40 minutes ago, Mace said:

Going A-to-B with no chance of failure ever can get a little mundane to me after a while.   

Doing it well is always the challenge for me. Any minor failures are going to be repairable when you get to B except, as that process isn't simulated, other than ticking a box on a tablet, I don't see the point in having those minor failures simulated either. The more serious and life threatening failures are once or twice in a lifetime so it feels a bit silly to have them in a simulator on a home computer. It doesn't add realism for me. It just reminds me that it's a game. 

2 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

The more serious and life threatening failures are once or twice in a lifetime so it feels a bit silly to have them in a simulator on a home computer. It doesn't add realism for me. It just reminds me that it's a game.

 

I get where you’re coming from, and I agree with part of it: doing failures well is hard, and if they’re handled poorly they absolutely can feel like “game mechanics.”

On the minor failures point: you’re right that MSFS isn’t a maintenance simulator. But the value of minor faults (when done right) isn’t the “repair” animation — it’s the pilot-side workload and decision-making they create before you ever get to B. A lot of real-world “minor” issues aren’t dramatic emergencies — they’re things like degraded equipment, abnormal indications, systems that stop behaving normally, or limitations that force a change of plan. The realism comes from having to recognize it, run the checklist/flow, and manage the flight with restrictions, not from watching a mechanic fix it.

That said, if someone personally doesn’t want that layer, I totally respect it — which is why we designed it so you can turn the whole system off, or keep it to specific categories. It shouldn’t intrude on people who want “normal ops only.”

On the serious, life-threatening failures being “once or twice in a lifetime”: completely fair — and that’s exactly why we don’t treat major failures as something that should just randomly happen often for “realism.” For realism, we have MTBF so those events are truly rare over long time.

Where it becomes valuable on a home sim isn’t “realism,” it’s training. In real training environments, you practice rare events on purpose (engine failure at V1, electrical failures, pressurization problems, etc.) precisely because you won’t see them often in real life. And MSFS 2024 removed scheduled failures, so we brought back the ability to set up planned scenario failures (Schedule) or speed up training time (Speed) so you can practice on a single flight instead of needing hundreds of hours.

As for “it reminds me that it’s a game” — I think that’s mostly about presentation. If failures are random, frequent, or pop up like arcade events, I agree: it breaks immersion. Our goal is the opposite: optional, controlled, pilot-driven scenarios. If you never want failures, you can fly with them fully disabled and it stays out of your way. If you do want a “training day,” you can enable them, run a few structured scenarios, then turn them back off.

And one other angle: we have real pilots (and pilots-in-training) who want this because real sims are expensive and access is limited. A home sim isn’t a replacement for certified training, but it’s still useful practice for recognition, procedures, and decision-making.

So I don’t disagree with your point — I just think it depends on whether the system is built for random chaos, or for realistic workflow and deliberate practice, with the option to opt out entirely.

See how well this was designed here. 

 

Edited December 14, 2025Dec 14 by Flysimware

15 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

The existing version is already very good in 2024. I have no interest in failure modelling and although it would be nice to have a native version, I get the impressions this won't be a free upgrade. If so, there will have to be other improvements (although I'm not sure what that could be) before I would pay extra. 

You’re not wrong — the existing 2020 version is a solid aircraft, and it does fly well in 2024. We’re proud of that.

But the 2024 release isn’t a small patch or a “native checkbox” update. It’s essentially a ground-up rebuild that replaces a lot of the older system foundation with 2024-native systems and architecture. We didn’t just sprinkle new features on top — we pulled major parts of the old logic (electrical/pneumatics, etc.) and rebuilt them specifically around what the MSFS 2024 SDK enables.

On the upgrade question: it’s also fair to assume this won’t be a free upgrade, because it’s effectively a new product with a lot more included (including what you’d normally think of as “expansion” content/variants). That said, we’re not leaving existing owners hanging — we’ve set it up so that prior owners get an upgrade credit (around $20) toward the new version (across the stores that support upgrades). That’s about as high as we can reasonably go without ending up in the situation where some customers would receive more credit than they originally paid (especially with sale purchases).

And on “I’d need other improvements to pay extra”: totally reasonable — but the upgrade isn’t just one headline feature. The new version has a lot more going on than what was covered in a quick clip, including multiple variants/presets with extended tip tanks for longer-range flights, plus a V-tail variant designed for better stability and control at higher altitudes, and mission-focused setups (medevac/cargo/passenger) with their own career-style content and a broader feature set built around 2024 — and that’s not even everything; I’ve been deep in this since February 2025, so there are definitely more improvements I’m forgetting in the moment.

