1 minute ago, RamonB said:

To me that is the saddest part. MSFS has GREAT POTENTIAL but IMO, it was released too early and on top of that with major parts of the simulator part missing or not working.

Patch 1 addressed install issues and Patch 2 didn't work as expected due in part to substandard quality assurance.

Look at it this way. Developers can get a bit too comfortable, and products don't get finished. This lights a fire under them and says we launch now! Been there, done that. Sometimes it is the only way software gets done. Not saying this is the case. 

9 minutes ago, Noel said:

I agree and think it's short-sighted to think it has to be either a console game or an authentic fully featured flight sim.  In fact, this is a seemingly brilliant approach because as you say it brings in coin which is required to supported that extra depth demanded by the fully featured flight sim, and that group may not be quite large enough to better sustain them.  It seems to me it might make the most sense you have to address scenery and atmosphere rendering first since console users need this 100%.  In my mind that seems more technically challenging compared taking the steps to complete the product so it better meets the needs of more hard core simmers.  So it's no wonder many features seemingly obviously needed by hard core simmers are missing in the early release.  People seem perplexed and some outraged by this, but as I say it makes sense if you're doing dual platforms, each w/ its own needs emphasized.

Yep. This situation is actually perfect for us. Because who else is going to make this hobby profitable? We need those FPS guys! 

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

Look at it this way. Developers can get a bit too comfortable, and products don't get finished. This lights a fire under them and says we launch now! Been there, done that. Sometimes it is the only way software gets done. Not saying this is the case. 

I get what You mean.
What boggles me is that MS has been in the FS's business for more than 30+ years, has released more than 12 versions, collaborated with Asobo and probably gave access to all their FS code to Asobo.
How can they get the SIM part wrong from the getgo?

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by RamonB

4 minutes ago, RamonB said:

I get what You mean.
What boggles me is that MS has been in the FS's business for more than 30+ years, has released more than 12 versions collaborated with Asobo and probably gave access to all their FS code to Asobo.
How can they get the SIM part wrong from the getgo?

Did they get it wrong or just not get it done? I see nothing so broke in MSFS that it is a lost cause. It just needs more time. 

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

Did they get it wrong or just not get it done? I see nothing so broke in MSFS that it is a lost cause. It just needs more time. 

I think it is a mixture of both.
How would You classify wrong specs / parameter numbers entered in the aircraft config files?

Of course I didn't expect Garmin's / CDU's, GPS's and other advanced instruments to be fully functional, and all switches working, heck I didn't even expected opening doors or full bug free scenery. But I surely expected default airplanes to have correct specs in config files, FM and Autopilots fully tested before release.

Can't say much else because of the NDA. Suffice to say I believe there are still some bugs not yet addressed in these forums, that might affect LOC/VOR navigation all over the globe, except perhaps along the Agonic Line.
(Test in Alaska or Maine, also notice AI parking positions relative to the ground parking position lines and charts. Even better if You have an external GPS program.)

I agree with You; of course MSFS is not a lost cause, but it needed more time before release, and it will need even more time to develop its full potential.
I was the happiest guy the day I joined the Alpha/Beta; long story short release came and haven't bought it yet.

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by RamonB

I think they pushed it out the door ultimately w/ a console focus in time for Xbox X and the holidays I think this makes the most sense.    The PC release was an introduction and why not the hardware is already there, and word is already spreading to the Xbox world just in time.  Implimenting the rest of a fully functional sim will be the easy part--it's already been done for decades and it's all very well known.   Is MSFS intended to be played on Xbox using only a standard Xbox controller?  If so, control inputs would be vastly different between console and PC which imagine would require a lot of creative decision making to decide how to launch a dual platform product when each platform use totally different numbers of control inputs.

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I hope not, but they need to get "solid" before XBOX X release because XBOX exclusive users will not accept this many bugs which in turn will be bad for all those DLC content providers that have invested time in this platform.

How much more solid does it need to get for the Xbox?

