MSFS2024 is a disaster? Wow. I must be doing something wrong. 

59 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Then came along Cities II and for over 1 year it's been a disaster. Still ongoing. The similarities are there. 

Except 2024 has been out for only two months and has far more features and stability than its predecessor did, time aligned.

 

As for where the sim is headed, I'd say in a very good direction if SU1 beta is any indication.

5 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

MSFS2024 reminds me a little of Cities II. Cities 1 was THE game, brilliant, especially with all the mods. Then came along Cities II and for over 1 year it's been a disaster. Still ongoing. The similarities are there. 

 

Anyway, CIV VII is out soon 😄 I wonder if that's in a beta state when released. Nothing would surprise me anymore. 

Cities II was a train wreck! Let’s hope CIV7 is not 😀 I might take a few weeks/months off simming soon 😉

On 1/26/2025 at 9:23 AM, Rusty Spanner said:

I think consumerism has reached the point where people will buy all sorts of over-hyped stuff as long as its shiny and new and then convince themselves it is fantastic.

I call it the Cult of the Compliant Consumer

Selling tat is nothing new.

There was probably a caveman who traded a nice antelope leg for the "Super Spear MK II" that fell to bits the first time they threw it.

or this... Panama Cigars - Carlos Fandango Wheels

 

17 minutes ago, flyingscampi said:

Selling tat is nothing new.

There was probably a caveman who traded a nice antelope leg for the "Super Spear MK II" that fell to bits the first time they threw it.

or this... Panama Cigars - Carlos Fandango Wheels

 

Lol, I remember Carlos Fandango being a general turn of phrase indicate 'Flash with little substance' or 'all show no go' 🤣

On 1/23/2025 at 9:10 PM, robert young said:

I can't really see any reason why FS2024 needed to be a separate sim, rather than making continued improvements to FS2020.

Exactly....the new sim logic didn't seem to work well with xp11 vs xp12 (with more users sticking with the old version), and splitting the user base is a headache for developers as well trying to maintain 2 compatible versions of their product.

DCS update model works well, and Asobo could have released a beta (a real beta) in 2024 and then upgraded everyone once a  build was stable.

While I will continue with MSFS2024, I don't think that MS/Asobo has the best "consumer" intentions going forward. MSFS2024 seems like a cash grab with many core issues unresolved (carried over from MSFS2020) and even more unreliable server issues.

21 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

with many core issues unresolved (carried over from MSFS2020)

This is the most infuriating part about it. 

On 1/24/2025 at 3:10 AM, robert young said:

I can't really see any reason why FS2024 needed to be a separate sim, rather than making continued improvements to FS2020

Out of curiosity, did you feel the same way in the old days? For instance, could or should FS 2004 have never existed, because it would have been better to just improve FS 2002? Back then we got a new release every two years. Why are people now complaining about a new sim after four years?

For all those insisting that 2024 should not (and need not) have been a new sim, can you please explain how it practically should have been done? (ref: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/662630-where-is-microsoft-heading/page/3/#findComment-5345291) 

Whether paid update to 2020 or not, do you see a way it could be implemented as a single or multiple set of add-ons without needing multiple sets of backends and cloud services? Or are you expecting all these 2024 features and new capabilities to be done for free as a mandatory update to 2020?
 

IMO improvements to the flight planner, atc, and scenery (such as roads & cars or fixing bridges, etc) was a good start, but MS could not justify charging $70 for those improvements. They should not have promised a 10 year project which I bought as a premium product. Then, I still had to spend plenty of $$$ on a new computer and add-ons. How quickly people forget! It's not like the marketplace is full of free add-ons.

On 1/24/2025 at 2:10 AM, robert young said:

That's a good observation. I'm (also) not so concerned about bugs as deliberate design decisions which are senseless or made for the sake of change without any discernable purpose. To wit:

1) Control System: Unnecessary over-complication and unreliable, and worse still for example, sensitivities menu no longer has moving sliders for easy identification of each controller.

2) Withdrawal of quick reload/re-sync in aircraft edit mode which (whatever Asobo people say) is a disaster for modders, designers and livery makers.

3) An even worse SDK than before, festooned with very poor explanations, plus what can only be described as an act of hostility to said modders and designers by removal of de-encrypted config files after many decades of encouragement to those wishing to improve or enhance the sim, removing what was a thriving symbiotic relationship between MS and third parties.

4) Pointless UI changes which to my eyes are mostly a step backwards and having no perceivable advantage.

5) A total lack of core improvements to ATC, traffic and other BASIC attributes which would properly have improved the sim.

6) Abandonment of VR users (even though I am not one I feel their frustration).

7) An obvious lack of work checking before release and a worsening of feedback/customer communication which might have significantly squashed many bugs or flaws.

