54 minutes ago, simsuper80 said:

Creating issues that were not present in a simulator from 20 years ago.

You really can not compare it like that. On a positive note, they have created a whole lot of other things not present twenty years ago, if you catch my drift.

I understand bugs are unpleasant, but come on...

50 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

You really can not compare it like that. On a positive note, they have created a whole lot of other things not present twenty years ago, if you catch my drift.

I understand bugs are unpleasant, but come on...

Something as glaring as landing gear not being visible shouldn't be happening in a modern simulator.

Air traffic is one of the core experiences of flying in general. It's why we have ATC in the first place for example. So seeing contrails appear from nothing is not the best simulation experience. And like I've said before, you can't report traffic in sight on vatsim because the sim doesn't render aircraft that far away.

Yea, the sim is visually stunning sometimes, but come on, we shouldn't have to see a hovering 787. It's hard to see how that's performance related, but if it is, id rather have something less obvious be sacrificed.

2 hours ago, Mente said:

but because better internal diagnostics could help separate symptoms from actual causes and make feedback much more useful for both users and developers.

MSFS 2024 does have some pretty good internal diagnostics for developers but there is nothing for scenery conflicts because they aren't actually considered "conflicts". Example, two 3rd party airports from different vendors installed ... a problem that hasn't been solved going back 20 years. There is a package reorder tool, but it has problems (especially with custom mesh).

Adding to the scenery "conflict" issue is that scenery from Marketplace is encrypted so trying to determine things like taxiway layout, gates, etc. is impossible. It's one reason I never buy scenery/airports from the Marketplace ... only aircraft since I don't care if they're encrypted. I get the idea behind protecting content, but the SDK should have been robust enough to provide some basic entry into important aspects of encrypted scenery.

These are all "solvable" problems but to be blunt, they should have been solved in 2020 prior to release and MSFS 2024 is too far down the line to make significant change in this area. It's the same road we keep traveling when it comes to conflicts which ultimately ends up on 3rd party developers plates (support) not Asobo's plate.

But I'm definitely NOT going to be thankful to Asobo when I've spent $20,000 in hardware, controllers, and 3rd party software (supporting a developer ecosystem from aircraft, scenery, to flight controllers). I've done my job with my wallet, time for them to "person-up" and do their job.

I don't believe for one second Asobo were not aware of their "% of screen size" culling issues unless they never ever watched their own MSFS 2024 intro video where the problem is rather obvious despite them making very quick cuts in the video in the hope no one sees the obvious issues.

Thanks, that is actually very close to the distinction I was trying to make.

I probably should have worded it more precisely: I am not suggesting that MSFS has no internal diagnostics at all.

The question is why so little of that diagnostic capability is exposed in a useful way to the user or third-party developer when something goes wrong.

Safe Mode, package reordering and manually removing scenery can help isolate a problem, but they still leave the user doing most of the detective work.

If the platform could at least identify which packages, scenery layers, mesh or other components were involved when an issue occurred, that would already be a major improvement.

So for me the core question remains less about “more logging” and more about turning existing internal information into actionable diagnostics.

12 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Yes. They intended for a lot to "disappear" that's what culling is all about ... and falls under "optimization" (aka more FPS and lower VRAM) ... and you know it's a lot more than just landing gear that's "disappearing" so not sure why you keep reducing the issue to just "landing gear"?

Oh, Come on, dude…you’re a professional dev.

It’s clearly the Law of Unintended Consequences. They painted themselves into a corner with some sort of very broad brush and don’t feel like spending the man hours to figure it out.

They’ve got places where they’re getting a lot more light and heat and those things are what’s getting the attention.

Hey - I’ve got an idea: I flew X-Plane from KEYW to KMIA yesterday.

Aside from wanting to claw my eyes out from watching the default scenery, and having ZERO AI traffic at either airport (because it’s not on by default, nor can it reflect IRL or MP traffic), I noticed ALL the landing gear showed up just fine.

Flight dynamics were fantastic, as always, but I could hardly wait to crank up MSFS afterwards and it’s so beautiful I could barely notice the missing gear on far planes.

IOW: pick your poison.

54 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

you’re a professional dev.

