Tom_L

The financial struggles of the XBox game division seem to be devastating. The new head Xbox comes from the AI department, and there is a certain irony in the fact that she now has to clean up the mess she was a part of creating. The completely out-of-control AI industry is currently leaving not just Xbox, but the entire consumer electronics industry, struggling. The PC market is collapsing because the prices of memory and graphics cards mean that, sooner rather than later, only a few people will want - or even be able - to afford new hardware. NVidia and AMD have for the most part written off their gaming segments to insignificance. The unimaginative hike in Xbox Game Pass subscription prices smacks more of desperation than creativity. I fear that the major AI players - including Microsoft - have no choice but to make all their business segments shoulder the burden of the spiraling costs associated with hyperscaling. Compared to the massive amounts of data AI consumes, streaming MSFS content is peanuts and barely registers; however, I have a feeling that the whole franchise is under pressure. The fact that there is no prospect of improvement in core areas like weather, ATC, and autogen - and that the focus is instead on retaining the existing console user base with more content - suggests to me that they are hunkering down for now, hoping to somehow weather the storm. The more the AI situation is escalating (could it even?), the more the situation might turn into FSX territory. There was an AAU update the other day, and virtually no one is talking about it, because imho it is also not very deep and might therefore be perceived as a mandatory exercise . Two years ago there would have been a separate thread with a lot of discussion, but these days? I fear we are witnessing the negative impacts of AI, the start of a computer and gaming market shakeout, after which we might be lucky if the MSFS franchise, or the gaming market in general, still exists. In whatever form that may be.

I don't know if that is a factor here, but back in the day it was said that arriving AI traffic conceptually starts to inject at a certain distance from the airport, so that if you are departing within the timeframe it needs to arrive at the airport, you get a feeling of lacking arrivals. That was certainly true for the old FSLTL injector with Live-Traffic, that relied on the underlying MSFS AI system. I can imagine that BeyondATC is having to deal with the same underlying principles. If there's still an imbalance after 30 minutes or so, that would be a different issue though.

Trailers are out! This one is from Orbx, there's another one from AviationLads. The visuals don't really grab me, and I'm a sucker for Cheyennes. There maybe some weird prop- or condition lever settings involved, but 1400 lb ft of torque with ITT at the limit in 1500 ft and a 1500ft/min climb (0:29) seems to be off, and comments under the Aviationlads trailer hinted at props turning backwards (already fixed according to developer). I'm gonna wait for reviews, hope it turns out great. It says that included credits for their skypass program should be enough for 25-30 hours of structured training, but without knowing how those credits are accounted within the program, that doesn't tell me if I would run out of credits if I wanted to repeat one or the other session. I'm not confident about the AI aspect either. Could be a great idea though, if properly implemented.

There's a setting inside Mobiflight where you can exclude controllers from being used by Mobiflight. As I had some random difficulties with the WCtrl MCDU when running both apps (probably not caused by the fact, as those occured randomly later on as well), I excluded all devices except the one run by Mobiflight, just to be on the safe side. So yes, definitely possible.

Here's what Jorg said 5 years ago - Sep. 2021: "Late this year you will get this first Update (remark: SU7), we’re planning on another which will be really awesome when it happens. It will probably be in 2022, it could be as late as 2023. Weather is one of those things. It’s where planes live, it’s got to be awesome. We will get it as good as you can get it. That is really the goal." Fool me once ....

I went for a more general question, although I put in one for better CB depiction as well: "Large threads on the forums discuss Live Weather issues for years. Would you finally consider to acknowledge the discussion and elaborate on your goals and probable obstacles?"

I assume that - both here and on the official forum - there are dedicated simmers who want the best possible simulator. Naturally, matters of style are always open to debate. However, the argument often leans toward the idea that we should simply be grateful for progress in other areas whenever criticism is raised regarding MS's communication on the stagnation of live weather features. That is certainly the case in this thread as well. I have enjoyed MSFS - and the series in general, ever since FS4 - and I still do. Yet, I also notice that MS has always pursued its own agenda. Community involvement is frequently cited when it aligns with their own goals, whereas - as in the case of the weather - legitimate criticism and passionate discussions are ignored for years. Any improvements adopted from the community stem from the input of a tiny fraction of the user base; therefore, arguments dismissing criticism because it supposedly represents a minority view are misleading. I would hope that - setting aside matters of style - threads like this one would lead to a greater push for improvements, rather than repeatedly being shut down in the manner described.

How should that happen, if the argument is that there is room for improvement, but out of "respect for ASOBO" one shouldn't insist, and everything else is much better than it used to be anyway?

