MSFS: “A Loss Of Trust From Our Player Community"

[flying_carpet 657]

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

It shouldn't be too hard to grasp for those who're *genuinely* skeptical about why forced MSFS client upgrades are required, especially those familiar with client/server software systems, MMO games, etc. There are certain server + client software systems where the interactions between server and client are complex enough that one single version (i.e. the latest) of server-side software cannot keep simultaneously serving clients of different versions (and MSFS is a scenario more complex than just streaming or "pushing out" of data to clients). MSFS is a system with a lot of complex interactions back & forth between server and client, so the clients needs to be updated and be on the latest level of code to match the server-side, in order to correctly function with the server-side.

Of course MS/Asobo could maintain and deploy multiple sets of services each to serve specific versions of clients but that becomes unwieldy fast and also doesn't make sense for multi-player and other aspects of the sim (especially just in order to serve a back-level client fixpack i.e. SU14 vs SU13 vs SU12). That said, given that MS/Asobo plan to keep supporting v2020 for multiple years after v2024 releases, that is an example where they'll be spending the extra cost/effort to deploy two sets of services to serve both v2020 and v2024 clients simultaneously, since it makes much more sense to do so in order to support users of the two major versions of the sim. Requiring those users to be on the latest fixpack of their respect major-version sim client is not an unreasonable ask.. and for those who don't like the client/server nature of MSFS they can always use legacy sims doing it the old way 🙂
 

Could you please elaborate that in a bit more detail so that even I 😉 can understand it? Does that mean, they are changing every few months the clients and also server sides? What a waste of time ...
You need to know that I have a fair understanding of data transfer protocols like - not only - http (for www), ftp (file transfer), POP/IMAP (email), rtsp (video streaming) etc. and these protocols don't get changed every few months, for good reasons. They are backwards compatible to a certain extent (however, not for 20 years or so 😄).

 

[Mace 1,948]

6 hours ago, hansb57 said:

I dont know if xbox user can play other games while downloading. I'm using msfs on pc and can continue using my pc while updating.

That's right, I played Civ4 while it downloaded

And to all you young whippersnappers, 4 hours is nothing, in the old days I used a 2400 baud modem....we used to start the download, go to the bars for a pint, come back and it was done.

 

[lwt1971 7,456]

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Could you please elaborate that in a bit more detail so that even I 😉 can understand it? Does that mean, they are changing every few months the clients and also server sides? What a waste of time ...
You need to know that I have a fair understanding of data transfer protocols like - not only - http (for www), ftp (file transfer), POP/IMAP (email), rtsp (video streaming) etc. and these protocols don't get changed every few months, for good reasons. They are backwards compatible to a certain extent (however, not for 20 years or so 😄).

 

Riiight 🙄.. well, here's a hint: this has nothing to do with data transfer protocols. Perhaps availing yourself to some basic learning about how a MMO or other various software systems (that require forced client updates) work might clear your fog a bit.

MSFS has a server side that provides world depiction data & graphics, weather, and various other services which has multiple back and forth interactions with MSFS clients. There are no simple data protocols being used here, and the communications that occur between the MSFS/Azure/etc services and MSFS client software are obviously proprietary. When MS/Asobo make fixes and provide new content there are server-side changes and client-side changes. So they naturally would like to have all clients be updated in order to work with the updated services.

If you seriously think a complex client/server software system like MSFS can be implemented by establishing a protocol like http/ftp/imap/etc, and also being able to *just* use said protocol to make server-side fixes/updates work with multiple client-side software versions without updating them, then please by all means lend your ideas to MS/Asobo 🤣. One would think they have thought this through to come up with the current system which they feel is most optimal, but who knows, they might've missed something only you are capable of solving.

Edited December 14, 2023 by lwt1971

[GoranM 3,772]

25 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

 

Riiight 🙄.. well, here's a hint: this has nothing to do with data transfer protocols. Perhaps availing yourself to some basic learning about how a MMO or other various software systems (that require forced client updates) work might clear your fog a bit.

 

MSFS has a server side that provides world depiction data & graphics, weather, and various other services which has multiple back and forth interactions with MSFS clients. There are no simple data protocols being used here, and the communications that occur between the MSFS/Azure/etc services and MSFS client software are obviously proprietary. When MS/Asobo make fixes and provide new content there are server-side changes and client-side changes. So they naturally would like to have all clients be updated in order to work with the updated services.

