Yeah, these posts are pointless. If you want to just gripe about it, cool, but this doesn't add any value. 

2024 is already vastly improved from launch day, and I for one can't go back to 2020. Others may disagree, and choose to use another sim. I do not question or criticize anyone's choice - play whatever makes you happy. 

2024 is a massive leap forward in every way, and while it may take time to get some bugs sorted, it is already in FAR better state than 2020 on it's launch (remember the default planes from 2020 launch?). 

Some people just like to whine and gripe. 

1 hour ago, Cognita said:

Yea, I actually think it is good people understand what happened because I will not be shocked if a similar weak link causes similar problems in the future. I am not sure if the Alpha was helpful -- maybe the launch would have been even worse with a longer recovery time had they not done it -- but it seems clear their testing parameters were not robust enough. That is an issue for the team that established the verification protocols. To be honest, given the numbers Jorg has shared over the last year and the hype they tried to build for the launch, I am surprised that the protocol called for a test of only 200,000 simultaneous connections.

However, it is not that the testing team is not capable or completely negligent. The number of users and the number of simultaneous connections are very different things and maybe there have never been 200,000 people playing MSFS at the same time; or what would be even more rare, 200,000 people who make an almost simultaneous request to play, and this particularly relevant as this seems to be an authorization-validation request process that was overwhelmed and failed.  Whoever wrote the testing protocol probably looked at the number of connections during the 2020 launch, the highest and average number over the past 4 years, likely did a contrast test with other similar titles, and decided a test of 200,000 should be adequate. What happened it seems is that a much, much higher number actually tried to launch the game at about the same time and that authorization process was overwhelmed denying people access either to the sim or to certain assets in the sim (likely this is the process that determines if you have standard, deluxe or premium deluxe and hence what assets you get access to).  It is not necessarily a hardware error, not connected to MS server capacity, but that particular program or its cache just was not robust enough to handle demand.

Now the bad news is that resulted in a terrible launch experience and terrible press for Asobo and MS and I am all but absolutely certain that some people have been called into dreadful pressure-laden meetings to explain and those human beings feel horrible. It is not pleasant fall out and their excitement for the launch is of overshadowed by what happened, just as it is for us; but for them this is their career and livelihoods. So I have measure of compassion. 

The good news is that it seems flight simulation may be growing, with increasing numbers, confirming what we have heard over the past 4 years, that many more people are using MSFS now than in 2020. And that bodes well for our hobby.

We'll never know how much that Tech Alpha helped but they scheduled it not too long after the preview event with the influencers. And at that event one of the youtubers mentioned that the router at the event was overwhelmed, and nobody could even launch the game at the start. But one router being overwhelmed is very different from what we witnessed. They were mentioning that a service was slammed and that it just became unresponsive, so it sounded like a single point of failure. Testing for 200k connections does seem too little, but hindsight is always 20/20. One thing I did notice, though. It appeared on day one that even if you made it through installing the sim, if you exited and tried to get back in you hit the same bottleneck. That is an architecture problem. They definitely addressed that problem late on day one, because yesterday I was able to load up multiple times without issue. Others trying to install the sim were hitting the queue again. So not partitioning the two groups (or at least partitioning critical services) was a mistake. But this was a HUGE launch so stuff happens! And you are right. This bodes well for the hobby. We probably added a lot more users, which is great. 

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/02/21/helldivers-2s-biggest-battle-continues-to-be-servers-disconnects-login-errors/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/21/new-report-says-sonys-concord-cost-400-million-to-make/

 

This is fun!

At least you proved you know how to search. More than the rest of your arguments lol. 

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

Is for me.

 

Isnt it a bit early for a post-mort? Would wait at least a couple weeks 

I obviously didn't think so. 

1 hour ago, JonathanC said:

Yeah, these posts are pointless. If you want to just gripe about it, cool, but this doesn't add any value. 

2024 is already vastly improved from launch day, and I for one can't go back to 2020. Others may disagree, and choose to use another sim. I do not question or criticize anyone's choice - play whatever makes you happy. 

2024 is a massive leap forward in every way, and while it may take time to get some bugs sorted, it is already in FAR better state than 2020 on it's launch (remember the default planes from 2020 launch?). 

Some people just like to whine and gripe. 

Nobody is forcing you to read it or respond. Move along. 

16 minutes ago, RobJC said:

At least you proved you know how to search. More than the rest of your arguments lol. 

Well you've proved once again that you know how to shoot off at the mouth lol

21 minutes ago, RobJC said:

Nobody is forcing you to read it or respond. Move along. 

Nah, you can't force me to do this, just like I can't force you to stop! It's a public forum and I am as entitled to gripe about your griping, as you are to gripe about 2024. 

