FSX
MMMMMM those newest screenshots are mighty enticing.
Ugh. I think bill's new plane comes before this one on my to-buy list. It's price is also much better.
MMMMMM those newest screenshots are mighty enticing.
Ugh. I think bill's new plane comes before this one on my to-buy list. It's price is also much better.
i don't think francois would be involved with something that wasn't top-shelf. from my perception of him here and on his forum, he seems like a pretty straight shooter. if i had the kind of computer and peripherals to support a complex aircraft, and wished to purchase one, the concorde would be a front runner. however, the price is what kills it for me because i would be unable to make use of all the cool features involved. i just couldn't justify that $$ to run the plane on my P4 2.8 and geforce fx5500 card in a 6 yr old dell 2400 with a 17" crt monitor.
Well.....i´m going to say this and then duck under my desk...
..at least they are offering a full modeled product, VC and all, with complex systems at a very steep price...while others.....
Prowler
Hahaha, I agreeOriginally Posted by Prowler1111
I am happy to see it has a virtual FE, his job was just as important as the pilots. Without fine fuel transfer balancing, it would not go supersonic. This one is not for me though, I'll stick with single seater aircaft with this sort of performance.
The lesser of two evils, then!
Expensive...
The Concorde was allways expensive, the project, the kerozen, the places for customers, that's why the only way to see her again is to pay the price for a Sim. As a french guy I can't see that without some tears in my eyes, thank you for the video, this will allways be an oustanding aircraft !
PS : Is it available with Air France coulours ?
Cocorico
FFD Alain95
I understand the model rail roading analogy all to well. That was my dads biggest hobby was HO scale trains, and all that stuff shot through the roof. Is why I try to choose one hobby and stick with it. No matter where I turn though prices are going up. Target shooting has gone through the roof with ammo prices increasing. So for me this is kind of a last frontier. Although if electricity rates sky rocket, or something to that effect then this hobby might come to an end as well. At least for the most part the computer/software are just a one time up front investment.
Steve
FSX Hours: 3000+
Agreed, same for me too!
Steve - atleast you get your VC to load without killing your whole computer! i'm yet to complete a flight without FS crashing
Henk Hugo
Shackleton Project
It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death. I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of itself.
I worked with Lefteris and the PMDG team on the development of the 747-400 FS9 and FSX projects. Products that were offered at a similar price point. Who buys these things? For the 747, a lot of my fellow 747 drivers, and those transitioning say from the 747-200 to the 400. I use it to prepare for simulator events, one can practice every possible emergency scenario, even using the same approaches that we will use in the big sim.
Not to many Current Concorde Pilots out there right now.... If Leftreris and the team have produced a sim device as authentic and complex as the PMDG products, then they are at a price point that is needed to amortize the very long development process.
Flying modern (Ok the Concorde is a bit long in the tooth) high performance transport aircraft is not quite like being an astronaut, we are a bit less passengers. It is a technical task! I went to six weeks of school at Boeing to transition from the 747-200 to the 400! So you get some idea of what is involved. I am sure the Concorde required at least this much transition training.
If you are a technical type (astronauts are) then this might appeal to you. If you are not, then it probably won't.
Cheers: T
Indeed delta wing aircraft, without a plethora of high lift devices, have some interesting landing features. For Concorde the plane can go to a very high AOA to generate lift for landing. Note the shape of the leading edge. A vortex is generated near the wing root, which rolls across the top of the wing, energizing the boundary layer and delaying stall. However very high drag is generated and one is really in the area of reverse command. At a constant thrust, increasing pitch will increase drag and cause a more rapid descent! How to fly the approach? At a constant AOA and regulate the descent rate with thrust.
Cheers: T
till they sort out a patch avoid - i even orderd more ram to run this thing - i am now at us$151 just to fly a bloody add on! :salute:
Henk Hugo
Shackleton Project
It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death. I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of itself.
Shackleton how do you know it's got anything to do with RAM?
Well, I am sure a lot of thought was put into what price they would sell it for. It is all basic economics of where price and sales converge on the chart. I have no data on what their sales actually are or what they would have been if it was a $25 product, but I can say that I might have considered it if it was $40 or less. I don't even care to look at it for $70. I would assume the strategy is start high and go low with time. Perhaps that is the best way to make a good profit on their plane, but from the way this thread is reading it is a big turn off to many potential customers.
A couple years back I dropped $30 on shockwave's Aircraft Powerpack 2: A2A's P-40, p-57, p47, zero, me109. I have spent $60 on A2A's B377 w/accusim but at the time it was (and still is) twice the airplane of anything on the market. $120 is pretty much my total budget for add-ons for the year. I have to be picky.
cuase they said so?
