Well, given that misinformation and unwarranted doom and gloom keeps getting repeated, I'll also repeat here on this thread 🙂 

For whatever reasons MS/Asobo chose to use the word "alpha" in the name of this special stress-test build, and also chose to not NDA its selected users (given the hyperbole and inability of some to actually read and understand perhaps they should have imposed an NDA 😅). In any case, what should be pretty clear to all who actually choose to read what they've stated, in no uncertain terms:

• this is a special build meant for stress testing their online services, and also a test of the kind where they are getting the feedback and data they want from their server-side end automatically without needing any reports and issues/bugs being opened by the users
  • note: part of this stress testing is to also test how their server-side handles and gathers any data when the client-side has errors or CTDs
• it is NOT a build indicative of functionality, stability, etc in their current codebase that is progressing towards release in November (quite obviously the sim would not STILL be in alpha stage in the traditional software sense given the time left)
• it has added telemetry code, likely also different code paths, etc all meant to gather server-side data for this stress test period
• https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/microsoft-flight-simulator-2024-technical-alpha-live-now/658433
  • Please note the TECHNICAL Alpha is an in-development build and not at all representative of the final product. The Technical Alpha build was created with the sole intent to gather telemetry and feedback on online services. The content available for the Technical Alpha is limited in scope. You may also encounter obvious crashes, bugs, and issues. Instructions on where to provide feedback will be shared with those selected to participate.
• it is obviously stripped of various functionality as clearly stated, and that also doesn't mean that whatever functionality that *is* there in this build necessarily matches their latest codebase for the final release

That said, personally I am greatly encouraged by all the improvements I'm seeing and hearing about, especially the flight dynamics and ground handling. The digital twin earth representation along with the revamped lighting engine is also jaw dropping and has advanced by leaps and bounds.

Given that hard drive storage is cheap, we have the option of keeping 2020 while also trying out 2024, while any major bugs get worked out in the initial days. MS/Asobo will also keep supporting and updating 2020 for the foreseeable future (i.e. years). So all in all, no real need here to fret like the OP.
 

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by lwt1971

23 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

The alpha build may even be older than the build they used at the press event 

edit: I was wrong, someone apparently found the build date, it’s from September 25th

The build date doesn't say much though. They could have taken an older alpha version, stripped/prepared if for this alpha test and build it specifically for this technical alpha on 25 september, while a newer beta version or even RC already existed.

Perhaps if someone can find out which build number  the version is we (at least some of us) are now testing we can be a bit more sure.

If we have received a stripped version of the release candidate for this technical alpha I think there is ground for alarm, if it is an older alpha build we really have no clue about the state of MSFS2024 on release. Regardless, it is a huge step forward, either on release date or next year after a couple of SU's.

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by Allard

4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

It's interesting to see that it's always the same people magically appearing to raise the shield to defend any threads where they can find some positivity to echo and boost

Same can be said the other way 😉

Seems appropriate to just leave this here.

20 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Same can be said the other way 😉

Interesting to see that's the only thing you had a (weak) retort for. 

22 minutes ago, Allard said:

The build date doesn't say much though.

It doesn't, besides saying that this is a very old version, likely branched as early as it could be. 

The build date simply indicates the time the build was compiled before going into successful certification and testing.  

A build date of September 25 doesn't mean this was the best build of the sim they had on September 25. 

It means that on September 25 this specific build was deemed ready for the goals of the test, so it was compiled and finalized, before being sent for a last round of testing followed by certification. 

The branch from the "prime" build of the simulator was certainly much earlier, as they had to pick one that was relatively stable, and then strip it from the features that would not be conducive to the specific testing goals or weren't deemed necessary, which required a definitely not-insignificant development time and likely multiple rounds of testing. 

It wouldn't be surprising if the branch from the full sim was done in June or even earlier. Building any client for public consumption takes time and manpower. This is development 101.

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by Abriael

Giving the nonsensical character of the original post, this thread is surprisingly long already.

I am a scenery developer with absolutely zero experience regarding MSFS2020. I have no experience because MSFS2020 "is not ready". After 4 years. I have seen some videos of MSFS2024 so I want to weigh in with important insights I have: It is NOT READY, please, Microsoft, do not publish it. Never! Because it's not going to be ready. 😀

I am getting to love this thread. While I do neither want to defend an alpha build nor disrespect somebody‘s opinion I guess my point is solely that I do not like unwarranted guesstimating. All this crystal ball predictions are like my wife when we want to go to our favorite place for dinner on short notice and she says „I believe they won’t have a table for us“. My take is we don’t know unless we tried and know for sure. So I tell her let me either call that place or we just show up. And only then when they do have really no table then and only then I may be disappointed. But sticking the head in the sand from the very beginning... Well, may be an attitude thing to look at things. My glass is luckily half full. 

