2 hours ago, Tom_L said:

Thank you for proving my main point.

And the driveby answer is no less predictable than the previous post.

The fact that you threw shade in a thread about an article by one of the most respected members of the flight simulation media (and of this very community) says all that needs to be said and proves all the points that need to be proven about the oh so oppressed "critical voices." 🙄

Edited September 25, 20241 yr by Abriael

These conversations are so weird. It's a publicity event meant to show off the new product. Yes, they want it to look good to everyone because that increases sales and they're going to make the event as positive as they can for the media they invite. That's not a conspiracy or a scam, it's marketing, and it's not sneaky or suspicious. It's right there out in the open. MS knows that you and I know this, as do the media who go and review what they see. Nobody who calls this stuff out is especially smart or knows something the rest of us don't. I see plenty of flaws in the footage, none of which is particularly surprising or, for me personally, worrisome/concerning (mostly because I have too many things in my life that emotionally outweigh scenery draw distances or lack of hail simulation). I'm sure I'll see many more flaws when I've downloaded and used the sim. My mind hasn't been warped by marketing videos and I'm grateful to guys like Sergio who write well-thought-out articles explaining their experience, what they're excited about, and what they have reservations about. It allows me to create a framework in which I can place my own personal expectations for what's to come, and I really don't need to get emotional about whether or not I think I'm being lied to. 

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

The fact that you threw shade in a thread about an article by one of the most respected members of the flight simulation media (and of this very community) says all that needs to be said and proves all the points that need to be proven about the oh so oppressed "critical voices." 🙄

As you were one of the people invited to the event you must keep in mind it was all funded thanks to us, the "critical voices".

28 minutes ago, francobfort said:

As you were one of the people invited to the event you must keep in mind it was all funded thanks to us, the "critical voices".

This is as ludicrous a claim as "we pay your salary!" (and just like it, it isn't particularly new. People with an overblown idea of their own importance throw this kind of nonsense around all the time). 

The event was funded by Microsoft. That's it. 

The contribution of those who do their worst to spread negativity in a forum about a product they haven't tried and isn't even out yet (and disparage the integrity of those who did try it and were genuinely impressed) is absolutely negligible. 

Edited September 25, 20241 yr by Abriael

10 hours ago, Tom_L said:

I find it very interesting how the "information" of content creators, who were flown to the Grand Canyon at MS's expense, some even receiving a free flight on the Cirrus Jet, is taken as factual reporting without much critical discussion, even though mostly PR material and unquestioned statements from MS and the developers are being published.
Critical voices are discredited (e.g. "toddlers making assumptions") in order to immediately emphasize how full one's own glass is.

There was recently a thread about censorship in the official forum. It's not even necessary, the "community" takes care of it itself.
Missed opportunities...

That depends on the person reading it. Some do, some don't. We do our best to inform people. Everyone sees it the way they want and apply critical thinking or not. I do like the ones that apply critical thinking and ask me stuff. I like to understand other people's perspectives. It's always interesting.

13 hours ago, Tom_L said:

I find it very interesting how the "information" of content creators, who were flown to the Grand Canyon at MS's expense, some even receiving a free flight on the Cirrus Jet, is taken as factual reporting without much critical discussion, even though mostly PR material and unquestioned statements from MS and the developers are being published.
Critical voices are discredited (e.g. "toddlers making assumptions") in order to immediately emphasize how full one's own glass is.

There was recently a thread about censorship in the official forum. It's not even necessary, the "community" takes care of it itself.
Missed opportunities...

Many of the media invited to the event have proven themselves to be fairly good sources of information on flight simulation.

Can you list the ones who's opinions you find to be inaccurate or misleading?

Microsoft/Asobo have also proven, over the last 4+ years, to be very good at delivering the sim and many (many) substantial improvements thereto.

While they haven't addressed all wish lists/complaints, they've built a great deal of well earned trust in these features.

In re "critical voices", everyone simply must admit that there is far more FUD coming from there than anywhere else, as usual. And it's an easy bet that many of them will be proven wrong, yet again.

And the only ones I see getting "censored" are the ones who are making blatantly spurious / ridiculous claims despite all evidence to the contrary (e.g., the guy here on avsim who said he sees absolutely no difference in the Grand Canyon scenery...smh).

So there is certainly a valid flip-side to each of your points.

 

13 hours ago, MarcG said:

Can of worms there mate but yeah I kinda get what you're saying, the videos & reports have 99% been "wow" and "amazing" and "it's brilliant", not much in the way of critical analysis. Which I suppose is to be fair as it's a pre-release version they were playing, which needs to be taken into account of course and as ever when the time comes the public will decide whether it's good or not.

As for the community yes I totally agree, this place has been awash with "know it alls" shouting down anyone who even blinks in the direction of questioning something related to the sim, or a nats whisker of negativity. There's still a lot we don't know, yet some round here like to act that they know everything already, even though they've not played the sim themselves!

