Hello,
this is as small as I can make them:

1 hour ago, Maxis said:

Does it scale the rest of the UI as the Review writer and myself are talking about ? Or is it just the text ?

 

Glad I resisted the urge to whip out my credit card. I can only fly a few hours a week and do not feel like starting with a clean slate. If even the default planes that worked very well in 2020 are now broken I can just imagine the frustration 3rd party developers must feel trying to get their product ready for 2024.

58 minutes ago, AnkH said:

On top all other issues and the only verdict can be: this sim would have needed at least another two, three months with proper beta testing. This is a fact, nothing less.

I rather feel no amount of beta testing would satisfy some people.  If there was a delayed release announcement, the same people would probably criticise that too.  Considering what MS/Asobo gave us with 2020 over four years, I am more than willing to cut them some slack with the 2024 release.

 

 

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

Well, there can be bugs, no question, but if so many planes have bugs o severe you can basically not use them it has NOTHING to do with what you wrote, @Noel. It is just indicative of a premature release. And it is in some way embarassing for them and you can get the impression that they ARE when looking the vids with Jorg, Seb and Co. I mean, four years forums were filled with one big criticism: that they do not properly beta test their stuff prior release and then this. There are bugs in this game that can be recognised by one single time firing it up. You get planes having the most basic stuff bugged to a level they are currently inop. Flying the default C172 with classic gauges? Impossible. PC-24? No avail. Planes where gears do not work, planes where flaps do not work, planes you cant start the engine and and and. On top all other issues and the only verdict can be: this sim would have needed at least another two, three months with proper beta testing. This is a fact, nothing less.

These are valid issues.

OTOH, I've flown exclusively in v2024 since launch + 2d, and I've had many successful flights, from the C172 G1000 up through the C-17 and A400M.

Also with the unofficially compatible FSR500 and A2A Comanche.

And just last night with the the officially compatible CowanSim Bell 222B and the GotFriends F4F Wildcat. Both of which have good flight models and are a pleasure to fly.

So, yes, absolutely there are many problems.

But there are many ways to have successful flights, too.

19 minutes ago, pinepix62 said:

Glad I resisted the urge to whip out my credit card. I can only fly a few hours a week and do not feel like starting with a clean slate. If even the default planes that worked very well in 2020 are now broken I can just imagine the frustration 3rd party developers must feel trying to get their product ready for 2024.

First two days of release - I'll agree it was bad.  Since then I've had an amazing time checking out the new features that make 2024 a big step forward for flight sim.  You are missing out by listening to the 'end of the world' posters. 

40 minutes ago, Noel said:

 nowhere near the amount of change is involved in a new version as we see in 2024.

I dont get why you are insisting on this change aspect. The bugs I was mentioning has nothing to do with change. It is just unfinished and badly beta tested. As it was for MSFS2020, they obviously learned nothing. 

I do have MSFS2020 still installed. But also this has nothing to do with how I perceive MSFS2024. But if I for example bought MSFS2024, besides other reasons of course, to use the PC-24 and then realize that it is just unflyable, should I be happy about it? It is funny how people in the flightsim franchise always accept this stuff, if other games are released in such states, they get torn apart by reviewers and community. Here we have to accept it because the changes were so big? Because they tried hard but were surprised by the amount of people using it? Some simply stuck in the naive ages of flightsimming ten years ago where we must have been grateful for an even buggy release. Time changed, if you like it or not.

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Another clickbait article. I like the GUI - no issues on my ultra widescreen monitor. The control scheme is extremely powerful, once you spend some time familiarizing yourself with how everything is laid out. 

I don't think you understand what clickbait is, it's something fundamentally exaggerated or misleading designed to get you to click on something you'd otherwise ignore

Nothing about the link or the title of the article is clickbait

What you mean is - you disagree with the author

Edited December 2, 20241 yr by EGLD

As a content 2020 user (as well as fsx and p3d) I consider myself VERY lucky that Asobe didn't roll 2024 out as a MANDATORY free update to the earlier sim.

They had the decency to make it a separate release and make it a voluntary experience only. 

🙌

3 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

So, yes, absolutely there are many problems.

