OK so early in the morning I took it to the spin again. I managed setup sensitivity to my liking at last. I'm running Ultra with sliders all the way to the right!

Bad:

-  a lot of random CTD when accessing different setting or calibration

- tobii eye tracker is barely moving, and when I try to access tobii hardware setting sim crashes 100% of the time. So at the moment there is no way to set up

- graphics looks upgraded but not super revolutionary as for my Ultra settings

 

Good:

Flight model

Disclaimer: I concentrated on testing only 172 at the moment. I'm commercial pilot, flight instructor and Cessna 172 owner. So with all stars aligned I know few things about 172

- There are definitely some improvement in ground physics. More right rudder on take off is welcome. I use Honeycomb Charlie and it almost feel like airplane, may be little bit too much right rudder on take off roll. But I believe it's better this way than have no rudder input at all .Also it could be easily tweaked.

- I managed to do tail strike while goofing around with soft field take off. That felt like I did by accident on my airplane and have to replace "tail ring" as tail strike bent it significantly 

- I did some airwork. Steep turns feels OK  don't notice much difference with 2020. I did perfect 360 turn and didn't catch my prop wash. It's minor detail but it's not there yet

- Stalls feels the same as in 2020. Again I have to dig deeper on that. Technically speaking if you keep 172 coordinated it during power off or power on stall she should just drop nose straight down. Of course there is a slight difference between models with 40 degrees flaps and 30. As in 2020, 2024 feature S model (with 30 degrees) it falls on the wing during stall even though I think I kept it coordinated. Again it's ok for stock model to have dramatic wing drop I think for immersive purposes LOL

-Someone mentioned here inertia? The only thing you will know about 172 inertia is inertia-reel shoulder harness! LOL Well may be little side loading during landing  when one doesn't realize his/her foot was pressing right rudder when it shouldn't! There are not much to experience trills to experience in 172. A2A got it right calling it "trainer". You have to really pay attention even to notice adverse yaw due to wing dihedral. Yet you would be surprised how people who never flown 172 could messed up landing. By people I meant military pilots and even airline pilots - yes they do exist and they never flown 172 prior club check out LOL 

So bottom line I'm definitely looking forward 2024. There is a lot of potential and potential is all we need in new gen sim.

 

1 hour ago, bonchie123 said:

I don't really appreciate the claim that I'm being "childish" by suggesting a developer team can't possibly fix the taxi light locations at 40,000 different airports. But whatever. I think my comment is perfectly mature and realistic.

I'm saying childish statements because X-Plane, which has 35K airports and only a few people working for it, doesn't have those issues compared to MSFS, which, according to their statements, has about 100 to 170 people working for them and 40 K airports. It shouldn't be an issue for ASOBO to fix it. But they have chosen not to. 

2 minutes ago, LRBS said:

I'm saying childish statements because X-Plane, which has 35K airports and only a few people working for it, doesn't have those issues compared to MSFS, which, according to their statements, has about 100 to 170 people working for them and 40 K airports. It shouldn't be an issue for ASOBO to fix it. But they have chosen not to. 

Most of XP’s default airports were “crowd sourced” - i.e. created/modified by end-users who use the WED scenery editor in conjunction with the Scenery Gateway, which has been in operation for many years, (at least 10).

MSFS only recently implemented a similar system with the World Hub. XP default auto-generated airports used to be of very poor quality. The high quality/accuracy of airports found today in XP is the result of many, many years of effort by volunteer end users who have modified and improved the defaults.

You say Asobo has “chosen not to” (fix the problems) without knowing everything that is involved in doing that. It is by no means as cut and dried as you apparently think. Do you have any experience in creating/modifying airport scenery in MSFS? I would think not, based on your statements. I am by no means an expert, but I do have some hands-on experience in creating/fixing airports in both MSFS and X-Plane.

The majority of MSFS default airports were created using a mostly automated process based on Bing satellite imagery as a starting point.

Taxiway lights in MSFS can be placed in one of two ways: by placing each and every light as an individual object (which would be extremely time-consuming), or by using a “LightLine” object. A LightLine is defined by specifying a starting and ending vertex point, type of light, spacing between lights, and intensity. When you create a new taxiway in the scenery editor, you can specify that it has edge lights, and the editor will place a LightLine along each side of the taxiway at a specific distance.

