MSFS 2024 …. Betrayal ?

[robert young 2,897]

I don't particularly mind if MS announced "Pepper Pig Goes Flying 2024" or "Pokemon Takes To the Skies 2024" provided they hang around long enough to fix all the glaring flaws in the current sim, but I'm not holding my breath. They must know their demographic and market and of course that is uppermost in their minds. However, we have a very good example of Dovetail, whose attempt at joining the market with Flight Sim World fell flat on its face because DT completely under-estimated the sophistication of their potential customers who wanted a lot more than a slightly prettier version of FSX.

I can only assume MS are not satisfied with sales projections of MSFS 2020 and want to attract customers other than those interested in details like decent ATC, AI and the cleaning up of existing weaknesses in the current sim, otherwise why would they divert their focus and manpower onto what appears to be a role playing title? Again that doesn't bother me provided they don't abandon a really promising existing sim which just needs more polish to make it outstanding rather than an "almost there" product. While they have given assurances that current and third party products will still work, that doesn't mean they are still committed to sorting out the weather, Ai behaviour and frankly lamentable ATC. But there is still cause for optimism if MS expanded its sdk and coding access so third parties can finish the job for them.

Edited June 14, 2023 by robert young

[MarcG 3,035]

One thing that constantly strikes me is the lack of bringing other teams in, like Working Title, to help Asobo with this mammoth project. It's been quite clear from the very beginning that they've struggled in many areas, yet WT are the only ones to be given a specific area to focus and improve.

Perhaps of course there are no suitable other teams, personnel available to work as WT do alongside Asobo, either that or they're simply not actively looking for help and want to do everything else by themselves at a glacial pace🤷‍♂️

[jarmstro 2,405]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

otherwise why would they divert their focus and manpower onto what appears to be a role playing title? 

I'm guessing because when you buy a Mission from the marketplace you will only play it until you've completed it and then you've got to buy another? But when you buy a plane you will use it over and over again.

[MarkDH 234]

9 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

All I can say is that youtuber who post his "expert" opinion got a lot of clicks. That why such video should be posted here. If you want promote aviation post more useful video from "missionary bush" pilot or "steveo1kinevo" or someone who else can contribute to something meaningful. 

Good grief 😐

[pete_auau 1,168]

6 hours ago, The Flight Level said:

The famous 180 turn on an AVSim topic strikes again!

Game vs Entertainment vs Simulator

PS: Certainly better than “betrayal”

yep  and  we  got  another   2  years  before  it  even  comes  out  🙂

[iborg1979 101]

I'm flabbergasted by the magnitude of the sense of entitlement and exaggerated drama displayed by some people here...

MSFS2024 looks like a great evolution of MSFS2020.

[andy1252 4,015]

I'm genuinely curious, so this is not an attempt to fan any flames etc. But I'm puzzled by this thing about the perceived problems MSFS has for "serious simmers". I've declared myself many times not to be such a creature, in the sense that I'm here for what's outside the cockpit, not what's in it. I genuinely don't know what most of the buttons and dials and things do, nor do I care. But I can fly most stuff happily enough and well enough for my own purposes.

I'm not an "old hand" simmer either. Because I'm interested in the world outside, not the flight mechanics, I never saw any attraction in the early sims. Wireframe graphics are not my thing. I got interested with MS Flight, as the visuals impressed me at the time. From there to FSX, then P3D2/3/4/5, XP10/11 and now MSFS and XP12. All the time following the visual and scenery improvements.

Having said I'm not a "serious simmer", or as I've decided to call them from now on - "cockpit botherer", I would actually suggest that I may be way more serious than many of those claiming the role. I have spent a huge amount of time and money and effort setting up systems and environments for all of the sims I have purchased, and I spend a lot of time using the sims I currently use (MSFS and XP12).

The very title of this thread is a bit sad - "betrayal"? The sense of self-entitlement that's come out since the 2024 announcement in some of the posts is remarkable. Or maybe not, I have to remember where we are.

So, my question is this. If people really are so put out by the lack of whatever it is that's lacking in terms of the actual piloting experience, then why are they not perhaps focussing on some of the other sims? My understanding is that both the other main sims are considered more accurate in a lot of those areas, so if it really is that big a deal, why use MSFS anyway? And that's really NOT a coded way of saying "if you don't like it, then **** off to another sim", I'm genuinely curious.

