12 hours ago, KL Oo said:

I was hoping it might have a few more quality of life fixes in it

Examples?

11 hours ago, RTK1972 said:

more fixes from the Wish List ? Cloud Layers ? there are so many things that could be fixed/added. Just have a look here, might expand your horizon:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/official/wishlist/163/l/latest

 

 

I wish you well in getting your bucket list items, but I really do keep in mind that the amount of time and effort and manpower that has already gone into this sim is completely unprecedented.

I really wish they got a bit more credit. Especially when I think of the two updates, over the course of a decade, that we had to settle with for FSX.... 😕

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I wish you well in getting your bucket list items, but I really do keep in mind that the amount of time and effort and manpower that has already gone into this sim is completely unprecedented.

I really wish they got a bit more credit. Especially when I think of the two updates, over the course of a decade, that we had to settle with for FSX.... 😕

 

I have to agree. Imagine pouring over thousands of line codes to see what causing the issue. I think Asobo is doing a great job keeping up with the updates and fixes. I'm very happy where the platform is today compared to where it was a year ago. And looking forward to what the next year brings. This is the best hobby ever!!!!!!!!

People really came on this thread where we're discussing the continued development of the sim to speculate that it's about to be shut down 😂. I guess MS have spoiled us with how open and transparent they've been because the minute they slow it down a bit, the apocalypse is upon us.

16 hours ago, RTK1972 said:

more fixes from the Wish List ? Cloud Layers ? there are so many things that could be fixed/added. Just have a look here, might expand your horizon:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/official/wishlist/163/l/latest

 

 

A lot of these wishes have already been done and/or they are super old...  many created for 2020.  They're not really adding new features to 2020 imo.  And some of those wishes are totally not feasible, or just totally random.

I mean, yeah, personally I'd love to see some cloud structures and overall weather improvements.  But what we have is pretty good imo.  Much better than anything I've ever experienced in FSX, P3D etc.  XP12 has a slight leg up when it comes to cloud depiction, and long distance look of skies/clouds.  But I'd say overall MSFS 2020/2024 has done a nice job rendering atmospheric conditions.

 

9 hours ago, Petraeus said:

Examples?

Multiple Jetways -> 890 Votes

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/multiple-jetways-implementation-and-support-for-msfs-2020-2024/681159/105

Disappearing AI Wheels / Continued improvements to AI Traffic -> 800 Votes (more if you count all the diffrerent threads(

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/improved-ai-system-supported-by-aig/377764

Improved multi monitor support -> 270 votes

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/better-multi-triple-monitor-support-2024/672598/146

How about using the inbuilt EFB on an iPad or tablet? -> 270 votes

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/efb-for-ipad-tablet/670212/34

 

Those are some of my personal quality of life improvements. I'm sure everybody has their own things that they'd like to see improved/added/worked on

I think that every man/woman/alien and their dog/cat/gerbil/alien pet wants to see a fix for the disappearing undercarriage problem. Surely Asobo must have noticed this by now?

3 hours ago, KL Oo said:

Those are some of my personal quality of life improvements.

So we no longer have 'fixes' or 'error corrections' or simple 'improvements', we have things that improve the quality of our lives.  We are indeed blessed.

5 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I think that every man/woman/alien and their dog/cat/gerbil/alien pet wants to see a fix for the disappearing undercarriage problem. Surely Asobo must have noticed this by now?

Its expected behaviour due to their culling system:

Sim "culls" Model-parts and ignores LODs of the Model - [MSFS 2024] Bug Reports / Aircraft - MSFS DevSupport

My only hope now is that AIG / FSLTL implement a workaround (invisible objects etc) as I dont see MS changing this behaviour.

23 minutes ago, MrRoper said:

Its expected behaviour due to their culling system

If i was running a company that made a flightsim, i would be ashamed on how bad this is. And would put this on top1 fixlist. 

Look at X-Plane, you can zoom out forever and the gears dont disappear on their aircrafts.

If Asobo do this just for performance saving on xbox by culling the gears from 80-100meters distances its beyond ridicolous. At least give the pc users a option to increase it.

Edited March 12Mar 12 by Cyrex1984

6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Surely Asobo must have noticed this by now?

Dont hold your breath..

10 hours ago, Petraeus said:

So we no longer have 'fixes' or 'error corrections' or simple 'improvements', we have things that improve the quality of our lives.  We are indeed blessed.