3 minutes ago, crimplene said:

Giving the nonsensical character of the original post, this thread is surprisingly long already.

I am a scenery developer with absolutely zero experience regarding MSFS2020. I have no experience because MSFS2020 "is not ready". After 4 years. I have seen some videos of MSFS2024 so I want to weigh in with important insights I have: It is NOT READY, please, Microsoft, do not publish it. Never! Because it's not going to be ready. 😀

Nice summarized.

And I like that its not ready....because....it will grow, get further enhancements, increases stability for lots of people, new addons, better visuals....and and and....

 

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by mpo910

This long thread learns me....

That people don't read release notes

Are reading and believing things never said or written down

Are willing to share different thoughts views, mindsets etc.

Are misunderstand each other

Are willing to express themselves

Have completely different expectations 

Have different experiences

Have different feelings

And and and...

And I think this goes not into a helpfull thread as everything about the title is so far away from and facts....that is is misleading for many people who just read headlines.....(Exactly how big newspapers and marketeers act....a headline that triggers lots of people...is often far away from any fact. 

I find the OP interesting. And I respect his open words and sharing thoughts. 

I dont share them....but I put my thoughts beside.....(Not on top of not below)....

 

27 minutes ago, Abriael said:

It's interesting to see that it's always the same people magically appearing to raise the shield to defend any threads where they can find some negativity to echo and boost, no matter how nonsensical that thread is (and this one is certainly up there). 

We'll hear "It's opinion!" and then you read some factually false statements like "the flight model is the same as MSFS 2020!" Anyone who says that is either being dishonest or simply lacks the tools to distinguish a flight model from the other. The flight model is radically different and was achieved via radically different means. 

Then we'll hear absurd claims of victimhood like "evil people are insulting those who express their concerns!" 

"Insulting" doesn't mean what you think it means. Being told that what you're saying is nonsense is not an insult. It's a comment on your statement that you have made publicly, open for discussion and comment. Being called id*ot is an insult, and that's simply not what's happening here.

Then we get to the extreme with some invoking breaches of "free speech."

Free speech is the right to express one's ideas without being legally prosecuted by the government or law enforcement. It does not extend to anything else. It has nothing to do with bashing a flight simulator on a forum without being told that you're going deep into the nonsense rabbit hole or that the thread makes ludicrous claims based on ludicrous and likely invented credentials.  

Getting pushback for bashing software is not in any shape or form infringing on your free speech, nor does it equate to being insulted or personally attacked. 

You mean like all your posts slamming anyone pointing out the obvious? 

47 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

The alpha build may even be older than the build they used at the press event 

edit: I was wrong, someone apparently found the build date, it’s from September 25th

Though that only says when it was created, not when it was split off from the full sim

There goes the theory that this build was old. 

And from one that is actually in the alpha, Optimisation is excellent , clouds, and the landscape are vastly improved, and the flight model (172) is a lot better (My opinion) And this virtual pilot is looking forward to Nov 19th.

6 minutes ago, RobJC said:

You mean like all your posts slamming anyone pointing out the obvious? 

"obvious" like "the flight model is the same as MSFS2020" which is simply false? 

What other extremely debatable things are you defining "obvious" like we are supposed to take them like fact without disputing them, lest we be accused of "slamming?" 

4 minutes ago, RobJC said:

There goes the theory that this build was old. 

That is not how it works. That built date indicates exactly what you think it doesn't. 

To have a final build date of September 25, the branch from the main build of the simulator must have happened a lot earlier. A client for public consumption doesn't build itself in 5 minutes. It takes several weeks if not months to develop, test, and certify. 

How's this for "obvious?"

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by Abriael

1 minute ago, Abriael said:

"obvious" like "the flight model is the same as MSFS2020" which is simply false? 

What other extremely debatable things are you defining "obvious" like we are supposed to take them like fact without disputing them, lest we be accused of "slamming?" 

I never said anything about the flight model. You just made that up. 

4 minutes ago, RobJC said:

I never said anything about the flight model. You just made that up. 

Nope. I have not. You'll find it stated in factual form in several points of this very thread. And you haven't answered the question. 

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by Abriael