Automatically placed LightLines typically do not respect the boundaries of intersecting taxiways. The line will continue across the intersection, which is why you will end up with lights in the middle of intersections

To prevent that, it is necessary to hand edit every auto-placed light line, and in a complex taxiway layout, it is often simpler to delete all existing LightLines and create new ones. This takes quite a bit of time. When I edited the default MSFS KELM (my home airport), it took about two hours of work to get all the taxiway lights correct - and it is not a particularly large or complex layout.

Multiply that by the 35,000-40,000 airports in MSFS and you are looking at years of work, even for a very large team dedicated to doing nothing else but airport correction/editing.

Exactly the same issue exists in XPlane using the WED editor, placing light objects accurately can be tedious and time-consuming.

Most of the larger handcrafted airports in MSFS do not have the problem, because as the name implies, they are built by hand. Nor do third party payware airport add-ons for the same reason. Nor do the hundreds of free airports that MSFS users have upgraded/improved and posted to Flightsim.to

The MSFS World Hub is a good step to allowing user-submitted airport corrections to be added to the sim automatically as the XP Scenery Gateway does, but that system is still quite new and not fully-functional (yet).

45 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The MSFS World Hub is a good step to allowing user-submitted airport corrections to be added to the sim automatically as the XP Scenery Gateway does

Am I the only one with alarm bells going off here?

XP is/was/whatever a fairly hardcore sim populated by mostly dedicated aviation enthusiasts with pride in their community.

THE MSFS official marketplace is bloated with wna addons from bad actors and these are the OFFICIAL ones.

If ONE person can upload 100 'corrections' what stops 10 people doing the same to the same locations and creating a total mess with syncing? Or what if a malicious actor (or country) decided to run spam bots to spoof terrible changes to the entire system?

If each one must be submitted to and tested by Asobe then fair enough, THEN allowed to be synced that's different.

I presume each user can opt in and out of this experience and just run their OWN corrections?

Personally I'd prefer 1000 perfect hand crafted airports at launch rather than 24000 random ai/Bing models. Quality before quantity. 

 

10 hours ago, JSmith2112 said:

My invite went to junk mail. Worth checking if you're not seeing anything.

In my case, I never got an email, but since I already had the Xbox Insider app, I just checked that. Sure enough, it was listed there!

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

Most of XP’s default airports were “crowd sourced” - i.e. created/modified by end-users who use the WED scenery editor in conjunction with the Scenery Gateway, which has been in operation for many years, (at least 10).

MSFS only recently implemented a similar system with the World Hub. XP default auto-generated airports used to be of very poor quality. The high quality/accuracy of airports found today in XP is the result of many, many years of effort by volunteer end users who have modified and improved the defaults.

You say Asobo has “chosen not to” (fix the problems) without knowing everything that is involved in doing that. It is by no means as cut and dried as you apparently think. Do you have any experience in creating/modifying airport scenery in MSFS? I would think not, based on your statements. I am by no means an expert, but I do have some hands-on experience in creating/fixing airports in both MSFS and X-Plane.

The majority of MSFS default airports were created using a mostly automated process based on Bing satellite imagery as a starting point.

Taxiway lights in MSFS can be placed in one of two ways: by placing each and every light as an individual object (which would be extremely time-consuming), or by using a “LightLine” object. A LightLine is defined by specifying a starting and ending vertex point, type of light, spacing between lights, and intensity. When you create a new taxiway in the scenery editor, you can specify that it has edge lights, and the editor will place a LightLine along each side of the taxiway at a specific distance.

Automatically placed LightLines typically do not respect the boundaries of intersecting taxiways. The line will continue across the intersection, which is why you will end up with lights in the middle of intersections

To prevent that, it is necessary to hand edit every auto-placed light line, and in a complex taxiway layout, it is often simpler to delete all existing LightLines and create new ones. This takes quite a bit of time. When I edited the default MSFS KELM (my home airport), it took about two hours of work to get all the taxiway lights correct - and it is not a particularly large or complex layout.

Multiply that by the 35,000-40,000 airports in MSFS and you are looking at years of work, even for a very large team dedicated to doing nothing else but airport correction/editing.

Exactly the same issue exists in XPlane using the WED editor, placing light objects accurately can be tedious and time-consuming.

Most of the larger handcrafted airports in MSFS do not have the problem, because as the name implies, they are built by hand. Nor do third party payware airport add-ons for the same reason. Nor do the hundreds of free airports that MSFS users have upgraded/improved and posted to Flightsim.to

The MSFS World Hub is a good step to allowing user-submitted airport corrections to be added to the sim automatically as the XP Scenery Gateway does, but that system is still quite new and not fully-functional (yet).