I think the life being referred to is the life of the product...in an abstract sense. But i suspect you know that and are just looking to troll

12 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

disappearing undercarriage problem. Surely Asobo must have noticed this by now?

Based on the official bug reporting MSFS 2024 site … Bug is logged.

Specific thread:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/too-strict-lod-rule-on-aircraft-landing-gears-culling-of-aircrafts-gear/709715

Has a decent amount of views and contributors 7.6K which does get it in the higher ranks but that does NOT mean it will be addressed.  My hunch (take with a grain of salt) is that any “fix” would impact performance and more importantly impact XBOX/PS5 performance as that is a significant part of sales.

A more recent update in that thread:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/too-strict-lod-rule-on-aircraft-landing-gears-culling-of-aircrafts-gear/709715

And perhaps the most informative thread on the issue as it involves MS/Asobo and add-on developers (Kaiii, Raul):

https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/t/sim-culls-model-parts-and-ignores-lods-of-the-model/17174/7

We’re back at the suggestion it is the AI modelers problem and not Asobo’s … which doesn’t really make sense since Asobo’s intro video demonstrates the problem (look closely) and was done entirely with Asobo AI aircraft sooooo….

 

 

Edited March 12Mar 12 by SayAgain

For the benefit of others, the landing gear issue is apparently a function of 'contribution culling."

Here's a summary produced through Claude AI.

Contribution culling is one of the more fascinating rendering optimisations in MSFS 2024, and it operates at several different levels. Here's a breakdown of what it is and how it works in that engine.

What "contribution" means

In the sim's rendering pipeline, every object — a building, a tree, a terrain patch, a cloud — is assigned a contribution value: an estimate of how much it actually affects the final pixel output. This is a function of several things combined: the object's apparent screen size, its distance from the camera, lighting conditions, and whether it's occluded by other geometry. Objects with low contribution aren't worth paying the GPU cost to render.

The culling hierarchy

MSFS 2024 applies contribution culling in a tiered way:

How the contribution score is built

The score isn't just distance. MSFS 2024 factors in:

Projected screen area — how many pixels the object would actually cover. A large hangar at 2 km scores much higher than a lamppost at 500 m.
Luminance contribution — objects in shadow or behind haze have their score reduced. A dark tree in an overcast scene contributes less than a sunlit building.
Object priority class — the sim assigns category weights. Aircraft, runways, and navaids have protected high-priority classes; ambient vegetation and distant traffic are low-priority and get culled first under frame budget pressure.
Temporal history — if an object was culled last frame, it carries a small hysteresis penalty to avoid flickering (the "popping" artefact where objects flash in and out).

The render budget dimension

This is what makes MSFS 2024's approach different from older LOD-only systems. Rather than a fixed distance cutoff, the engine runs a budget-aware cull pass. Each frame has an estimated GPU time budget, and the system ranks surviving draw calls by their contribution score. If the scene is cheap (empty ocean, no weather), almost everything passes. If the scene is expensive (dense photogrammetry city, heavy cloud layer, rain effects), the threshold rises and lower-contribution objects get cut — even ones that would have passed under normal conditions.

Shadow pass separation

Shadow rendering runs its own contribution pass independently of the main view. An object can be rendered in the primary scene but culled from the shadow map (or vice versa, though that's rare). Ground vehicle shadows, for example, are often culled at distances where the vehicle itself is still visible, since the shadow's pixel contribution is negligible from altitude.

World streaming interaction

Contribution culling feeds back into the streaming priority system. Tiles whose objects would be immediately culled on load don't get promoted in the streaming queue — the system avoids spending bandwidth on assets that won't make it past the cull threshold anyway. This is why you'll notice different pop-in behaviour depending on viewing angle and altitude: the engine is continuously recalculating what's worth pulling down.

Where you feel it as a sim pilot

At cruise altitude, dense cities resolve more slowly not just because tiles are far away, but because individual building contribution scores drop as screen area shrinks.
Fast panning camera moves can cause brief popping because the contribution scores haven't stabilised yet for the new view direction.
Heavy weather scenes cull more aggressively to keep frame rates stable, which is why distant scenery can look sparser inside a storm than outside one.

Asobo's advice to combat contribution culling seems to be to group objects, so they are evaluated as more significant by the sim engine and pass the render threshold.

It will be interesting to hear some feedback from @Kaiii3 as to whether their internal testing has shown this can mitigate the problems?

Edited March 13Mar 13 by kevinfirth