I am not in a position to comment on some of the things I've seen mentioned regarding "basics they haven't fixed yet". I've seen mention of ATC issues - well, I've got all that turned off. Talk about live weather issues - I don't use it. A couple of people have mentioned PAPI lights not working properly - wouldn't know, I just aim for the runway and usually manage to get down roughly in the right location, etc, etc. 

For me, MSFS has been THE sim I've been waiting for. Just because of the quality of the visuals in the world around me. Particularly in the places where you couldn't even get decent addons for the other sims in the past. And it seems like 2024 will just continue to improve on that. I won't be particularly interested in the various "missions" any more than I am currently interested in the intricacies of cold and dark starts in a 737 or similar.

I'm also not a total-exclusion sort of simmer either. I've recently gotten in to using XP12 a lot more, and anticipate using both MSFS and XP quite happily. Each has it own appeal, and I enjoy both of them equally, but for different reasons (and no, it's nothing to do with cockpit-bothering in XP either, I just like the atmospherics there).

I don't really expect any sort of considered measured response to my question here, but if anyone does take the time to do so I will read it respectfully and with interest.

Thank you for reading this.

[Ricardo41 5,959]

30 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

So, my question is this. If people really are so put out by the lack of whatever it is that's lacking in terms of the actual piloting experience, then why are they not perhaps focussing on some of the other sims?

Easy answer: Because then they couldn't argue everything to pieces. 

[Paul K 1,388]

I think 'Disappointment' would have been a better title than 'Betrayal'. But then, we live in an age of hyperbole; where, if something isn't quite one thing, it must be the absolute extreme opposite. And who's to say that taxiway obstacles and trees in the approach path won't be rectified in the new sim ? We just don't know yet.

[MattNischan 3,872]

5 hours ago, MarcG said:

want to do everything else by themselves at a glacial pace

It only seems like a glacial pace because nobody gives them credit for the massive number of deep simulation features that have been added since release, far more than any other sim in history in the same amount of time. You have the big obvious ones like the helo physics system, which is all new and not just an FSX port, same with gliders. You have the huge METARs blending overhaul, which, despite the claims of "totally broken" weather, works quite astoundingly well given how often the two datasets are in direct opposition to each other. In the past, something as big as "oh hey now we have a helo system" would have been a new paid sim version. And there have been multiple massive additions like that since release.

But folks remember that stuff (hopefully), and then shift the goalposts to "but is that all they've been doing? Sheesh, they're so lazy and slow," forgetting that the amount of change from previous MSFS versions was already far less and much longer. So here's just a little list of lesser known changes, but some quite huge in their effort:

Ability to alter the center of lift pressure

Numerous additions to the flaps configurations (lift pressure center adjustments)

Ability to directly adjust ground effect by mach number

Addition of simvars and events for master caution/warning tracking and states

Additional ITT cooling time constant and tuning cfg values

4D high-speed segment-based propeller simulation (absolutely a huge effort)

Crosswind behavior tuning params

Tire sidewall/rotation resistance tuning params

Expansion of possible turboprop beta behavior and bindings

Numerous prop drag adjustments

Prop feathering and windmilling simulation improvements

Ability to get RNAV approach minima data on approach navdata

Addition of RF leg support

Ability to get runway slope, independent elevation, and threshold lengths from the navdata

Ability to adjust ground and air spoiler drag values independently

Expansion of fuel flow calculation configuration options

As you mention, the CFD simulation (also just a massive effort)

Overhaul of the altimetry simulation to support correct non-ISA pressure and temperature errors (first sim to do so)

Addition of autopilot override simvars to allow third parties and advanced airplanes more direct autopilot control for building complex AP simulations

Independent upward and downward elevator trim angle maximum support

APIs for requesting nearest METARs by lat/lon or METAR by facility ICAO

Updates to the electrical system to better support non-uniform battery types

Addition of the ability to have up to 4 nav and com radios

Simvars for getting the state of piston engine superchargers

Simvars for adjusting the scaling of both the CDI and GSIs independently

Configuration settings for developers to control the icing simulation on their aircraft