Well, of course we've seen "wow" and "amazing" and "it's brilliant" so far because it does genuinely seem to be that way. 

There's not much "critical analysis" going on because most people (even the content creators) haven't had much time with the simulator.

And as this is a mainly evolutionary development of the same simulator we all already have our hands on, the "critical analysis" is a LOT more informed than it ever was in the months leading up to v2020's release.

I don't really see many people being shouted down, other than, again, the ones who are making spurious / ridiculous assertions based of the exact same "lack of evidence" the rest of us have.

Again, MS Asobo have more than delivered on the original promise of v2020, so they've built a substantial amount of credibility for v2024. We should largely take them at their word.

And if you don't want to, that's fine - you'll have your chance to form your very own first-hand opinions in the very near future.

17 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I don't really see many people being shouted down,

Some people seem to confuse receiving widespread disagreement with being "shouted down."

9 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

It's all glitz and glamor until you fire up MSFS 2024 and are confronted with the reality of how things actually are. 

I prefer to trust my own judgment rather than rely on the "opinions" of various (mostly self-annointed) "experts".

 

Doesn't the fact that you are here in the MSFS forum indicate that you are for the most part satisfied with v2020?

Hasn't that turned out to be more or less what it's been touted to be for the last 4 years?

What do you think your hands-on "judgement" is going to further discern in re the "reality of how things actually are"?

This all might've been somewhat understandable in the lead up to v2020, and the short-term post release, but come now - do you really think v2024 is going to fundamentally disappoint...?

 

No matter what it is, you have to get past the 'shiny new thing' phase before getting to any valuable observations. It is mostly at the ooh! ahhh! stage so far.

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Doesn't the fact that you are here in the MSFS forum indicate that you are for the most part satisfied with v2020?

Hasn't that turned out to be more or less what it's been touted to be for the last 4 years?

What do you think your hands-on "judgement" is going to further discern in re the "reality of how things actually are"?

This all might've been somewhat understandable in the lead up to v2020, and the short-term post release, but come now - do you really think v2024 is going to fundamentally disappoint...?

 

I think 2024 will be great. Probably a few hiccups I'm sure but amazing nonetheless. 2020 has been good to me despite a few issues and being plagued by CTD's near the Chicago and Midwest for several months about 2 years ago. Now, amazing.

5 hours ago, Abriael said:

Some people seem to confuse receiving widespread disagreement with being "shouted down."

To be fair, you have a knack and producing, condoning and pushing the envelope when it comes down to arguing on this Avsim forum. You seem to really love pushing people's buttons on here.

Regardless, you should tone it down because its extremely annoying when I (and many others) see your name in a forum/thread, constantly leading the charge with playing devil's advocate around here.

I have seen it many times. Instigator? Yes. Annoying? Absolutely.

5 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

To be fair, you have a knack and producing, condoning and pushing the envelope when it comes down to arguing on this Avsim forum. You seem to really love pushing people's buttons on here.

Regardless, you should tone it down because its extremely annoying when I (and many others) see your name in a forum/thread, constantly leading the charge with playing devil's advocate around here.

I have seen it many times. Instigator? Yes. Annoying? Absolutely.

Some people obviously don't like pushback when they try their worst to spread negativity and advertise other sims in the MSFS forums. Though luck. And yet, my reputation score clearly indicates that many enjoy my insight, which I will continue to share whether you like it or not. Incidentally, you calling anyone else argumentative is pretty hilarious. It takes two to tango.

The fact that you felt the need to write a post that is in its absolute entirety a personal attack shows exactly what I mean. Maybe "you should tone it down." 🙄

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by Abriael

I love the Ignore function in these forums. So easy to use. 

So the issue of streaming. Yep, it's all thin client at our end but the bandwidth requirements to make this work have clearly got enormous by comparison to 2020. Am I right?  OK, I know, most people don't have a concern with 50Mbps or even 100Mbps. In fact many are on 1000Mbps. But for some of us on rural wireless we are lucky to get 20Mbps and would need to double our monthly internet payment just to get 50 Mbps. Not something that is practically affordable in retirement.  It is what it is, but it seems the 2024 version with all it has to offer, is starting to get a little out of reach for some of us by virtue of technology improvements. 

So it might just be that for a very few of us MSFS 2020 will remain our go to sim for sometime to come.  Que Sear, Sera.  

But, I would certainly like to hear any opinions on what bandwidth requirements early users have actually experienced.  

 

Cheers

Terry

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by Lord Farringdon

Yup, this heavier reliance on streaming is of great concern for many. I will most likely be subscribing to PC Gamepass to test out how all this bandwidth/download/local/stream situation garbage pans out.

If unhappy, XP12 is it.

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by VeryBumpy