8. The pursuit of career mode at the expense of core sim improvements (like ATC etc).

9. The promised ease of porting FS2020 aircraft over to FS2024 has so far proven to be extremely unreliable.

Having said that I acknowledge that scenery wise there have been some very good improvements, though unless you have an HDR monitor and/or addon shaders the images are over-saturated and the cockpits even darker than before in relation to sky and clouds. I can't really see any reason why FS2024 needed to be a separate sim, rather than making continued improvements to FS2020. The streaming situation could have been addressed by offering options to the user. Options to me are the cornerstone of any decent sim software.

All very good points, thank you for sharing.
 

If you knew how many folks, you me and all the others, that have a stake in MSFS 2024 then all this poppycock talk would cease. 👀

 

Edited January 27, 20251 yr by Sky_Pilot071

13 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Nah, that sounds like , as you say,  'POPPYCOCK'.  Either that or MS don't know what the min/recommended and ideal specs for their programs actually are and that of course is very unlikely. What you are proffering is that if someone  is running recommended specs in 2020, and having "at least decent performance"  (which they most likely are) then without needing to upgrade they would now be running on min specs for 2024 (ignoring the fact that a CPU upgrade would be required to actually meet that min spec) and they "should have at least decent performance in v2024". Sorry but I don't subscribe to that theory. Min specs are always bad for user experience and if you have to dial things back in 2024 where you didn't in 2020, it is not the same experience is it?  But hey, I dont have the program so can't reasonably make a comment about that except I would have thought there would have been plenty of hoopla if FS 2024 recommended specs were the same as 2020's!! 

In any case my comment was primarily related to address the access issue which occurs because many users around the world simply can't meet the recommended streaming speeds let alone the ideal speeds, on a consistent basis if at all, and my point was that this may have affected MS2024 uptake. To write that off by simply stating that MS2020 is ALSO a streaming game suggests you severely misunderstand the different approach now being taken in FS 2024. But then, you did say "a BUNCH of highly experienced simmers right here in AvSim... clearly have no idea what's going on upstream of their computer..." 😄.

I'm not sure how you can speak so confidently about a product you don't even own and haven't used...?

You call it a "theory" when I (and many others) who actually use v2024 are getting at least as good an experience as we did with v2020 ON THE SAME HARDWARE...?

And again, my system is SIX YEARS OLD, and was a Mid Range system when I bought it. So, not sure what you're on about...?

If v2024 wasn't a fundamentally better experience than v2020, I'd still be on v2020, right?

///

In re your primary intent of "addressing the access issue" is something that simply doesn't resonate with the vast majority of actual users. Do you REALLY think Microsoft is really that clueless in re their user base...? 🤣

They track EVERYTHING.

///

And, um, nope on my alleged misunderstanding in re the different degrees of streaming. I do this stuff for a living, so let's stop that nonsense right there. 🙂

3 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

If you knew how many folks, you me and all the others, that have a stake in MSFS 2024 then all this poppycock talk would cease. 👀

 

I quite agree.

It doesn't surprise anyone that with the way these two forums are bundled together the rapid degeneration into attack posts on posts that are otherwise offering a respectful opinion directly related to the OP's topic, has become endemic.   

I have opined on this because I am one of the possible reasons (among many others)  why the uptake in MS2024 may not be as good as everyone expected because I am one of those users who have not taken up 2024. And that's valid and on topic. But you know what? Who cares? The days of reasoned argument on this forum appear to be well over. I wouldn't be the first person wondering if contributing to this forum is worth the angst. 

Cheers

Terry

 

8 hours ago, Rimshot said:

Out of curiosity, did you feel the same way in the old days? For instance, could or should FS 2004 have never existed, because it would have been better to just improve FS 2002? Back then we got a new release every two years. Why are people now complaining about a new sim after four years?

Good point. I think the situation then was somewhat different. But if you take the difference between the biggest leaps - say between FS2002 and FSX - there was some radical progress in many areas.

I acknowledge that the biggest problem for FS2002 onwards is where all that data is going to be stored and I can see that the streaming solution might be the best one, but only provided the server performance is first class, which it clearly isn't.

I'm sceptical about how a modder or developer is going to be able to create something innovative, particularly new aircraft, without either falling back to FS2002 standards or getting their heads around encryption and what is by common agreement a very poor SDK.

De-encryption of default cfg files should have been the very first concession but it still hasn't happened. This is unprecedented going back perhaps as far as FS98 or even earlier. But the biggest disappointment is in-house ATC and traffic. Even FSX had quite a revolutionary ATC system which, though crude by today's potential, did work and had some reasonably decent and various default voices. And weather back then had three distinct layers of cumulus, stratus and cirrus which was pretty good for its time.

And bespoke traffic was very easy to create using excellent tools at the time.