my in the camp that if the EFB was going to delay the release of the 737-700, I'm glad they made the decision they did.

We've been siming for decades without it though and many real world operators don't use it either. Do I want the EFB? Yes. Do I need it? No. I can run de-rated takeoffs via topcat just as I did for the PMDG 737's going back to FSX...

Indeed. 😄

I just typed as much in response to you on their forums. There is no doubt about it that they are going to have to do something like that. It's not a bad solution as it allows them to book revenue now to hold them over, but the fact that PMDG felt they needed to do that 2 and a half years ago, is very telling on where they felt the market was at that time; and things have worsened market share wise significantly since then. But if that is the case, the argument that they would wait to deliberately to "not impact P3D sales " is pretty much invalid.

It was questionable to begin with. They may have had a narrow window had they got it out before the "study level" planes started coming out for MSFS. But with PMDG, Leonardo, Fenix (soon) etc, releasing compelling products for MSFS; and MSFS already having overwhelming market share before that happened, it is hard to see many people beyond the fanatics (and I consider myself one, and still won't touch it...) buying it. If that is the case that is fine. I don't think impacting P3D sales is going to be an issue. I suspect though based on the announcement they've been developing in MSFS for awhile and it may not take as long as you expect. The only major issue that I see that needs to be overcome is upper level weather and presumably metoblue and Asobo can overcome that for them.

As someone who loved FSLabs Concorde in FSX, but never migrated to P3D, this is awesome news.

This doesn't really seem like an MSFS related topic or anything that anyone not affiliated with PMDG can help with. It appears to be some sort of message board/forum issue. I'm assuming both @ryanbatc and @David Mills have submitted a ticket here https://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/ Their support has always been very receptive with any issue that I've had. For what it is worth I just was able to successfully log into an account that I hadn't logged into for years over there.

The signup is live in the xbox insider hub for me.

Not that it matters in terms of flying, but its too bad they didn't add the parking garage/rental car facility that has been open for 2 and a half years.

Your initial contention in this thread is that not having access to this data for Forecast Decent profiles could be the big limitation that is holding PMDG back. What @JRBarrett and I are saying is that they don't need access to that data at all to implement VNAV. Correct, that isn't the point, nor was it my point.

I'm not sure I follow. In real life a plane, ergo its VNAV system, knows its current position i.e. location, speed, altitude, and the current weather conditions at its current location i.e. temperature, wind speed, and wind direction and of course derived calculations from both sources like ground speed. In MSFS all of this information can be obtained or derived for developers through simconnect. I have yet to see any developer claim otherwise. In real life or in a simulator environment, wind data from weather models could be used to augment the decent profile. The important thing to recognize here is that data in real life and in previous simulators is coming from an external source i.e. a weather model or flight planning software using data derived from a weather model. So in terms of weather or not PMDG can see the actual internal weather conditions of the simulator outside of the current position of the plane, I really fail to see how that is relevant. All that should matter here is if metoblue's winds aloft are relatively plausible compared to model data, and for the most part that seems to be the case. Yeah you may need some sort of external source to get the data, but you also needed one to do the same thing in FSX or P3D as well. The 3° rule of thumb correction is +/- 1 nm for each 10 knots of head/tailwind, which means for a 100 knot tailwind (something you were unlikely to have the entire way down) you'd need to start your descent 10 nm sooner or worst case scenario you'd presumably need to deploy speed brakes at some point. With a headwind throttles may briefly not be at idle during decent, the horror. You can decide whether or not that is a "big" difference yourself. I think the ability to enter wind forecasts is nice, and it certainly simulates real-world operations, but 1) the changes in profiles aren't typically as big as what you seem to think and 2) as discussed in this post the ability to simulate this is likely already there from the same or similar external sources used previously.