A continuous stream of Live Traffic accuracy, density, and datasource bug fix updates

Updating the icing simulation based on additional source research material and whitepapers

Added the ability for pitch autopilot mode to capture altitude if desired

Additional overhaul of the flap system to support multi systems with different number of levels and max angles

Ability to completely customize the weather radar simulation graphics colors based on precip density, allowing for correct colors and gain simulation

Addition of a brand new visual effects system which greatly expands the capabilities of the previous visual effects system

Ability to configure individually the lift coefficients of the elevator, ailerons, and rudder

Ability to adjust the fuselage lateral Cx to allow for more or less drag while in a slip

Overhaul and update of the sim magvar underlying data and system

An absolute metric boatload of individual navdata and scenery updates from user reports

Fixing of a few frustratingly large systemic source data issues, like excess offset ILSs

Removal of the limit of the number of possible terrain/weather maps per aircraft

Improved tools to tune prop drag on constant speed & turbo propellers

Removed the old FSX era wrong ITT simulation when prop is feathered or reverse

Improvement of water rudder capabilities and simulation

Greatly increased the granularity of the ambient density data and simulation

Ability to add negative wing camber to aircraft

Added TACAN simulation, navdata, and associated simvars

Added the ability to allow fuel system triggers to be based on CG values

Ability to scale the amount of engine wash on the wings to tune engine wash contribution

Addition of more autobrake cfg file params to allow for modeling all the available autobrake arming modes and behaviors

New cfg file params for adjusting and tailoring stall behavior, plus debug screen

Addition of cfg params for adjusting the rigidity of the fuselage and connecting response (softbody simulation)

Ability to adjust the spool up N2 rate while starting turbine engines

And these were just the ones I could pick out going through the releases in my head. I'm sure there's even more stuff I'm missing, and I haven't even listed all the fixes they did to the individual planes before we arrived on the team.

The truth is, Asobo gets super unfairly painted as focused on only on more of the entertainment side of simulation and less on the deep aspects, and I just can't agree. I think they've done a stellar job doing both, and we should honestly be really happy about that, because without the more casual sim crowd, I can guarantee you this whole crazy endeavor is not even vaguely financially feasible.

Do I very occasionally have to dodge a taxiway sign or a tree? I mean, sure. Is that really a "betrayal"? Goodness, I hope not.

Edited June 14, 2023 by MattNischan

[The Flight Level 2,121]

15 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Do I very occasionally have to dodge a taxiway sign or a tree? I mean, sure. Is that really a "betrayal"? Goodness, I hope not.

Nice one! If I was a moderator, I would pin this post. Every user of MSFS should see this and understand what goes on behind the scenes before they “bark” and learn to fully appreciate the greatest franchise in Microsoft’s history! Blue skies!

[MarcG 3,035]

@MattNischan,

Great post Matt and I've never said they don't do anything, but ATC, & AI are glacial, the severe lack of interest in improving VR (and fixing bugs they introduced) is another prime example. Sure they have done a lot and I applaud them for that, but there's a lot they haven't done in equally the same time that arguably needs attention (I disagree with the METAR weather, for me it's not as good as pre-SU7 with huge issues (bubbles) still present not to mention a severe lack of cloud variation 1.5 years on).

Edited June 14, 2023 by Ray Proudfoot
Long quoted post removed.

[Dominique_K 10,152]

27 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

So here's just a little list of lesser known changes, but some quite huge in their effort:

an useful reminder, thanks

[sd_flyer 6,095]

5 hours ago, MarkDH said:

Good grief 😐

 We know nothing about MSFS2024. If you look at the original trailer  of MSFS2020 in 2019 what could you derive from it? All we read are endless speculations and fantasies 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,899]

11 hours ago, TheFamilyMan said:

Hey, I see this new MSFS as a way to "stick it to the man" for spending so much effort on new content while seemingly ignoring the broken core stuff, which worked fine (well most of it, but comparatively in MSFS it's not) for years with FS#.  Perhaps a boycott is in order to show our displeasure.

Any chance I could look around your home?  It would be nostalgic to see your 1960s car, black and white tube television and hifi tower system.  I mean, you didnt update any of them I presume because you would not allow the manufactures to 'stick it to you'?