11 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

Very frustrating. Good thing we all kept our 2020 install, yeah?

Only frustrating for those with no patience at all.  I was up and running 24 hours after release and I can say my life was not negatively affected by not flying in the sim for 24hours.  I am very much enjoying exploring the world in the 2024 and experiencing the improved features.

Perhaps its the new 'woke' world we live in, where the world ends for some when their favourite toy doesn't work for a day.

Of course they will listen.
But not if we write here in AVSIM that we will return to MSFS2020 until the problems are solved.
Microsoft will only really listen if we all do a Refund from the deployment like I did.
The smell of dollars is what MIcrosoft cares about most!

From my first 5 days using 2024 - I have not had a lot of time because of other commitments - the platform seems quite sound but as others have said there are a good deal of things to address. I am confident it will develop into the next best platform for flight simulation but, it is going to take a good deal of time, maybe a year.  It seems that they could not make all of the deadlines: one of their developers commented on their forum that the ability to download assets did not make the deadline and will come hopefully before Christmas. So I suspect there are a good number of things they wanted to do but could not get to. I do not think it is likely they forgot WASM debugging tools; more likely in the push to release they did not have time to include it.

They listened well in the last 4 years and a lot was changed and added because of user requests; I think it will be the same this time. I just think it is going to take time. 

For me, I expected this, am happy to have uninstalled 2020, and am enjoying learning the new platform and exploring a little in the 172.

32 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

You cannot select which server delivers content in-game. The selectable server is only for multiplayer - nothing else. The content delivery server(s) are automatically chosen based on the geographic location of your internet connection. The only way to change that is to use a VPN that makes your internet connection appear to be in another geographic location.  

Not true. You turn on multiplayer, switch servers, and then turn MP back off  if you don't use it, and the MSFS server stays on what you set it to. I did this, and it works fine. 

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by Bobsk8

1 minute ago, Cognita said:

From my first 5 days using 2024 - I have not had a lot of time because of other commitments - the platform seems quite sound but as others have said there are a good deal of things to address. I am confident it will develop into the next best platform for flight simulation but, it is going to take a good deal of time, maybe a year.  It seems that they could not make all of the deadlines: one of their developers commented on their forum that the ability to download assets did not make the deadline and will come hopefully before Christmas. So I suspect there are a good number of things they wanted to do but could not get to. I do not think it is likely they forgot WASM debugging tools; more likely in the push to release they did not have time to include it.

They listened well in the last 4 years and a lot was changed and added because of user requests; I think it will be the same this time. I just think it is going to take time. 

For me, I expected this, am happy to have uninstalled 2020, and am enjoying learning the new platform and exploring a little in the 172.

Well looking on the bright side of a bad decision is always good, I guess. 

5 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I suspect the whole thing is like that because 2024 was not built on top of "up to date" 2020 but by modifying original base code. Therefore all 2020 "improvement" are pretty much lost at the moment. We have 2020 sim version 2 with supposedly enhance based. While I understand some frustration there are things that much better (even with all bugs) comparing with original 2020 release. If Asobo continue support 2024 with the same passion I suspect improvement will be coming up in much faster pace than with 2020.

Not sure about the old codebase, but it sure feels like some already ironed out flaws are back. It will be fixed some day, but given how many bug reports with the "bug logged" tag are still open for '2020, I'm not so optimistic with regards to Asobo's passion. Their passion is clearly reigned in by a strict development plan, so a lot of manpower is tied up with further development, and the history of '2020 shows that it takes 3 to 6 months for many shortcomings to get acknowledged and depending on the associated amount of work many more months until they are fixed. I reckoned a few weeks until I jump onto the '24 train, but at the moment I think it will be months. Not a bad thing per se, as '2020 still has a lot to offer and my system will need an upgrade anyway, so maybe a RTX 5......

I get it.  It's just like 2020.  November 19 wasn't really "release date"; it was just the beginning of "Beta Testing Year."

The idea is you just keep doing releases like these until people stop actually expecting a working sim--then everyone is "grateful" for what they have instead of expecting what they paid for...a working sim.

Like many others, I won't be coming along this time.  I just see a lot of frustration like we had with 2020 but no one seems able to explain what the real advantages are to be gained from going through the considerable time and trouble for just another sim that lacks the basic features that FSX had in 2006.

Not again...never again.

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by TASCHMANN

26 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Of course they will, why wouldn't they?

