Concorde X

[CFIJose 5,485]

I don't mind paying for quality and it looks smooth on film. :(

[audiohavoc 24]

I guess nobody asked the question: 'How Does It Perform?'. Or are you blinded by the hype and the video showing the VC?I want to see a video of it taking off and of it doing Mach 3 and it then landing at under 160 kts. Then I might buy it. Otherwise forget it.Forget the VC. I can fly without it. Or with another panel. And the hit on frames caused by that complex VC is going to disappoint a lot of simmers.CBNapamule

Nice assumptions, and where the hell are you getting your performance figures from? I bought this, and I have to say that it ranks up there with the Leonardo MD82 2008 and PMDG MD11 as far as system depth and "realism". In fact, this is the most accurately simulated and complex aircraft for FSX period, in my opinion. The flight dynamics, although I have no experience flying a Concorde :( , feel incredibly alive and it takes a very steady hand on final approach when manually flying. Also, the VC is extremely close in it's appearance to the real deal, while at the same time the performance on my machine is better than my PMDG 747 and CS757/767, and is on par with my PMDG MD11 (25-30 fps in the VC with very high graphics quality settings).

[miguelpp 25]

Same here, performance and smoothness in fps is excellent. Regards.Miquel.

[corkyo4 2]

Smooth and fps friendly here too. No complaints at allwell worth the money and when the first update is avilable I'm sure it will improve a few things too.Tom

[McCrash 3]

wicked texture problems

[CFIJose 5,485]

wicked texture problems

Can you expatiate please?Those of you who own it, can you explain the installation process.Thanks.

[trisager 2]

Those of you who own it, can you explain the installation process.

Installation was pretty simple, just run the installer, then download and install the Civa INS. The process is described in the manual available here: http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?...y/4-concorde-x/McCrash, do you actually own the aircraft, or are you just spreading FUD around?I have had no major issues, but if you want to avoid being on the bleeding edge, wait for the first SP.

[DarkCharizma 10]

Can you expatiate please?Those of you who own it, can you explain the installation process.Thanks.

The Concorde is a very memory intensive plane, especially video memory. This may cause some details to disappear if and when you run out of it. I've had it happen to me on one occasion, some switches and the throttle in the VC disappeared. There are a few discussions on the topic at their forums, as well as some tips for how to minimize the problem.(Edit: It should be noted that this is what I understand from the FlightSimLabs forums, I may have misunderstood something :) )Other than that one time, I've had no problems at all with it. It's very complex, but you get a Virtual Flight Engineer to help you out.The installation is quite simple. You buy it, download it and double-click the download. You also have to download and install the INS separately, as it's a separate freeware package. If I remember correctly, there is a prompt in the installer so you don't forget.

[momtchil 32]

...........I want to see a video of it taking off and of it doing Mach 3 and it then landing at under 160 kts. Then I might buy it. Otherwise forget it.........

Just to mention that the Concorde top speed is 2.02Mach (≈1,450 mph; 2,330 km/h), and an approach speed of around 162 kts (300 km/h). There are reports of Concorde landings at around 155 to 160 knots, so I guess you could land at under 160kts if you are very good.The Tupolev Tu-144 can achieve a faster Maximum speed: Mach 2.35 (2,500 km/h; 1,550 mph) at the expense of reduced range and other problems. There hasn't been a civilian airliner that can go Mach 3 or faster produced so far.Boeing 2707 was an attempt from the Americans and this could in theory cruse at Mach 2.7 and possibly achieve a top speed of Mach 3, however this was canceled 1971 - before the two prototypes had been completed. The reasons widely stated being considerable rising costs and the lack of a clear market.At around the same time as the Boeing 2707, Lockheed proposed a competing design the 'Lockheed L-2000', which they stated could in theory achieve a similar performance and do a top speed of Mach 3.0, however they lost the government-funded contract to Boeing. Which in turn got canceled later. Too bad really - I would have liked to see at least one of these birds fly.Today there's work going on on new airliner SST (Supersonic Transport) designs in the EU, America and Russia. The Japanese also have an SST program of their own, which shows some promise. In today's environment SSTs' success would ultimately depends on tackling two main problems - fuel consumption and noise (and possibly maintenance costs). I don't think we'll be seeing a commercially successful SST airliner anytime soon, hopefully we will be starting to see some in the not too distant future. For the time being its flying the Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 in FS9.The Flight Sim Labs Concorde X is looking pretty good - I might give it a try, even though I am happy with earlier FS9 offerings. Hope they managed to do a good job simulating all the systems and flight dynamics; and I hope its not a performance hog. Anyone who purchased it care to comment on these things, so that I can make up my mind if its worth it? Realistic systems and flight dynamics are a must for me.

[momtchil 32]

........The installation is quite simple. You buy it, download it and double-click the download. You also have to download and install the INS separately, as it's a separate freeware package. If I remember correctly, there is a prompt in the installer so you don't forget.

Does that mean that it uses the Delco Carousel IV-A INS - http://www.simufly.com/ins/ ?

The Concorde is a very memory intensive plane, especially video memory. This may cause some details to disappear if and when you run out of it. I've had it happen to me on one occasion, some switches and the throttle in the VC disappeared. There are a few discussions on the topic at their forums, as well as some tips for how to minimize the problem.(Edit: It should be noted that this is what I understand from the FlightSimLabs forums, I may have misunderstood something :) )Other than that one time, I've had no problems at all with it. It's very complex, but you get a Virtual Flight Engineer to help you out.

Looks like they went for realism - Good. I hope they manage to sort out the details glitches - but that doesn't sound too serious.

[DarkCharizma 10]

Does that mean that it uses the Delco Carousel IV-A INS - http://www.simufly.com/ins/ ?

Yes, precisely.

[audiohavoc 24]

Does that mean that it uses the Delco Carousel IV-A INS - http://www.simufly.com/ins/ ?Looks like they went for realism - Good. I hope they manage to sort out the details glitches - but that doesn't sound too serious.

It seems to be the most complex aircraft systems wise for FSX, and I don't think anything for FS9 is more complex than this simulation, as far as I know.

[Guest mikpen14]

Yes it uses the CIVA you mentioned.And it was made as realistic as FSX would allow!

[momtchil 32]

I like the Delco Carousel IV-A INS. So that's good news. So far, it looks like this new Concorde is well worth it.

[JHepburn 0]

I like the Delco Carousel IV-A INS. So that's good news. So far, it looks like this new Concorde is well worth it.

Great plane and good performance on my system. Slightly better performance-wise than the JS41.My only real beef with the plane at this point, is that I have no clue how to fly it. A tutorial is apparently in the works, but does anyone have any alternate resources to use in the meantime?The manual includes system by system description as well as normal checkless, but it really doesn't explain HOW to fly the thing. Also, regarding texture issues. I get a loss or corruption of textures when going from fullscreen to windowed mode, but I get this for other aircraft as well...it doesn't appear to be directly related to concorde. Hope this helps.