DC1973

I've never seen it on Concorde or any other airplane, but it seems as though everybody's experience of MSFS is different these days, dependent on multiple factors.

Thank you, great video! 🙂

Most people seemed to really like the fact that I included a cabin and passengers, but I agree the texturing and modeling needs upgrading, which is underway at this time as per my above post.

There are no current limitations in Concorde's flight performance, other than any bugs that MSFS routinely causes from time to time in any aircraft. We do routinely monitor bug reports of course, but somedays folks see a bug and the next day it's gone again. Seems just to be sim instability rather than anything else - generally Concorde is working fine and I see them crossing the Atlantic every day when testing other airplanes when multiplayer is switched on. Concorde will perform all of the flights that the real Concorde could perform, in much the same way, as long as it's flown correctly. Although not study-level, balancing fuel CoG and other duties are required on longer flights to make sure you get all the way to JFK, for instance, with enough fuel to land. Air temperatures will affect the flight, and Concorde is usually somewhere below Mach 2 for most of the time despite what folks think ( Concorde was below Mach 2 most of the time in real life ). Mach 1.97 is the most often Mach number I see over the Atlantic. Super-cruise, timed descents, correct landing airspeeds and attitudes are all in place. All that Concorde really needs is the addition of an INS and a hefty chunk of work on my part to bring the textures and modeling up-to-date. That's all just starting at the moment, so it will be a while before the work is done and available. I'm keen to get on with it though, Concorde's done tremendously well in sales and is very popular, so it's time now to bring it up to a new level.

That's been there since launch, as was the cockpit Mach display.

Mach speed digital display is on the centre console, Captain's side. Barber pole is in the IAS indicator - it's a simple one at this time but effective enough to prevent crucial overspeeds. Drag markers will also be added, less vital though to the general user as Concorde's flight model allows a little bit of leeway for the uninitiated.

Work is underway for this. We already have a working INS in the CJ Simulations Typhoon, and managed to make it happen without WASM. The next major update should have it. Just unsure of how to implement it - as a separate Concorde within the package, or somehow within the same model as the FMC version, which will remain for those who wish to use it.

I rarely post here now but wanted to chime in to say that Concorde is not broken and is both selling extremely well and still being used by many happy customers. Ray is entirely correct about the updates messing with Concorde's fuel system - the sim itself is not unstable, but the updates do often make certain aircraft within it unstable until fixes are rolled out. Simpler airplanes are usually unaffected but Concorde has thirteen tanks, 60 or so junctions and 138 fuel lines. There are now no less than three fuel system set-ups in MSFS, and Asobo seems unable to decide which one to use - the sim uses system 1, the SDK tells developers to use system 3. We found system 2 to currently be the most stable at this time. Contrary to several incorrect posts above, we update all of our aircraft routinely, however the constant SU breakages have much delayed Concorde's planned improvements for the above reason - we've had to prioritise fixing what Asobo breaks all the time. However, we are just starting now on a comprehensive update that focuses on better modeling and textures, while also adding the INS for those that wish to use it. As long as the next SU doesn't break anything, we should have the work done and released by the summer. Concorde, even at our mid-level fidelity, is a complex beast so these things do take time.

All of my aircraft are getting texture and modeling upgrades going forward. Expectations are getting much higher these days, and I just can't do it all myself any more ( which I have done up to now because I really enjoy the work ). So, I've hired a professional artist who will be upgrading all of my products over time, interiors and exteriors alike. Systems depth is indeed 100% spot-on for the target market, which is the vast, vast majority of users. That's what they want. That's life. It always was true, but with the console now fast becoming the dominant force in the market, that's even more the case. There are always plenty of YouTube previews out there for folks to make their own judgement on whether a product is right for them before buying, as well as regular updates on my own Facebook page during production, and of course I regularly update all of my airplanes as MSFS continues to add more features. Everybody can make their own decisions. Feedback for the Harriers has been overwhelmingly positive, and the two real-life Harrier pilots who helped test the product ( one from the USMC, the other the RAF ) really like the airplane, the handling and the systems. They have several thousand hours on-type between them, so they're my barometer for whether an airplane is "right" or not. It's for this reason that I have recently withdrawn from all social media forums - this will be my last post on Avsim. I used to regularly contribute here and elsewhere, but I have realised that doing so does not achieve much these days. I've come to realise that sales, Marketplace ratings and continuous evidence of fast-growing return-custom are far more important to gauging how well I'm doing what I'm doing. I've also come to realise that the more strongly critical opinions of my products are genuinely and increasingly very much out-of-touch with the reality of what the majority of flight simmers actually want from their products. So, in that respect, I do indeed target a different market, and it has worked spectacularly well and continues to do so. Best wishes to all here for the future ( and Happy Thanksgiving to all 'Mericans! )

Thanks for posting this. I checked it out and it's outstanding, considering that Asobo had only said that they would "look into carriers in free flight" so far. Works well, cats, traps, the whole show. 👍

Starting an airplane must be a real trauma for you then!! 😆

P-40 from Big Radials is excellent. Don't own the Milviz Corsair but on reputation I'd say you can't go far wrong. Flying Iron's Spitfire is also top notch. Don't own the Aeroplane Heaven P-51 but, again, I don't think you'll be buying into anything terrible there and it looks great.

Yeah, what's the point of an airplane in a flight simulator? Jeez...

Others said: "Please switch off the accurate mirrors, the sun flare is too bright when it hits them. Please add static mirrors." I gave users the ability to choose. If the unbearable agony of flipping a single switch is too much trauma for you, there really isn't much I can do about it.

Otmar of Wing42 moves in mysterious ways; here, there and everywhere for weeks, then vanishes into the ether for months at a time. He's a bit like one of those 19th Century explorers who'd wander off into the wilderness for 20 years then come back sporting an eight-foot beard and report on long-lost tribes he'd found in the Congo. He'll resurface or be beamed back down to the planet eventually.