8 hours ago, Bernard Ducret said:

We all seem to be craving for something new when our core sim has yet to reach a reliable, satisfactory state after three years of commercialisation. Whether or not the above should be taken care of by a different team is totally irrelevant, they should be treated as an emergency and should be handled as a priority and proper human resources allocated immediately. I, for one, would not mind having no new updates until the basics are corrected. 

Excellently put. I wish more people would see it like this. Because this is the truth. 

It's reliable for what I use it for. I've had zero crashes in a year, aircraft fly where they're supposed to.

Everyone has a different definition for what they consider reliable.

Edited July 7, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

3 hours ago, Maxis said:

This is fair..  My personal opinions have moved from wanting everything fixed yesterday when this sim was initially released to realizing that i personally will not get everything i want fixed to accepting the sim as it is and happily "rolling with it" because for the most part i'm still very happy with the experience overall and as i have realized when they do occasionally break the sim i make sure i find something else to do (Its not the end of the world).

This in a nutshell!🎯

I've stopped following MSFS updates as closely, we are going to get what we get.

Coming all the way from 2014 DCOC( now Flyinside) injected FSX on an Oculus DK2... MSFS is still the best VR flight sim experience I've ever had.

I'm just along for the ride, when something breaks I find other stuff to do !🍻

Edited July 7, 20232 yr by blueshark747

Love to see a NAMC YS-11, HU-16B & PBY Catalina if we're having flying boats.

On 7/7/2023 at 12:49 PM, Bernard Ducret said:

Sim updates are certainly appreciated by all, but it remains that some very basic aeronautical essential feature are still way off and lack correction as of today, it is as if Asobo/Microsoft want to run when they hardly know how to walk: how about having a correct runway when we land with ATC, how about eliminating cars, trucks and trolleys from taxiways and runways, how about removing blue lighting cones from the parking spaces, how about depicting a thunderstorm that looks and acts like one and a few cirrus while they are at it, how about having a good ATC after more than 20 years of experience with a wonky one, how about a good AI management, etc, etc.

We all seem to be craving for something new when our core sim has yet to reach a reliable, satisfactory state after three years of commercialisation. Whether or not the above should be taken care of by a different team is totally irrelevant, they should be treated as an emergency and should be handled as a priority and proper human resources allocated immediately. I, for one, would not mind having no new updates until the basics are corrected. 

What you call the "basics" are not basic at all. Other simulators on the market have plenty of things that by your logic would be "basics" that have never been corrected and have been around way longer. 

Microsoft Flight Simulator has has had the basics covered since a long time ago. You're just confusing what you personally want with an absolute sort of "basics" which it isn't. 

Incidentally, what you describe is simply out of touch with the reality of software development. NO software developer works as you would like it to. All sudios are made by developers specialized in different disciplines, and people working on world updates and other things have completely different specializations compared to the engineers required to fix what you (erroneously) call the "basics." A lot of them are even outsourced. 

And no. It isn't a matter of just buying more manpower. Anyone who has any knowledge of software development knows that there are very clear diminishing returns to throwing more and more bodies at a given issue, to the point of being detrimental. As far as we know, what can be outsourced of the "basics," already is with Working Title. 

This without mentioning that the continued release of new content, which in no way negatively impacts the addressing of what you call "the basics" is important to keep the wider community engaged, and plays a role in bringing in and retaining new blood that is sorely needed, as this community finds way to prove basically every day. 

You may not mind having no new updates, but this simulator's development isn't based on what one person or what one group of people want. It's for everyone, and thank goodness it is. 

Edited July 8, 20232 yr by Abriael

It’s very good news that SU13 is planned for September - & happy to leave it to the developers to prioritise what is included - sensible…

10 hours ago, Abriael said:

What you call the "basics" are not basic at all.

Did you actually read my post carefully and each points I brought up? Did you ever fly an airplane and find service vehicles crossing a runway in front of your plane when you take off or land? Do you know what a thunderstorm (cumulonimbus) looks like and what it does to a plane when you happen to fly close to or - God forbid - inside it? If you ever flew yourself, were you given clearance to land on a runway with other traffic landing opposite to your aircraft direction? If these are not basics, what are they? With respect please, do not denigrate the reality, this is not helping anyone including yourself.

10 hours ago, Abriael said:

what you describe is simply out of touch with the reality of software development.

I may be out of touch with IT software development but surely not with how a business is run. As mentioned in another post, we heard that sort of excuse for three years now from various IT specialists, but saw no change to the above even though they were reported right at the beginning. Does it mean then, that they are OK and we should get used to them as you suggest in your introduction. This is one point of view, like mine is.

This simulator is extraordinary, it can be made even better if we dont encourage negligence, that is the whole point of these remarks, not to ignore or deny the fantastic progress of our hobby thanks to Asobo and Microsoft.

15 hours ago, Abriael said:

Microsoft Flight Simulator has has had the basics covered since a long time ago. You're just confusing what you personally want with an absolute sort of "basics" which it isn't.

Seems like it's a semantic issue at this point. There are however instances in which the basic aircraft behavior is just wrong. Takeoff or landing into a crosswind is one of those basics which unfortunately isn't right at all because of the limitation of the friction model (friction has way too much impact). Lift off in a crosswind even in a large jet and you'll find yourself kicking the rudder tremendously compared to a real plane which just requires you to hold the rudder deflection before slowly centering it after lift off. Land in the same crosswind and the aircraft breaks out into the wind and even so after de-crabbing. This isn't how a real plane behaves and at the present, it's not correct in MSFS. I would certainly categorize that as basic physics.