So yes: the 2020 version is good. But once you put them side-by-side, the 2024 aircraft is going to make the older one feel like a different generation.

Edited December 14, 2025Dec 14 by Flysimware

@Flysimware, really excited for the new release -- hopefully happening this coming week. Now that I'm in my Christmas vacation I will be able to spend some late evenings in foggy ice-y small European fields with this bird.

18 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

Doing it well is always the challenge for me. Any minor failures are going to be repairable when you get to B except, as that process isn't simulated, other than ticking a box on a tablet, I don't see the point in having those minor failures simulated either. The more serious and life threatening failures are once or twice in a lifetime so it feels a bit silly to have them in a simulator on a home computer. It doesn't add realism for me. It just reminds me that it's a game. 

I guess I sit on the other end of the spectrum - I don't enjoy flying planes that don't feature failures nearly as much.  Why?  Because stuff CAN happen, and I have to keep a sharper eye to be sure things are going well, and occasionally have to do some interesting troubleshooting.  It also provides a reason, beyond just wanting to do things properly, to fly within a plane's limits.  Giving actions real world consequences definitely adds to the immersion.

As for minor vs major, I'd add a third category - let's call it "significant".  I'll address the minor stuff first, as it's most likely. 

The point for me is not the repair - that's irrelevant to the flight.  It's dealing with the failure in the moment, as even minor failures have some consequences.  As a GA guy, I'm flying mostly Black Square planes these days.  These feature an MTBF based system much like what FSW is putting together for the Lear.  I've had several failures I'd consider minor so far, two of which were landing light failures.  Minor?  Sure, but still somewhat significant (and even challenging) if on a night flight which one of them was.  Note that I don't "cheat" on these and "repair" them in flight.  I deal with them.  Realism.  I've also suffered a bad starter ground, which was an interesting head-scratcher for a bit.  In this case, I did implement the repair as I was on the ground - again, not unlike what I would have done IRL albeit in a timelier fashion.  Again - to me - realism.

In the significant category, I've had one I'd put in this bucket so far - a failure of the turn coordinator - of most interest if IMC as I was on this flight.  I've suffered a similar failure IRL, though in benign conditions, and it's a failure you train for (loss of one or more gyro instruments) a lot in instrument training, so... yep, more realism.

And finally, the serious category.  As you've noted, this is the least likely to occur and I've yet to have one in these planes (though I've had them in the old RealAir Dukes in P3D, where I think the catastrophic engine failure stuff was kinda overdone).  But the fact that I know one CAN occur makes for a more realistic need for a FULL and CONSTANT scan.  So yep, again more realistic.  Similarly, I always do a full run-up in my piston planes as I know that things like mag failures are a real possibility.  I did them in other planes in the past, as I like to run RW checklists, but it was admittedly busy work rather than being driven by a real need.  The potential for failures makes doing it - here we go again - more realistic for me.

Of course, there's another aspect of this and that's planned failures.  Setting up something to fail sometime during a flight (or even better, having someone do it for you) so you can train dealing with it.  I don't take advantage of this much, but I'd like to do more down the road.  Most well-implemented failure systems also offer the ability to accelerate time to increase the likelihood of a failure but I'm not a big fan of this as it kinda spoils the realism aspect.  I do recognize it could be good for compressed training, but it's not something I'm personally very interested in.

Everyone has their own reasons for why they sim and what they want to get out of it, and I'm not really trying to talk you or anyone else into anything - just wanted to offer a differing perspective.  I would find it very difficult to buy a plane these days that didn't offer some sort of realistic failure mechanism.  It just makes the whole thing feel more real, alive and consequential in the recesses of my mind.

 

Scott

Edited December 15, 2025Dec 15 by tttocs

18 hours ago, Flysimware said:

V-tail variant designed for better stability and control at higher altitudes,

Ummm… 🤔 

Ah ain’t never seen one o THEM!!! 😎

Refers to the ventral tail

2 hours ago, Naki18 said:

Refers to the ventral tail

Ah - I thought I had missed some Bonanza action or something even scarcer than the Lear Fan!! 🤣

So, in case you missed it with all the PMDG upgrade cost noise, the upgrade for this one will cost you $45.99 if you already own the 2020 version or $65.99 full price. 

https://www.flysimware.com/FLYSIMSTORE/home/213-flysimware-learjet-35a-msfs2024.html

I'll stick with the 2020 version which I am very happy with and which works beautifully in 2024. 