 

If you seriously think a complex client/server software system like MSFS can be implemented by establishing a protocol like http/ftp/imap/etc, and also being able to *just* use said protocol to make server-side fixes/updates work with multiple client-side software versions without updating them, then please by all means lend your ideas to MS/Asobo 🤣. One would think they have thought this through to come up with the current system which they feel is most optimal, but who knows, they might've missed something only you are capable of solving.

Such a down to earth response.

Anyway, just throwing in my 0.02c worth.

After seeing what happened several days ago with the update problems, I have a solution that every other software vendor has used in their "archaic" infrastructure, that I was quite surprised wasn't used in the MSFS update.

Backup servers.  

🤷‍♂️

[lwt1971 7,456]

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

Such a down to earth response.

Anyway, just throwing in my 0.02c worth.

After seeing what happened several days ago with the update problems, I have a solution that every other software vendor has used in their "archaic" infrastructure, that I was quite surprised wasn't used in the MSFS update.

Backup servers.  

🤷‍♂️

Thanks as always for evaluating our responses! And indeed that was my response to him suggesting (and keenly wondering) that MSFS clients not be required to get updated. Oh, and I guess I regulated my down-to-earth-ness given his posting history 🙂

You're now talking about the issue this thread is about, i.e as to why they couldn't handle the client load of downloading the updates.. and if you read the detailed technical incident report they published then it'd be clear it was due to specific bugs in their Azure environment, not something "backup servers" would've solved.

Edited December 14, 2023 by lwt1971

[GoranM 3,772]

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Thanks as always for evaluating our responses!

Any time.  After reading another thread about how down to earth you all are, I thought I would mention it.  

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

and if you read the detailed technical incident report they published then it'd be clear it was due to specific bugs in their Azure environment, not something "backup servers" would've solved.

That's a new one.  In the 14 years I've been involved in this side of the software industry, I've never heard of a situation where a backup server couldn't solve an update problem.  

I'm certainly not going to read that report, but if the Azure environment is unreliable enough to have a bug or bugs that sends the Azure servers to a grinding halt, and not only that, but the update actually went backwards, then my faith in the Azure environment has just taken a massive hit.  And to know that a backup server couldn't be used...that screams "archaic" to me.  

If that happened to my customers, you can bet I'd be furious.  

Come on, Len.  Are you seriously telling me, with todays technology, that the situation is acceptable?

That "other sim", with its "archaic infrastructure" has never had a problem with updates and downloads, in over 20 years.

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[lwt1971 7,456]

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

Any time.  After reading another thread about how down to earth you all are, I thought I would mention it.  

Not nearly as down to earth as you of course, but we try.. and always great that "you all" continue to roam the MSFS forum regularly 🙂 (it's adorable)
 

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

I'm certainly not going to read that report, but if the Azure environment is unreliable enough to have a bug or bugs that sends the Azure servers to a grinding halt, and not only that, but the update actually went backwards, then my faith in the Azure environment has just taken a massive hit.  And to know that a backup server couldn't be used...that screams "archaic" to me.  

Ya, best not to pontificate on this without reading the actual report of what happened 🙂 .. I'm sure MS regrets your waning faith in Azure, but somehow they and their customers shall proceed. Now if you have time to spare, perhaps reading the report and also understanding how cloud infrastructures with myriads of configurations and load scenarios can still rear previously-not-seen bugs might help you understand the situation a bit more. Yes even a mature infrastructure like Azure serving thousands of enterprise customers for years can have bugs! (either long-standing or due to new infrastructure and/or config updates/changes), it actually is a common phenomenon in complex software believe it or not!

And you curiously seem rather hung up on the world "archaic" here having mentioned it twice in replying to me.. oh, I see where it was posted by someone else above, guess that irked you a bit for whatever reasons.
 

Quote

That "other sim", with its "archaic infrastructure" has never had a problem with updates and downloads, in over 20 years.

I really don't care to compare this situation to the "other sim", but since you bring it up.. it's apples and oranges obviously. That other sims (all of them) are traditional in the sense that all the code to run them essentially sits on the user's machine. MSFS is a client/server system and very different in architecture. Also the kinds of user download loads experienced by MSFS servers is very different compared to other sims.
 

Edited December 14, 2023 by lwt1971

[GoranM 3,772]

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

and always great that "you all" continue to roam the MSFS forum regularly

 I own MSFS.  I have owned it for over a year.  Not only that, but nothing is restricting me from visiting this section of the forums, just like nothing is restricting you from visiting any other sub forum in avsim.  It's a bit boring when you keep falling back on that.  What I find great is certain people from here, that go to X-Plane dedicated forums, outside of avsim, not even owning X-Plane, and continue to criticize it.  But anyway...

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Ya, best not to pontificate on this without reading the actual report of what happened

Irrelevant.  If I am forced to depend on a server that doesn't have a backup, that's unacceptable.  If you have the patience for that, then more power to you.  If I have to texture an aircraft, and Substance Painter suddenly stopped working, because I was forced into an update that suddenly stopped, and I couldn't use Substance Painter until the update was done, angry wouldn't even begin to describe what I would be.

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I'm sure MS regrets your waning faith in Azure, but somehow they and their customers shall proceed.

Of course.  Because they're forced to.  It's evident, from this thread, there are some who aren't particularly happy about it.  

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Now if you have time to spare, perhaps reading the report and also understanding how cloud infrastructures with myriads of configurations and load scenarios can still rear previously-not-seen bugs might help you understand the situation a bit more.

No.  I'm taking your word for it.  You said there were bugs that stopped the update.  If protocols do not exist that take into account any problems a server can have, then that is unacceptable.  Period.  I don't need to read anything.  

I pay for a lot of subscription services.  And if any software I'm subscribed to has a problem with a download, they would hear about it from me.  I'm still amazed that you will excuse an update issue, to the extent the server actually stops the update, for software you have paid for.  

If the server stops, a backup needs to be on standby.  Why has this problem presented itself recently, and not in the last few years?  What was so unique?

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Yes even a mature infrastructure like Azure serving thousands of enterprise customers for years can have bugs!

Thousands?  Is that all?  And the Azure server failed?  With no backup protocols in place?  Len...are you kidding?

And yet Windows updates have never had a problem, with over 400 million people downloading them every month, for years.

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

it actually is a common phenomenon in complex software believe it or not!

Please, cite a few examples, where a backup server wasn't in place.

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

oh, I see where it was posted by someone else above, guess that irked you a bit for whatever reasons.

I guess it's irking you back, no?

😉

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[Krakin 5,837]

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

I have a solution that every other software vendor has used in their "archaic" infrastructure, that I was quite surprised wasn't used in the MSFS update.

Backup servers.  

Your solution wouldn't work since the backup server would just end up handling the data transfer in the same way. You would have realized this if you read the report.

Oh and I feel like I should apologize to you since the "archaic" thing seems to have gotten under your skin asm is usually the case. I have to remind myself that you work at Hot Start and not LR sometimes lol. It is what it is, my guy. The existence of MSFS made those sims old tech overnight. The online infrastructure of MSFS allows users to experience acceptable ground scenery without having to rely on third party add-ons that eat up terabytes of hard drive space, as an example. Sometimes, advances in tech call for things to be done differently.

38 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I'm certainly not going to read that report,

Ah yes. Willful ignorance in action.

[GoranM 3,772]

3 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Your solution wouldn't work since the backup server would just end up handling the data transfer in the same way. You would have realized this if you read the report.

So just this one time, the problem presented itself.  This last update was somehow, unique.

Gotcha.

3 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Oh and I feel like I should apologize to you since the "archaic" thing seems to have gotten under your skin asm is usually the case.

If you think a word has gotten under my skin, after 14 years in customer service, then you have a very skewed view of "under your skin".

3 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I have to remind myself that you work at Hot Start and not LR sometimes lol. It is what it is, my guy. The existence of MSFS made those sims old tech overnight. The online infrastructure of MSFS allows users to experience acceptable ground scenery without having to rely on third party add-ons that eat up terabytes of hard drive space, as an example. Sometimes, advances in tech call for things to be done differently.

Apart from mentioning Autoortho, I won't even engage in a my sim vs your sim debate.

3 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Ah yes. Willful ignorance in action.

Just taking Len's word for it.  Are you saying he's not trustworthy?  Besides, I'm sure you know I'm quite a busy person, and I don't have time to read reports.

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[lwt1971 7,456]

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

Irrelevant.  If I am forced to depend on a server that doesn't have a backup, that's unacceptable.  If you have the patience for that, then more power to you.

Of course.  Because they're forced to.  It's evident, from this thread, there are some who aren't particularly happy about it.  

No.  I'm taking your word for it.  You said there were bugs that stopped the update.  If protocols do not exist that take into account any problems a server can have, then that is unacceptable.  Period.  I don't need to read anything.  