Jim, I want to be direct without any misinterpretation or personal attacks. Many of you seem to take it personally when bugs are mentioned, and many excuses are vehiculated. I'm simply pointing out something unrealistic. Whether or not I have hands-on experience in creating or fixing airports has nothing to do with the problem; others from ASOBO are involved in this task. ASOBO has been dealing with this issue for years. It has been brought to their attention multiple times, and yet this bug persists on the new platform without a fix. The tools they use and how they use them don't matter. This is not the customer's problem, and the customer is tired of hearing excuses. Let's stop with these nonsense excuses. Having taxi and runway edge lights inside taxiways or runways is unacceptable. When has this become the new norm and been considered okay?

29 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Am I the only one with alarm bells going off here?

XP is/was/whatever a fairly hardcore sim populated by mostly dedicated aviation enthusiasts with pride in their community.

THE MSFS official marketplace is bloated with wna addons from bad actors and these are the OFFICIAL ones.

If ONE person can upload 100 'corrections' what stops 10 people doing the same to the same locations and creating a total mess with syncing? Or what if a malicious actor (or country) decided to run spam bots to spoof terrible changes to the entire system?

If each one must be submitted to and tested by Asobe then fair enough, THEN allowed to be synced that's different.

I presume each user can opt in and out of this experience and just run their OWN corrections?

Personally I'd prefer 1000 perfect hand crafted airports at launch rather than 24000 random ai/Bing models. Quality before quantity. 

 

It's almost like there must already be a tried and true method to keep this kind of stuff from happening...smh

Just now, UrgentSiesta said:

It's almost like there must already be a tried and true method to keep this kind of stuff from happening...smh

Tried and true software methods are PROPRIETARY. You can't just steal an exact idea from one developers sim and use it elsewhere without appropriate licensing. It may well use the same IDEA but all the code will be brand new and....untested.

31 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Am I the only one with alarm bells going off here?

Yes.

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/flighting/html/WorldHub/World_Hub.htm
World Hub was conceived as a way for the Microsoft Flight Simulator community to edit their favorite airports to better match the accuracy of their real world counterparts. With World Hub you can access almost any airport in the world, download the base files for that airport, and alter the placement of runways, taxiways, parking spots, and other objects to create a more accurate representation of the real airport. Each World Hub submission is carefully reviewed by a team of moderators, and if approved, will later be published and made available in Microsoft Flight Simulator. 
 

1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

a team of moderators

Thanks for the info, that is going to be a very big and very busy team I'm sure. If anyone CAN upload changes, then anyone WILL.

10 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Jim, I want to be direct without any misinterpretation or personal attacks. Many of you seem to take it personally when bugs are mentioned, and many excuses are vehiculated. I'm simply pointing out something unrealistic. Whether or not I have hands-on experience in creating or fixing airports has nothing to do with the problem; others from ASOBO are involved in this task. ASOBO has been dealing with this issue for years. It has been brought to their attention multiple times, and yet this bug persists on the new platform without a fix. The tools they use and how they use them don't matter. This is not the customer's problem, and the customer is tired of hearing excuses. Let's stop with these nonsense excuses. Having taxi and runway edge lights inside taxiways or runways is unacceptable. When has this become the new norm and been considered okay?

Your definition of "unacceptable" is unreasonable.

Yes, it's annoying to come across these limitations on a regular basis as they break immersion.

But in the grand scheme of things, it's a trivial non-issue in what has become the greatest world simulator ever delivered to the public.

For $60, the overall accuracy of the simulator is utterly astounding.

I'm quite sure that if we applied your same standards to your own professional work, we'd find similar trivial annoyances.

So, you're entitled to your opinion, but...

 

27 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Your definition of "unacceptable" is unreasonable.

So, you're entitled to your opinion, but...

 

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear such nonsense about finding taxi and runway edge lights inside taxiways or runways that interfere while taxiing to be a non-issue. Such a disconnect with reality, and this is not an opinion. 

?

 

Edited October 12, 20241 yr by LRBS

1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

If each one must be submitted to and tested by Asobe then fair enough, THEN allowed to be synced that's different.

That is exactly how the XP scenery gateway works. Submissions must be carefully reviewed and tested before they will be merged into future scenery builds. I assume MS/Asobo reviews World Hub submissions in a similar way. They aren’t going to let something become part of the base sim if it has issues. 

A couple of you are about to get yourself ejected from the playing field.

There's no reason this has to turn into a food fight.