Had another long flight today and no crashes or strange behavior. I am happy that Asobo are getting things sorted out, but it has been a rough journey. It is easy to say that it's a beta, so there will be bugs, but MSFS 2024 wasn't released as a beta. The problem that I have with something this bug ridden at launch is it really messes up the learning process. Because when something goes wrong, I am not completely sure if I did something wrong or it was a bug? At some point I just start assuming it is a bug, but that isn't great either. It could just be me. How do I know for sure? In my old age, maybe I am just expecting a lot more than Asobo can deliver. My other primary flight sim is Falcon BMS, and the difference in execution is night and day. I have never had a situation in Falcon BMS where the developers uploaded the wrong version. I mean, seriously? The sim doesn't crash after an update just trying to load it. This is a 100% volunteer group, and they rarely have bugs. I haven't found one yet, but that isn't to say bugs don't occur. But when I fire up Falcon BMS it just works. Every time. Do they have superhuman testers? I don't think so. I think the difference is that the people testing Falcon BMS actually understand at a very deep level how the systems in an F-16 are supposed to work. These are in many cases former F-16 pilots. Where are the real-world pilots testing MSFS 2024 before we get our hands on it? Assuming there are testers working on the MSFS 2024 project (I think there must be, but see no evidence of it), I am going to give them a solid "F" for the job they are doing. The volunteer testers on the Falcon BMS project are going to get an "A+". 

Also, where are the manuals? Why do I have to go to YouTube to learn about everything? This is another area where Falcon BMS puts MSFS 2020/2024 to shame. And all the documents in Falcon BMS are created by...volunteers. Here is a sampling of the docs included with Falcon BMS...

1. "Welcome" doc to help you get oriented. It tells you a bit about the history of the project and lays out a solid plan to get you up to speed with this thing. 
2. "User Manual", covering installation, configuration, User Interface, Tactical Engagement, Campaigns, Views, Multiplayer, etc.
3. "Device Setup Guide" which is an introduction guide to setup all the HOTAS files provided in the BMS installation.
4. "Comms-Nav-book" which covers how to Communicate and Navigate in the Falcon world; how to use BMS charts.
5. "Airport Charts + AIP" which cover all charts + AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) for KTO (Korea).
6. So many other docs, including Technical Manual, Threat Guide, Naval Ops, Cockpit Guide, Checklists, Training Manuals, and tons more. 

I know Fenix and PMDG (and some other third-party devs) include docs, but Asobo barely does anything in this department. I know, game vs sim, but I guess I am expecting more. When you provide minimal to zero documentation, I think what you are really saying is you don't really know what you are building, or you have no confidence that what you built is going to be good enough. I do like the career portion of MSFS 2024, but we need more documents on each default aircraft. 

I understand that in many ways MSFS is geared towards gamers, but I think we are being shortchanged here. Did I mention that you can buy Falcon 4 off Steam for $5 and download Falcon BMS for free? Go check it out and tell me something isn't wrong with this picture. 

MSFS and Falcon BMS are different in a lot of ways. I get that. Falcon BMS is geared mostly towards the F-16 and only focuses on limited theaters, but the simulation of the F-16 is every bit as detailed as anything Fenix or PMDG has on offer. And you get to blow stuff up. But my point of all this is there is a team of volunteers who are able to put out releases of a product that is every bit as complex as MSFS, and they aren't totally dysfunctional.  As a community we really need to demand better. 

I do see progress being made with MSFS 2024. It is getting there, albeit slowly. And I do believe that there will be a bright future, assuming we don't get the "MS Flight" treatment down the road. But the way this product is being built and tested is just idiotic. Maybe I am spoiled because I see how a project is supposed to be run. In any case, we need better testers. Real pilots. For every plane. And don't tell me they have them. Because if they do, they are not listening to them. Falcon BMS is every bit as complex, and yet volunteers are able to deliver solid releases every time. Gamers have been accepting a lot of garbage for way too long. We expect things to crash, and the developers are more than willing to oblige. We deserve better! 

Again, I like what I am seeing with MSFS 2024. I really do. It was obviously released way too early, but again, things are getting better with each release. It is a huge leap forward in a lot of ways. But I think we all deserve a better customer experience. We shouldn't just accept this. We need to be more vocal with Asobo the next time they do something boneheaded like push an old release on us. That was a classic, but was anyone really shocked? 

Progress is being made. This is going to be a great platform for years to come. I can see it. It probably needs another year, but I am warming up to it! 