But there are many ways to have successful flights, too.

The bugs I have experienced have been pushed way down the list, behind all those features that have made me smile constantly since release date plus two days.  I am still just flying around in awe at how great it all looks. 

I feel just like I did after buying some new hi-fi gear - listening to my familiar tracks again, discovering things in my music I hadn't heard before.  MSFS2024 has been like that by flying over familiar places and discovering something new in all of them.  I have found bugs in scenery and aircraft, so I fly something else or fly over somewhere else.

If it was a year after release, I may place more attention to these issues, but two weeks from release I'm having too much fun to go off the deep end with criticism.  MS/Osobo are obviously passionate about flight sim,  so I can cut them some slack over early release issues.  I would much prefer to be experiencing 2024 than wait for perfection that isn't going to happen.

8 minutes ago, AnkH said:

It is funny how people in the flightsim franchise always accept this stuff, if other games are released in such states, they get torn apart by reviewers and community.

I find it utterly incredible that people are are actually willing to say it's "OK" to release a product as broken as this, as though it's just fine and yeah they'll fix it eventually. It's this type of thinking that causes the result of developers to release Early Access titles so they can use that title to defend a broken game, yet here we are with a game that was NOT labelled Early Access, sold as Version 1.0 so to speak with hundreds of issues and many game breaking ones, but nah it's fine it's ok good job well done.

Only in the software world is this attitude acceptable and to an extent accepted, It beggars belief it really does!

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

Flying the default C172 with classic gauges? Impossible. PC-24? No avail. Planes where gears do not work, planes where flaps do not work, planes you cant start the engine and and and. 

That's why 100 aircraft in the sim is way too many and many core features were not worked on.

The first thing which is needed is an apology to core simmers who were abandoned.

3 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Only in the software world is this attitude acceptable and to an extent accepted, It beggars belief it really does!

That is a true statement, observable throughout IT. I wonder if it is because most people have no clue about IT, programming etc. (including me) and are just happy if it «kinda» works. But honestly, if all branches would work like IT, world would stop functioning in two weeks 🤣 Imagine a car being sold in a state as many software? Or health products? Or even food, having food products with a QA on a IT or software level, people would be poisened all day long. A mystery to me in todays ages.

 

8 minutes ago, MarcG said:

I find it utterly incredible that people are are actually willing to say it's "OK" to release a product as broken as this, as though it's just fine and yeah they'll fix it eventually. It's this type of thinking that causes the result of developers to release Early Access titles so they can use that title to defend a broken game, yet here we are with a game that was NOT labelled Early Access, sold as Version 1.0 so to speak with hundreds of issues and many game breaking ones, but nah it's fine it's ok good job well done.

Only in the software world is this attitude acceptable and to an extent accepted, It beggars belief it really does!

 

some people have paid £200 for something that is simply not fit for release, just because it looks pretty and some people are satisfied that the way they use the sim isn't affected by the numerous problems it has, doesn't change the simple fact that it is not fit for release

I'm pretty confident it will be a much more robust platform with most bugs ironed out in a few months, but that doesn't change the terrible state it's been released in as of today, when Microsoft are charging full price

For those who feel that the quality of the initial release is unacceptable, too many bugs, etc... don't buy it until the state is better (be it weeks/months from now), or don't buy it ever. Nobody is forcing a gun to anyone's head to buy it early. Waiting until the quality/stability is better is no different from waiting on MS/Asobo to do a delayed release after X months 🙂

And re: the pre-release buyers now indignant at the current quality level, well such is the risk you take with pre-release purchases of large complex software systems such as these.. at least hopefully the refund works.

To those indignant that there are various others who're perfectly ok with current state of bugs and still enjoying the sim and its advancements despite the bugs... well, deal with it 🤷‍♂️
 

Edited December 2, 20241 yr by lwt1971

8 minutes ago, MarcG said:

I find it utterly incredible that people are are actually willing to say it's "OK" to release a product as broken as this,

Well, 4 years ago your opinion was the opposite. Take a look at your response at page 2 of the thread @Noel linked to earlier. "MSFS should have been delayed????????", your answer was a firm "No" 😉