 

4 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

I'll stick with the 2020 version which I am very happy with and which works beautifully in 2024. 

 

Same for me! I like them as a developer and enjoy their products. But even if I didn’t already own their Lear, $65 seems rich for a biz jet. They should not have bundled in the Cargo and Medvac variants into the 2024 version basically forcing us to buy them in the upgrade fee.

I just do not see $45 of value to upgrade and think they have missed the mark on what most people will be willing to spend.The $45 upgrade fee is significantly above any other upgrade fee I’ve seen to date. 

Edited December 19, 2025Dec 19 by Gulf76

I only fly the cargo version and it looks like I would get an extra variant of it which would be nice but while I don't expect anything for free, $45.99 is just too much. 

Yea, I was kind of excited for this until I saw the pricing  and $45 is just too high for me, maybe had I not bought the 2020 version and was just paying 65 I would justify it easier. I will hold off and wait to see the reviews before jumping in; there are a good deal of business jets inbound to choose from.

Eeks....$45 after the discount? Should really be in the $25 or so neighborhood. The improvements are great, but not $45 great.

If the FS2020 Learjet35A does everything a user wants, I certainly understand not wanting to purchase the FS2024 Native Learjet35A version.  However, IMO I don't think it is accurate to refer to the FS2024 native Learjet35A as an "upgrade" in the usual sense of the word. Many FS2020 aircraft have been upgraded (or ported) to work in FS2024 Free Flight, including the FS2020 Learjet35A. In contrast however, the native FS2024 Learjet35A is a newly coded aircraft that strives to take  maximum advantage of the new FS2024 SDK. Here is a partial attribute list for the native Learjet from the FSW Discord:

1. Expansion packs (Cargo and Medevac) included (no separate add-ons needed).
2. Two brand-new variants/mods: Long range Tip Tanks and a Ventral Fin (this models a real life mod provided by a company called AVCON), that provides a total of 6 presets or variants total.
3. Major livery expansion: 8 passenger + 8 cargo + 4 medevac = 20 liveries. (This was specifically requested for Xbox.)
4. MSFS 2024 SDK work is dramatically heavier: building these features took multiple times longer than the typical “effects + preflight” update that many aircraft are doing. What’s in this package is on a completely different level.
5. New failures system with 3 modes: realistic MTBF (with an acceleration slider), Scheduled (you can set a time range of up to 300 minutes for a random failure), and Speed (so you can properly practice scenarios like an engine failure at V1 during takeoff).
6. New model and control-surface fidelity: the sim now understands the aircraft as more than “fuselage + wings” — it recognizes short tanks vs. long tanks and the ventral fin, so the aircraft flies and behaves like the real configurations.
7. New Boris engine sounds (and yes, for those who noticed, they were recently added to the MSFS 2020 version as well).
8. New integrated tablet as part of the default sim tablet — no “two-tablet mess” (since the default can’t be disabled). Includes real-world charts and more.
9. 179 working circuit breakers, plus a full electrical overhaul, tied directly into both the failure system and the career wear-and-tear system.
10. Three careers added for each preset, with wear and tear fully implemented.
11. Windshield bloom effects and rain effects across the entire aircraft.
12. Improved icing visuals on the nacelles and nose, including melting behavior (Asobo still doesn’t provide this natively, it was implemented as a workaround).
13. Three-level interactive checklist, including a camera “eye” button that moves your view to the correct area for each step.
14. New pneumatic system with temperature control, plus live valve operation feedback on the tablet, including the emergency pressurization system.
15. New ground equipment architecture: the Fuel Truck and GPU are no longer built into the aircraft — they are loaded as true SimObjects, just like standard sim vehicles.
16. Proper ground behavior for ground equipment: because these are real SimObjects, they always know where the ground is and stay planted. Changing payload no longer causes floating or drifting wheels, something commonly seen in other aircraft products.

And there’s a lot more.

The primary beta testers for the native Learjet 35A are two retired real life pilots with many 1000s of hours in the Learjet 35. One was a chief pilot, and the other a Learjet flight instructor for Flight Safety International. 

That said, whether the type of features provided by the native Learjet35A are "worth it" is clearly personal to each user. To each their own. 

Al

 

Edited December 20, 2025Dec 20 by ark

Well, it is out, and I look forward to reading some reviews, $46.00 is a steep price for me right now.