Rob

P.S. I am not trying to trigger you. If I am, I don't mean to! Seriously. I am sorry if reading this post does that to you. Don't be upset. I don't think I am pointing out anything that we all don't already know. Was it released way too early? Yes. Does it still have serious bugs 5 months after release? Yes. Is testing doing a bang-up job? No. And the excuse that this is hard, and those other projects are way easier to develop just doesn't hold water. If volunteers can do a great job, I don't see how a company with massive resources can't get it done. Even LR does a WAY BETTER JOB releasing software. We all know that. 

 

 

 

Thank you for your Falcon BMS advertising feature.🫡

It was interesting for a couple of days, then I decided to uninstall it. 😀

Getting back to MSFS 2024, I regularly fly 13+ hour long haul flight in the A350 with no problems at all.

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

Had another long flight today and no crashes or strange behavior. I am happy that Asobo are getting things sorted out, but it has been a rough journey. It is easy to say that it's a beta, so there will be bugs, but MSFS 2024 wasn't released as a beta. The problem that I have with something this bug ridden at launch is it really messes up the learning process. Because when something goes wrong, I am not completely sure if I did something wrong or it was a bug? At some point I just start assuming it is a bug, but that isn't great either. It could just be me. How do I know for sure? In my old age, maybe I am just expecting a lot more than Asobo can deliver. My other primary flight sim is Falcon BMS, and the difference in execution is night and day. I have never had a situation in Falcon BMS where the developers uploaded the wrong version. I mean, seriously? The sim doesn't crash after an update just trying to load it. This is a 100% volunteer group, and they rarely have bugs. I haven't found one yet, but that isn't to say bugs don't occur. But when I fire up Falcon BMS it just works. Every time. Do they have superhuman testers? I don't think so. I think the difference is that the people testing Falcon BMS actually understand at a very deep level how the systems in an F-16 are supposed to work. These are in many cases former F-16 pilots. Where are the real-world pilots testing MSFS 2024 before we get our hands on it? Assuming there are testers working on the MSFS 2024 project (I think there must be, but see no evidence of it), I am going to give them a solid "F" for the job they are doing. The volunteer testers on the Falcon BMS project are going to get an "A+". 

Also, where are the manuals? Why do I have to go to YouTube to learn about everything? This is another area where Falcon BMS puts MSFS 2020/2024 to shame. And all the documents in Falcon BMS are created by...volunteers. Here is a sampling of the docs included with Falcon BMS...

1. "Welcome" doc to help you get oriented. It tells you a bit about the history of the project and lays out a solid plan to get you up to speed with this thing. 
2. "User Manual", covering installation, configuration, User Interface, Tactical Engagement, Campaigns, Views, Multiplayer, etc.
3. "Device Setup Guide" which is an introduction guide to setup all the HOTAS files provided in the BMS installation.
4. "Comms-Nav-book" which covers how to Communicate and Navigate in the Falcon world; how to use BMS charts.
5. "Airport Charts + AIP" which cover all charts + AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) for KTO (Korea).
6. So many other docs, including Technical Manual, Threat Guide, Naval Ops, Cockpit Guide, Checklists, Training Manuals, and tons more. 

I know Fenix and PMDG (and some other third-party devs) include docs, but Asobo barely does anything in this department. I know, game vs sim, but I guess I am expecting more. When you provide minimal to zero documentation, I think what you are really saying is you don't really know what you are building, or you have no confidence that what you built is going to be good enough. I do like the career portion of MSFS 2024, but we need more documents on each default aircraft. 

I understand that in many ways MSFS is geared towards gamers, but I think we are being shortchanged here. Did I mention that you can buy Falcon 4 off Steam for $5 and download Falcon BMS for free? Go check it out and tell me something isn't wrong with this picture. 

MSFS and Falcon BMS are different in a lot of ways. I get that. Falcon BMS is geared mostly towards the F-16 and only focuses on limited theaters, but the simulation of the F-16 is every bit as detailed as anything Fenix or PMDG has on offer. And you get to blow stuff up. But my point of all this is there is a team of volunteers who are able to put out releases of a product that is every bit as complex as MSFS, and they aren't totally dysfunctional.  As a community we really need to demand better. 

I do see progress being made with MSFS 2024. It is getting there, albeit slowly. And I do believe that there will be a bright future, assuming we don't get the "MS Flight" treatment down the road. But the way this product is being built and tested is just idiotic. Maybe I am spoiled because I see how a project is supposed to be run. In any case, we need better testers. Real pilots. For every plane. And don't tell me they have them. Because if they do, they are not listening to them. Falcon BMS is every bit as complex, and yet volunteers are able to deliver solid releases every time. Gamers have been accepting a lot of garbage for way too long. We expect things to crash, and the developers are more than willing to oblige. We deserve better! 