I am shocked at the lead developers attitude. I am running a fairly OK system:
Intel Dual core2 2.66ghz
2 gig ram
8800GTX
etc etc etc
We advertise XP and 2GB of RAM as the 'minimum' requirements - and that's what it is: The minimum. If you wish to take advantage of all the beauties and slap on all the extra addons, sceneries, weather, etc., well - my apologies, but your machine won't cut it.
Also- when you say: "At us$70 for a product it has to be flawless and tested in almost every conceivable configuration.", you are wrong, plain and simple. The complexity in ensuring this would be exponential. Just look at companies such as Adobe, HP or even Microsoft themselves.
Henk Hugo
Shackleton Project
It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death. I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of itself.
A little blunt perhaps, but after going through the forums I don't think there's anything wrong with the attitudes of the admin and technical staff whatsoever.
And in fairness, they did post the minimum specs and you do only have the minimum specs! I have (spookily) exactly the same specs as yours. I hope the RAM will help, but unless you upgrade there really is nothing they can do. And they are right in saying that it is absolutely impossible to test every configuration. There's even a man on the forums who is having a 20fps decrease on his 12gb ram monster (from 25 to 5)! Obviously this isn't due to his computer not being powerful enough, there's just something going wrong, and they're doing what they can to help.
as i posted in their forum - my system is still the spec that most FS users will have. i am even adding a new SATA3 500gig HD later this week (same order as the ram) and this drive will have a clean install of windows 7 and FS on it. Lets see if it works.
Check the BETA testers PC specs - its insane!
CPU: Intel E8500 Dual Core (@ Stock - 3.12 Ghz) | GPU: Nvidia XFX GTX 280 - 1GB DDR3| MoBo: Gigabyte X48-T-DQ6| OS: Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit | RAM: 4Gb DDR3(2 x 2 Gb) | HD: WD Caviar 700 Gb 7200 RPM | Monitors: 1 x 37" LCD, 1 x 21" LCD
Henk Hugo
Shackleton Project
It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death. I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of itself.
Whilst an upgrade will surely improve the performance, there are some issues which are just down to 'personality' problems with your computer. It's the issues which knock 3 fps off a PC like mine, then 20fps off a supercomputer like the one I posted. Your problems may be nothing to do with the RAM. It will be interesting to see what effect your new installs have.
Before last October I was running a system with pert near the minimum requirements to run FSX with heavy add-ons. Even having a computer on the top of the scale now though you still get stutters every now and again depending on what aircraft/weather/area of flight. I have issues once my flight time gets into the 8-9 hour range that if I try to go to any other menu (map, weather, time/date, FSUIPC, etc) that my whole FSX locks up. As long as I don't go into any menus though it is fine. That is one of the things I have dealt with ever since flying FSX, but at least I don't get the OOM error anymore. That one used to aggrivate me. I just don't think there is anyway to lower the system requirements unless developers gut the entire simulator and rebuild it from the ground up. Cause the aircraft is only so much of the total performance.
Steve
FSX Hours: 3000+
Hmmmm. The promotional video looks like it's a higher res for both the VC and exterior shots than what these screen shots show. In the video the VC looks amazing. These sample screens look very FS9, almost flat and very low resolution. Even the background looks FS9. No depth or shading. It just does not look like a final product.
Waiting for more screens and reports before I spring the 70 bucks. Bill's Epic Victory OTH is a real winner.
Hmm.. I wonder if my rig can run it. I certainly hope so. It was pretty good about a year ago, and I have 6 gigs of Corsair Dominator DDR2 RAM.... As far as memory goes, I think that's pretty good, but I've fallen behind the times with what's considered 'good' in today's computers.... It's amazing how fast it moves
Yeah in my screens I run with ground shadows, and I think A/C self shadowing off. Not at home so I can't check it. My FSX is setup exactly as Nick N suggested in his guide on AV Sim, and I haven't had any issues since. I used to not have any trees or anything either, but I have slowly been increasing the number to a point where it doesn't impact my frames. I will agree the VC could be a little crisper. I like the resolutions and textures we use on VC's at Milviz, and the A2A product VC's. I just think they were trying to strike a blanace between performance and looks. I am happy with it. To me it is about the same quality VC as the MD-11 (PMDG). I will get some more shots up of the overhead panels and such later on this afternoon.
Steve
FSX Hours: 3000+
Well the screens shots are very few, so I took a gamble purchased this bad girl tonight based on the promo video. You do need to set your texture max load to a minimum of 2048 to bring up the VC and the exterior to FSX standards.
About the only thing missing from this sim are the screaming passengers. OMG! Untouched screenshot.
Attachment 2937
mmmmmmm.... looks a lot like Paris a few years ago.....
Henk Hugo
Shackleton Project
It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death. I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of itself.
Members who have read this thread: 1
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks