1 minute ago, threegreen said:

You people post stuff like this and wonder why others think you're just here to stir the pot.

“You people”?  

5 minutes ago, GoranM said:

“You people”?  

Batmen.

Just now, HiFlyer said:

Batmen.

No sir. There can be only one. 

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

“You people”?  

Huh?

Just now, threegreen said:

Huh?

You’re the one who said it. I usually cease discussions when someone refers to others as “you people”.
Have a good one. 

I bet if you all sat at a bar and discussed this like civilised human beings, you'd all get on and the beers would flow merrily.

Unfortunately another thread ruined by egos and schoolyard verbal fights, good job, well played.

59 minutes ago, gdjak said:

Even if they had an entire backup environment ready to switch over, I don't see how they wouldn't have run into the exact same issue there. It was a configuration problem - can't fix that by throwing more machines at it.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is so difficult for them to grasp.....

I reckon they could Quickly make up for this by posting more info regarding MSFS 2024 including screenshots and/or video.

5 hours ago, tonywob said:

and likely because they want everyone on the same version for the sake of their own sanity and bug reporting (understandable).

You brought up a very good point here, especially considering the size of their user base, I can totally understand why they would prefer to keep things as simple as possible. Just imagine being bombarded with complaints for an issue that already got fixed in a newer version lol.

9 minutes ago, Greazer said:

I reckon they could Quickly make up for this by posting more info regarding MSFS 2024 including screenshots and/or video.

I like the way you think 😄

30 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Unfortunately another thread ruined by egos and schoolyard verbal fights, good job, well played.

Exactly why the reputation of AVSim has turned in the wrong direction!

Are "you guys" aviation experts? Then you might know that many systems in planes are duplicate or triplicate. Why? To avoid a failure of the (whole) system. If one system fails, the second (or even third) takes over. And the second (or third) system are NOT configured as the first one, but often even made from different hardware, or if on the same hardware on a different OS or programmed in a different programming language to avoid the single point of failure or configuration error. Isn't it?

All this drama over a few hours of issues that were resolved?  I actually like this particular Youtuber, but this is exactly what they do - manufacture unneeded drama.  I've got a couple of decades of experience in IT and I will tell you that this will not be the last time technology lets you down.  Tech has actually gotten significantly better, but with that, expectations have risen.  I remember the days of servers being down for days at a time.  Today?  Amazon goes down for 5 minutes and it costs someone millions. 

My advice - deep breath.  When something isn't working, shut it off and walk away.  Find something else to do while it gets resolved.  This isn't making "excuses" for anything, just a guarantee that it will happen again.  Whether or not you allow it to raise your blood pressure is the only thing you control.

So, it seems that the sporadic users of MSFS in this forum are more outraged than the so-called "hardcore" fans of the platform. Why is that? Personally, this slight delay in receiving the update has not affected my temper at all.

5 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

So ... that's your explanation? Some magic proprietery alchemy?
Are they changing every few months the way they transmit (stream) the data from the server to the clients? That would be indeed a reason to update every few months server and client, so they both talk the same "language". So be it. However, there is still a VERY good reason to offer a "Skip this update" as I pointed out earlier and what was my starting point...

Given your posting history and even your sig (lol), your attempts at discussion around here is always suspect, but you keep quoting me... If you really don't understand why some some client/server software systems with complex back & forth interactions are maintained and developed by requiring mandatory client updates, then not sure what else you're able to grasp. For such systems, either multiple sets of services need to be maintained, to support multiple versions of clients (so there'd be multiple MSFS worlds), or they maintain one set of services and require clients to be updated to that level. You keep talking about data transmission methods/protocols and still not understanding that it's far more than that lol. If you are so keen on why MSFS requires clients to match in version/capabilities to the server-side and can't understand these simple concepts, perhaps try contacting them yourself? Or like I said before, if you have some ingenious ideas that allows different client versions of MSFS to interact with the latest server-side version of MSFS by all means do let them know.
 

Quote

I didn't participate in the beta phase, as I don't like to be the guinea pig. However, I have a relative seldomly used combination of hardware and software (rudder, yoke, navigational software, ...) and I'm a bit frightened it may not work after the update. So, I'm waiting for, say 2 weeks, to check the forums if there are problems with the new (forced) update. After these 2 weeks I recognize, no problems, so I do the update and it works. Fine. However, for 2 weeks I wasn't able to play with MSFS. That's the price I was willing to pay.

Huh? For the 2 weeks you didn't play the beta, you'd have been able to play with the previous version of the client lol. Here is a scenario where MS/Asobo does maintain two sets of services, one for the regular/released client versions, one for the beta. And it makes sense to do so. Another scenario where they'll be maintaining two sets of services is once v2024 releases, to also support v2020. But they've made the business and technical decision to not maintain multiple sets of services for all/various released client versions out there, as that'd be far from prudent (how many sets of services should MS/Asobo maintain in order to support users who want to stay on SU13, SU12, SU11, etc? where should they draw the line?).
 

Quote

Thanks for confirming my and bobcats earlier statement of the need of call it backend-/fallback-/backup-servers. The initial opinion in this thread (although not by you) was, that such thing isn't possible (or required).

Ya no one said it's not possible.. it's about the feasibility of maintaining multiple sets of services for the huge user base of MSFS (see above). Also the actual problem being discussed in this thread was about the download speed issues in getting the update for which the legacy thinking of "backup servers" is not really a solution given the Azure configuration issue/bug detailed in MS's report.

A lot of the software world is moving to the streamed and client/server paradigm, and depending on the complexity and nature of the ineractions between the server and client, and the feasibility of maintaining single vs multiple sets of services, clients will be forced to upgrade their versions. Those who don't like that paradigm will need to keep using legacy software which doesn't require such (or any) server-side interactions or forced updates ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Edited December 14, 20232 yr by lwt1971