Again, I like what I am seeing with MSFS 2024. I really do. It was obviously released way too early, but again, things are getting better with each release. It is a huge leap forward in a lot of ways. But I think we all deserve a better customer experience. We shouldn't just accept this. We need to be more vocal with Asobo the next time they do something boneheaded like push an old release on us. That was a classic, but was anyone really shocked? 

Progress is being made. This is going to be a great platform for years to come. I can see it. It probably needs another year, but I am warming up to it! 

Rob

P.S. I am not trying to trigger you. If I am, I don't mean to! Seriously. I am sorry if reading this post does that to you. Don't be upset. I don't think I am pointing out anything that we all don't already know. Was it released way too early? Yes. Does it still have serious bugs 5 months after release? Yes. Is testing doing a bang-up job? No. And the excuse that this is hard, and those other projects are way easier to develop just doesn't hold water. If volunteers can do a great job, I don't see how a company with massive resources can't get it done. Even LR does a WAY BETTER JOB releasing software. We all know that. 

 

 

 

Hard to argue with anything that Rob has stated.  Although I do suspect that an ongoing struggle MS/Asobo are experiencing with the streaming of what I imagine is an enormous amount of data lies at the heart of many of the problems we are seeing.  

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

P.S. I am not trying to trigger you.

Oh come now that title was pure click bait and that is why you wrote this disclaimer at the end!

I had a few issues on day 1 and day 2 of the launch, since then it's been smooth sailing. 

And comparing MSFS to a game that was released  30 years ago? Lol. 😁

I'm personally struggling with 2024, the performance (VR) is so much worse than 2020 which is the main issue and then the streaming quality is clearly hindering the visuals on almost every single flight.

I've done back to back flights in both Sims and 2020 is so much crisper, textures so much sharper and over a longer distance with no obvious "loading in". 

But then there's the things I enjoy in 2024 of which there are many, so I'm pushing myself to keep trying it and yes the advances in SU2 Beta are very good. But man that performance is just not good enough, they've done nothing for the VRAM situation even though they claim it's "fixed" so I hope that SU3/4 has a decent old fashioned optimisation pass as it very much needs it.

I shall persevere, hopefully it'll be worth it in the end but in the meantime I have 2020 & A N Other Sim to enjoy in the meantime.

8 hours ago, CFIJose said:

It was interesting for a couple of days, then I decided to uninstall it. 😀

Uninstalling feels SO GOOOOD !!!! 🤣

For me it has days.... 

The days now are fully spent in the other sim, which is also in Beta but with huge improvements on each new update... FS 2024 is here, waiting for a chance to load the Fenix or the INIBUILDS 350 and make a medium range Eruropean or Europe - North Africa route 🙂

Also testin Active Sky FS which does wonders for the failures in correct weather depiction that FS 2024 has been experiencing and have been aggravated in the last 2 updates... 

Ah!  Those runway / taxyway / overall aerodrome lights with HUGE bulbs also look.... well... weird 😕

Edited April 24, 20251 yr by jcomm

4 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Uninstalling feels SO GOOOOD !!!! 🤣

I would have no idea. Uninstalled it once and patiently waiting for them to make it usable:

 - Download everything downloadable to my SSDs, i don't care if it uses 2TB or 3TB. Local, please, cloud doesn't work for me for this type of thing;

- Ability to remove unwanted aircraft and liiveries like i am able to on MSFS (AKA declutter);

- Ability to select an aircraft without dwelling into a cave with multiple paths never knowing where the model i want to fly is (just make it like MSFS is!);

- Ability to start straight from the cockpit without all the XBOX-Game things like removing chocks and engine covers. What a sad idea;

 

The rest of the nonsense i can deal with but these above are show stoppers for me and i guess they will never be fixed because there's zero interest (and money to be made) from it.

6 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

 - Download everything downloadable to my SSDs, i don't care if it uses 2TB or 3TB. Local, please, cloud doesn't work for me for this type of thing;

- Ability to remove unwanted aircraft and liiveries like i am able to on MSFS (AKA declutter);

- Ability to select an aircraft without dwelling into a cave with multiple paths never knowing where the model i want to fly is (just make it like MSFS is!);

- Ability to start straight from the cockpit without all the XBOX-Game things like removing chocks and engine covers.

1) can't help you with that one, but I'd just say that the cloud aspect was the big thing that worried me before I started using 2024 and I've found it to be really no issue, or certainly no more of one than it is with 2020. Depends on your connection/speed though.

2) and 3) Use the "my library" function or edit the "content.xml" directly to both remove and select whatever aircraft you want, for default aircraft or aircraft bought from the marketplace. For non marketplace aircraft, no real difference to 2020, and Addons Linker is the best option to handle that.