The gamers dipping their toes into a first flight sim won't care about GPS functions not working, live weather not working, unrealistic turbulence modeling and all the rest.

MS/Asobo won't have the launch day "not loading" issues because the Xbox is a closed platform that's more easily tested. If it loads without issues and Xbox gamers can fly over their house or landmarks around the world and it looks halfway decent, they'll be thrilled. 

I'm not denigrating that market because the cash infusion will insure the life of the sim, but let's be realistic. That market doesn't have the same priorities as Avsim forum users.
 

1 hour ago, RamonB said:

I get what You mean.
What boggles me is that MS has been in the FS's business for more than 30+ years, has released more than 12 versions, collaborated with Asobo and probably gave access to all their FS code to Asobo.
How can they get the SIM part wrong from the getgo?

Let's start with the fact that turnover in tech industries is high. Whoever is calling the shots at MS right now, is not the same group of managers who were in charge during the heyday of MS Flight Simulator and the ACES team.

 

 

7 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

yes, and I have full access to the 748, 78X and all the planes. 

Thank you.

6 hours ago, RamonB said:

Patch 2 didn't work.

Fixed that for you! Some of us weren't able to download it due to the file looping issue. That in turn ended up with a corrupted install and having to do a full reinstall (again dodging the file looping) before we can even see what Patch 2 actually broke!

19 hours ago, Elvensmith said:

On a more practical note, does anyone know how big fs-base-cgl-0.1.21.fspackage.001 is?

It's taken quite a bit of time just to get to 2% (at 500KB/s) and the total download has updated by 1.25Gb. That would indicate the file is somewhere in the region of 34Gb which essentially is not going to be possible to download with a throttled speed. At 1.8Gb an hour that will be 18 hours to download. Not leaving the PC on overnight so that will effectively be game over until/if Asobo fix the server problem.

That file is 1.9GB, I think there are two files in the fs-base-cgl-xxx that are 1.9GB - I am thinking 1.23 or 1.24

12 hours ago, Boomer said:

Never in my life have I cared less than now what XBox users think of a flight sim.  Just dont.  A FPS addict has no opinion I need to hear.

How did you reach the conclusion that all Xbox users are FPS addicts?

Thanks for that - took just over an hour to grab that one, the data flow is a bit confused as the % is actually that of the total left to get, not that file. Currently on file 007 of the fs-base-cgl sequence. Reckon I will be down to around 45Gb left to download once I shut down the PC tonight so hopefully flying by Friday evening.

6 hours ago, Elvensmith said:

Fixed that for you! Some of us weren't able to download it due to the file looping issue. That in turn ended up with a corrupted install and having to do a full reinstall (again dodging the file looping) before we can even see what Patch 2 actually broke!

Dude, I feel your pain.  I'm having the same issue.  I even tried using a completely different pc (gaming laptop), over a Gigabit fiber connection and I even purchased thru Steam and in both instances, it was the same result - very slow downloading.  I cannot prove it, but maybe it's tied to geo location and the server we're assigned to for the download because I've tried it several different ways.  Just speculation on my part which I wish I didn't have to do.

14 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

MSFS release follows the standard Microsoft 70% rule (70% complete) where the rest of the software engineering industry aim for 80-90% complete. 

This. I had this feeling back in March when I got on the alpha and it wasn't getting any better month by month by month until retail. Complete lack of honesty on Microsoft's end yet again, and they claimed to be transparent about everything as soon as the first trailer dropped and they ran back to the community to kiss *** and assure everyone this isn't going to be another Flight, but the entire alpha process was a total joke. 

I'm trying to be as patient with them as I can personally, but I will not sweep my thoughts on this whole thing under the rug because they released a pretty next gen simulator full of bugs, some of them so trivial that I'm wondering how in the world this passed QA before release.

27 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

I'm wondering how in the world this passed QA before release.

C'mon, man. You were in the Alpha. Why didn't YOU report them!?! 😉😉😉 </s>