3 hours ago, RobJC said:

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is going to go down as one of the worst launches in gaming history, and I am hard pressed to think of one worse in the past 5 years. How did the largest software company in the world get this one so wrong? Microsoft has one of the largest cloud infrastructures in the world. How could they not have been prepared for a cloud product? And even if we look past the server issues, so many other aspects of this sim are broken. I have only tried a few planes, and some have no power, others have gear that doesn’t work, and the list just goes on and on. And these are but the initial glance issues. As we progress through testing over the next few days the list of broken issues is sure to mushroom. 

Clearly Microsoft/Asobo have no quality assurance team working on this project. Or, if they do, nobody is listening to them. There’s also the fact that many issues resolved in 2020 are back in 2024. That means the months and years we waited for certain issues to be resolved in 2020 was wasted on 2024, but nobody merged those changes into the new repositories. That is a colossal screw up. 

Clearly MSFS 2024 was rushed to market way early. Why? Did some suits up the food chain throw out a date and decide that’s the date we launch, regardless? And who decided against an open beta? That lesson was learned in 2020 but forgotten when it mattered. 

I would have expected better from Microsoft, but maybe they left much of the testing to Asobo, and it bit them. I suspect that Microsoft is going to take a much more hands on approach with this project moving forward, but who knows. 

You’ve summed things up pretty well, good post.

You mentioned quality assurance- this is one of the biggest worries for me, something is not right - and frankly it hasn’t been for some time now, again and again products are released broken, or they fix something and break other aspects of the game, what is going on here?

 

the whole thing is very embarrassing for MS and Asobo, and for the genre as a whole.

it’s now Day 3 and I’ve spawned at fort lauderdale, my 172 has incomplete textures and AI traffic is moving 50feet above the ground.

this is going to one turbulent flight - it’s best we buckle up 

oh and btw - you’ve unleashed the apologist gamer here 😉😀

Same thing over and over again, post after post... This is really getting tiring. The ultimate example of a first-world problem... In the end, it's just a flight sim, and you have the options of getting a refund or waiting for things to improve, while continuing to enjoy MSFS2020 in the meantime.

Anyway, it is what it is, it's a forum after all, I just wish I knew before opening them which threads will end up being just another angry rant.

Edited November 21, 20241 yr by Turpentine

4 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Isnt it a bit early for a post-mort? Would wait at least a couple weeks

Sure, but I don’t think these issues are going to be fixed in a couple of weeks or even months:

1.  Solid wall of Bridges

2.  Melted buildings (the faster on moves the worse it is)

3.  Docks and objects under water

4.  Short LOD radius

5.  Ships moving over land and road traffic floating 

6.  Trees in objects/building

4 years have past and they’re still there.  Not concerned about first day usage issues and server loads … that will drop as more users drop out … but again, how is fewer users good for MSFS 2024 long term?

I get that we have to use our “blind eye” to accept the visual issues, however, 2024 some 24 years later and the “blind eye” is still required/essential. 😉

Edited November 21, 20241 yr by CO2Neutral

5 hours ago, tpete61 said:

Another post beating the same old topic to death!

Unfortunately @RobJC needs to make these posts because he was the most vocal prophet of doom pre-launch and needs to boost the idea that the product is a disaster now.

During the tech alpha, he dismissed MS/Asobo’s repeated statements that it was just a telemetry test build as lies, and repeatedly said no way, it must be pretty much the final build as it’s close to launch and they wouldn’t just do a telemetry build, and it’s terrible so the final product is going to be terrible. He confidently and repeatedly said the launch should be delayed for several months.

Yes, launch day was a shambles, at least the first 12 hours. But now the server issues are being worked through, and people are getting over the initial bindings slog, the feedback is shifting to the many and significant improvements, and the  threads are showing more and more thumbs up for the product, even in its launch form.

He was SO adamant MS/Asobo were lying and the tech alpha proved the launch product would be a disaster, I noted he actually seemed emotionally invested in it being a failure. I believe I was right about that, and this post is part of his work to just not have to say ‘OK, maybe that was just a telemetry test and the launch product, once actually available, is much better’.

9 hours ago, RobJC said:

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. 

And the Pot calls the Kettle, Black.  What I said it's nonsense to decide in your words, "so many other aspects of this sim are broken..." when server demand is likely playing a huge role in what appear to be broken aspects when in fact those broken aspects are very likely intimately tied to fully functional streaming.  And that doesn't happen when there is massive demand beyond the capacity to deliver.  And moreover as I said once all of that demand subsides enough or new server capacity is added to cope with this transient massive increase in new demand, THEN decide what's really broken in any big way.