4) You can either hot start on the runway or use "shift C" to get straight in to the cockpit. I thinks that's the command - I only ever hot start anyway.

In general I agree with the OP. 2024 is a LONG way from sorted, but I hardly ever use 2020 any more. I just prefer the light and colour cast of 2024, plus all the real close up detail. None of the flight handling stuff affects me, I'm only in to explore the scenery anyway. Having said that, and given that they made such a fuss about the realism of the world environment, I'm appalled at the state of the PG in almost all urban areas. The buildings are mostly very impressive but those tree statues are a huge retrograde step. And the LODs, and a few other things.

10 hours ago, RobJC said:

Also, where are the manuals? Why do I have to go to YouTube to learn about everything?

And this has been an irritant for years now. Pure laziness and carelessness on the part of the vendor. And finding anything useful on youtube? In sim terms it's mostly just an online convention centre for uninformed and egotistical "presenters". I find plenty of good stuff there in other spheres of interest, but for some reason most of the sim related vids are both unwatchable and in many cases downright inaccurate/wrong. Long since given up even looking.

8 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

1) can't help you with that one, but I'd just say that the cloud aspect was the big thing that worried me before I started using 2024 and I've found it to be really no issue, or certainly no more of one than it is with 2020. Depends on your connection/speed though.

2) and 3) Use the "my library" function or edit the "content.xml" directly to both remove and select whatever aircraft you want, for default aircraft or aircraft bought from the marketplace. For non marketplace aircraft, no real difference to 2020, and Addons Linker is the best option to handle that.

4) You can either hot start on the runway or use "shift C" to get straight in to the cockpit. I thinks that's the command - I only ever hot start anyway.

1) I have no issues with connection speed fortunately, i just want complete control over what i want to see or don't want to see and that is not possible when "they" have control over it.

2) 3) I didn't know about content.xml, i'll have a look and maybe just maybe it solves the issue for me.

4) It is SHIFT-C indeed, but why on earth can't i decide where i want to start my flight (and without the engine covers on for God's sake, i always forget to take them out)? If they want to add things like this, give us the option to disable or skip them and make everyone happy. Microsoft has always been like this (see windows, teams, skype, etc) - They implement whatever they want and YOU deal with it without any options.

 

Anyway thanks for the input, i'll have a look at the content, that is the biggest issue i have with MSFS2024, clutter everywhere and the counter-intuitive aircraft selection screen. I guess this means a reinstallation is coming up...

Edited April 24, 20251 yr by Nuno Pinto

1 hour ago, Nuno Pinto said:

I would have no idea. Uninstalled it once and patiently waiting for them to make it usable:

The sim is perfectly useable. The fact that you can't use it is 100% on YOU.

12 hours ago, RobJC said:

I know Fenix and PMDG (and some other third-party devs) include docs, but Asobo barely does anything in this department. I know, game vs sim, but I guess I am expecting more. When you provide minimal to zero documentation, I think what you are really saying is you don't really know what you are building, or you have no confidence that what you built is going to be good enough. I do like the career portion of MSFS 2024, but we need more documents on each default aircraft. 

Re: needing more documentation for default aircraft, did you mean above and beyond what's in https://www.flightsimulator.com/aircraft-manuals/ ?
 

12 hours ago, RobJC said:

I understand that in many ways MSFS is geared towards gamers, but I think we are being shortchanged here. Did I mention that you can buy Falcon 4 off Steam for $5 and download Falcon BMS for free? Go check it out and tell me something isn't wrong with this picture. 

Are you talking about the MSFS platform in general here, both 2020 and 2024, or 2024 only? Either way this comment doesn't make sense to me.. 2024 is a superset of 2020, yes with more bugs, but features/capabilities wise it is effectively a superset. Secondly, the presence of certain features (i.e. careers/missions) does not take away from all the core simulation features 2024 has obviously. MSFS is a sim platform geared towards a wide swath of users and interests, including of course core/serious simmers. There's a reason why 77% of a 23,000 pool of Navigraph users, "serious" simmers who tend to fly mostly airliners, chose MSFS as their primary platform. Unlike the previous generation of sims, features and capabilities don't need to come at the expense of each other.. Visual fidelity, core aircraft and flight/systems/avionics fidelity, free flight, careers/missions, aircraft types from GA to airliners to helis to gliders, etc etc can *all* be had in one sim platform. One can then use the sim platform as they wish, very serious and simulating of real world ops, to very gamey and casual, and everything inbetween.
 

Edited April 24, 20251 yr by lwt1971

9 hours ago, Noel said:

Oh come now that title was pure click bait and that is why you wrote this disclaimer at the end!

thats nothing have a look at the xplane 12 forumn.