Money, no company is going to operate a large development team with negative revenue.  There are clearly many here trying to make a positive spin on MSFS 2024, but those folks are not the majority.  Steam rating and MS own game shop have MSFS 2024 about as poorly rated as possible.

Being tied to server loads to play a game would be fine IF product owner can deliver.  What I see is failure in a business based around technology that can’t be delivered reliably.  But because MS believe the business plan has the potential for HUGE profits, they persist with the technology that can’t meet the customer needs.  The irony is that “reducing” loads means less users/customers … catch-22.

Not many of us have the capacity to house 1000TB or more of world data, so the compromise is server delivery and local cache.  If I were to bet on this technology, I would bet on availability of 1000TB local storage to the average customer will be reached before servers and bandwidth can’t meet demands.

3 hours ago, Rocky_53 said:

Hmm, I'm rather sad this week, like everyone else, I've been looking forward to 2024 being released and getting stuck into exploring this exciting new sim.

This sums up how I’m feeling about this, kinda sad and disappointed.  It’s like wishing for a toy for Xmas, getting it, then finding out it doesn’t actually work.

It’s not just the cloud issues, or the inability for anyone to do repaints, but really core things like the promised backward compatibility we were mislead about, and included aircraft just not working in several cases.  

I expected to be able to port my plethora of payware airports over, now it’s looking like many will require dev time and therefore an upgrade fee.  I’ll have to thin out my payware airport roster as I’m not paying a fee for all of them.

If I look on the bright side, some of the new aircraft are quite nice (C-17 for example).  I’ll spend some time playing around with this but I definitely see myself leaving 2020 installed for some time to come.

9 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Not true. You turn on multiplayer, switch servers, and then turn MP back off  if you don't use it, and the MSFS server stays on what you set it to. I did this, and it works fine. 

I have not yet done a detailed network analysis of 2024 as I have done with 2020, but I doubt that anything has changed in this regard. There is not “a” server. MSFS uses many different servers for different functions.

In 2020, when you are fully connected online MSFS will be interacting with multiple servers that provide different elements of the game. Multiplayer, live weather, ai traffic, streaming scenery, login and authentication - all come from different discrete servers, many in different data centers with unique TCP/IP addresses. The only way to see which specific connections are in use, and where the servers are physically located, is to use a network analysis tool. (I use CurrPorts).

In 2020, when the game is fully online, the sim establishes and maintains between 6 to as many 12 discrete TCP/IP connections to different servers - some with a lot of data flow, some with less. You can easily tell which connection is providing scenery, as it will have a continuous flow of incoming packets.

I have changed the selectable (multiplayer) server option while monitoring network traffic, and only one of the many TCP/IP connections changes. I have every reason to think that 2024 acts exactly the same way, if not more so. 

Asobe = Icarus. They won't be told... they need to fail first. 

38 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Not true. You turn on multiplayer, switch servers, and then turn MP back off  if you don't use it, and the MSFS server stays on what you set it to. I did this, and it works fine.

I suspect all you are switching is the multi-player server. 

34 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

November 19 wasn't really "release date"; it was just the beginning of "Beta Testing Year."

This seems exactly how Jorg Neumann operates, although I don't get the impression that his intent has anything to do with what you are hinting at in the rest of your post, but more with his assessment of the limitations of pre-release beta testing and the attention to detail the testers show compared to the size of the project. That is debatable, and in my opinion more a question of the selection of beta testers than the general suitability of a beta test. But the man has the say...

 

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by Tom_L

48 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Being tied to server loads to play a game would be fine IF product owner can deliver.  What I see is failure in a business based around technology that can’t be delivered reliably.  But because MS believe the business plan has the potential for HUGE profits, they persist with the technology that can’t meet the customer needs.  The irony is that “reducing” loads means less

You are correct and yet wrong at the same time. 

The technology is ready, but providing enough overhead for peak demands is expensive. 

And the pencil pushing accountants will reign in every product manager who asks for more than the projected minimum capacity needed. 

It's probably also a problem of having subdivisions and communication channels.

 

The exact same thing happened to PMDG when the 737 was released. Download Server capacity was underestimated, or rather they tried to save money on the wrong end. 

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by Farlis

24 minutes ago, Cognita said:

I suspect all you are switching is the multi-player server. 

You may be correct, but why did my FPS immediately jump up to previous levels, from a 25-30% loss before I changed servers?