Was, I'm retired as of Sept 11th 2026. Nothing "unintended" about their approach to "optimization" ... it's just a simplified approach likely to save on development money and time (this not uncommon). What is uncommon is the fake surprise from Asobo devs ... but that's why you don't typically invite developers to PR type events (we're probably the last people you'd want to bring).

As far as XP12, I use:

• Map Enhancement running Google Map 2 Pro (yes it's a subscription)

• SimHeaven X-World (free)

• Orbx Global Forest V2 (paid)

• Traffic Global (paid)

• HiFi Active Sky (paid)

No need to claw my eyes out with this setup ... scenery_packs.ini can be a bit of a nightmare but looks good, especially the weather.

I wouldn't call either of these sims as "poison", more about what am I willing to tolerate visually. I'm not an FPS hunter, so long as I can get 30 FPS, I'm good.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

They painted themselves into a corner with some sort of very broad brush and don’t feel like spending the man hours to figure it out.

Asobo in a nutshell 😄

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Aside from wanting to claw my eyes out from watching the default scenery, and having ZERO AI traffic at either airport (because it’s not on by default, nor can it reflect IRL or MP traffic), I

X-Plane can show RL traffic just fine with the LiveTraffic plug-in

The hundreds of "latest reviews" on Steam for msfs2024 are said by Steam to be "mostly positive". My opinion of msfs2024 is mostly positive. We the majority have a positive opinion of this sim. It is not just flight simulation about which vocal minorities wail on social media.

2 minutes ago, Fielder said:

The hundreds of "latest reviews" on Steam for msfs2024 are said by Steam to be "mostly positive". My opinion of msfs2024 is mostly positive. We the majority have a positive opinion of this sim. It is not just flight simulation about which vocal minorities wail on social media.

Well that's to be expected as it's a turn around from the 'Mostly Negative' reviews after launch.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Hey - I’ve got an idea: I flew X-Plane from KEYW to KMIA yesterday.

Since you bring that specific flight up: yesterday was the classic example of why I'd rather fly XP12 in most conditions, leaving MSFS2024 for daytime VFR. Yesterday was very stormy in FL and basically the entire Caribbean, but there isn't a single runway light to be found in MSFS in daylight MVFR / IFR. As much a fantastic visual experience MSFS provides (don't get me wrong, I love the sim), "small" details like that remain unaddressed by Asobo resulting in immersion killers (at least to me and my expectation of having a flight simulator that gets at least "core" or basic aviation things right).

2 minutes ago, evaamo said:

Since you bring that specific flight up: yesterday was the classic example of why I'd rather fly XP12 in most conditions, leaving MSFS2024 for daytime VFR. Context: Yesterday was very stormy in FL and basically the entire Caribbean, but there isn't a single runway light to be found in MSFS in daylight MVFR / IFR. As much a fantastic visual experience MSFS provides (don't get me wrong, I love the sim), "small" details like that remain unaddressed by Asobo resulting in immersion killers (at least to me and my expectation of having a flight simulator that gets at least "core" or basic aviation things right).

In Dante's Inferno the sinners in the lowest level of Hades are forever assigned to live as clerks behind department store complaint desks.

32 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I wouldn't call either of these sims as "poison", more about what am I willing to tolerate visually. I'm not an FPS hunter, so long as I can get 30 FPS, I'm good.

Very fair take. 🤙

Yes, I usually fly XP over Orbx TE or a good ortho package and it makes all the difference in the world for my enjoyment. I just can’t fly there any longer without ground scenery enhancements…🤷‍♂️

So I was using “pick your poison” in the colloquial sense of having no options that don’t come without their own particular downsides.

20 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

X-Plane can show RL traffic just fine with the LiveTraffic plug-in

Yes, but unlike MSFS where live traffic is a native feature, it’s yet another third party solution to find, download, configure and maintain.

My point isn’t that one sim is fantastic and another garbage, but rather that there’s no single sim I’ve found where there aren’t multiple glaringly obvious shortcomings of one sort or another.

So while it’s useful to discuss and debate and bother the devs, I also feel like many become fixated on what are, relatively speaking, rather minor problems. 🤙