I pay for a lot of subscription services.  And if any software I'm subscribed to has a problem with a download, they would hear about it from me.  I'm still amazed that you will excuse an update issue, to the extent the server actually stops the update, for software you have paid for.  

If the server stops, a backup needs to be on standby.  Why has this problem presented itself recently, and not in the last few years?  What was so unique?

Thousands?  Is that all?  And the Azure server failed?  With no backup protocols in place?  Len...are you kidding?

And yet Windows updates have never had a problem, with over 400 million people downloading them every month, for years.

Please, cite a few examples, where a backup server wasn't in place.

You keep rambling on and pontificating without wanting to read the detailed technical report of what happened put out by MS. By "thousands" I meant the number of different enterprise companies who are customers of Azure, who themselves have thousands and thousands of users.. and even an infrastructure that serves that many can still have bugs that show up in specific situations. That was my point. The Azure services failed just for MSFS here obviously, and MSFS obviously has different Azure configurations/setups/etc than those other enterprise customer scenarios, or Windows updates, etc.  I mean, not sure why this is so hard to understand.

 If you wrote all of this above with such indignation of how Azure's cloud system failed you as a customer, then all the more reason to read what they wrote 🙂 .. Sorry, hard to take you seriously, as usual.
 

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

I guess it's irking you back, no?

Irking me that someone else called another sim "archaic" and that you got bothered by it and then responded to me about it?... nope, just entertained, as always 🙂

 

Quote

 Not only that, but nothing is restricting me from visiting this section of the forums, just like nothing is restricting you from visiting any other sub forum in avsim.  It's a bit boring when you keep falling back on that.

No one said anything about restrictions about visiting wherever. But it's certainly not boring for me to keep seeing folks who try hard to disparage MSFS also staying glued to this forum.. too funny.
 

Edited December 14, 2023 by lwt1971

[Krakin 5,837]

5 minutes ago, GoranM said:

If you think a word has gotten under my skin, after 14 years in customer service, then you have a very skewed view of "under your skin".

Bruh you and I both know what we know so don't even try it. That's all I think I need to say.

6 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Apart from mentioning Autoortho, I won't even engage in a my sim vs your sim debate.

Right, a third party solution that looks worse than ortho4XP and does not benefit from something like blakshark ai. Then you also have to layer that global tree mod on top of it to make look something approaching passable.........

 

9 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Just taking Len's word for it.  Are you saying he's not trustworthy?

If you actually took his word for it, you wouldn't have mentioned "backup servers" so many times.

[GoranM 3,772]

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Sorry, hard to take you seriously, as usual.

Likewise.  The 1 time a cloud server couldn't rely on a backup to service its customers.  The holy grail.

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Irking me that someone else called another sim "archaic" and that you got bothered by it and then responded to me about it?... nope, just entertained, as always

Entertaining is people thinking a word got me annoyed, when I've not gotten annoyed at far worse.  I won't even quote what software pirates have said to me.  I promise you, Len.  My quoting a word doesn't irk me.  But I do know it irks you, and some others, that people from the X-Plane forums come here to post.

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[GoranM 3,772]

55 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Bruh you and I both know what we know so don't even try it. That's all I think I need to say.

lol, ok..."bruh" (at the risk of coming across as irked)  "Don't even try it"?  That seems very much like a veiled ultimatum/threat.

55 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Right, a third party solution that looks worse than ortho4XP and does not benefit from something like blakshark ai. Then you also have to layer that global tree mod on top of it to make look something approaching passable.........

My sim vs your sim.  No thanks.

55 minutes ago, Krakin said:

If you actually took his word for it, you wouldn't have mentioned "backup servers" so many times.

Because, in 14 years, it's the first time I've ever heard of a backup server not able to take over from the primary server due to protocols that aren't in place.  You're saying we're forced to depend on one single channel for updates, with a problem that has never presented itself until recently?  A new word is slowly appearing.  "Incompetence".

I spend a lousy $10 a month on a backup server for my source files.  If that server failed, for whatever reason, and regardless what the report said, I'd be asking for my files, or monetary compensation.  I definitely wouldn't be saying, "Oh well.  The report explains it.  I'll just excuse it and move on."

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[lwt1971 7,456]

12 minutes ago, Krakin said:

If you actually took his word for it, you wouldn't have mentioned "backup servers" so many times.

Lol, that is obviously the genius solution! "backup servers"! Why didn't MS think about this? They obviously don't know how to run a cloud infrastructure like certain folks around here.