The entire system—including the wishlist—has really become a farce by now. For starters, participation in their forum is nowhere near what it was in the early days; consequently, many topics garner fewer votes. But even when Msobo deems action justified—which, in my view, often boils down to whether they simply want to do it or not—the outcome doesn't always align with the intent of the thread, where many valid points had been gathered during the discussion. Take the weather radar as an example: according to the last "Feedback Snapshot" I could find (the weekly updates are, well... let's just say...), it was listed as "Partially Done" as of April 2026. With the recently introduced tilt feature, they would likely consider it "Done." The result is—well... Then there is the "Dangerous Weather" mentioned in the interview, listed as "In Progress: SU05 + SU06" - a clear indication that they aren't actually familiar with the content of the corresponding thread.

This text accompanied the image: We know what you’re thinking. Nope. And nope.

I had a similar incident, and from what I gathered from the Windows EVENT VIEWER some update might have happend while flying, and it seemed to be related to some AMD core components. I have since disabled automatic installation in the AMD Install Manager. No further incident since, but that may be coincidence. But seeing you having an AMD Motherboard, it may be worth checking.

Here's a Discord channel : https://discord.gg/dAucySpqy . Quality differs, Fenix packs for Lufthansa and Eurowings were recorded by a real purser, while others contain original recordings of differing quality. EZY for the Fenix is decent imho, EJU is a bit weaker. Give it a try.

IIrc, I copied my airbus profile and then simply used the calibration page of their EFB.

The maddening aspect is that they work with third parties in every aspect of the sim - except for Live Weather. Unfortunately they missed hiring said someone (who went by "Biology2394" in the Forums), who is now working magic on XPlane's atmosphere and weather depiction as far as I am aware, which is imho - although flawed in many instances too - far superior to the oftentimes comic-style and cumulus ridden MSFS Live Weather (and yes, i have stunning expierences as well, but all in all it lacks far more than it delivers). And there is development, whereas larger efforts beyond the occasional tweaking here and there are missing in MSFS entirely since SU7(2020). There are evidently circumstances that do not even allow the topic to be addressed openly. It is sad that a modern flight simulator settles for such a mediocre implementation, especially after such a promising start. The primary argument against opening up the weather engine for third party developers was that it constituted a core component of the product. I was going along with that decision, because there was so much potential. Yet, this core component has seen no further development for five years now, whereas all other areas have. That argument has therefore lost all validity. But the truth is also that many weather related threads in the Forums didn't gain much traction, like a Wishlist-thread asking for a dedicated Atmosphere and Weather related SimUpdate back in 2020 days. So it’s fair to assume that most gamers are satisfied with what they get. They are not to blame, because most don't even know what they are missing. For me, as a PPL holder, a whole dimension of flying - the go/no-go decision or any serious planning for adverse weather, dodging storms.... - is missing, and the way I feel is that it is not what was promised before the release of 2020.

The video was prepared though, so there has been some preparation going into answering that particular question. Therefore, I believe that your accusation that I am disingineous stems from an unrealistic assessment.

Since SU7 they are evasive of any question regarding Live Weather, the standard answer being "we'll have to talk to Meteoblue", so I was curious how they would circumvent the issue this time, as one question (0:35:10) was: "With night lighting being adressed by the team in SU4 beta, are there any improvements we can expect in terms of the atmosphere and clouds next?" Seb then asks to play a video showcasing the improvements they made for the night lighting. I guess it's their way to make clear that weather, clouds and atmosphere remain a sideshow in their flight simulator.

This thread—which actually started with the weather radar and now revolves around the visual aspects of weather rendering, which can be highly subjective and certainly depends on the specific situation (such as a spectacular sunset)— misses the point once again. The standard aircraft were mediocre at best initially, and MS responded by bringing in third-party developers. The avionics were mediocre, and MS responded by bringing in the Working Title team. The autogen scenery was basically okay, yet MS is striving for improvements with the move away from Blackshark. The scenery received a significant boost with the improved 3D terrain features. The walk-around feature as an introduction to first-person view suggests further development plans. I could list many more examples, but the text is getting already too long... What about Live Weather? It was a key feature at the launch of MSFS 2020, and Jorg Neumann couldn't promise enough fantastic developments in this area. That changed radically with SU7. No more visions in this direction, just tweaks. Yes, it looks spectacular at times, but it still carries many known shortcomings, not least the unfulfilled promise of being able to render all types of clouds. A thread like this would be an opportunity to address an imbalance in development effort, but instead, mediocrity is being celebrated. TL;DR: A first step in the right direction would be to acknowledge that weather and atmosphere should be a core focus in a flight simulator, and that this has no longer been the case in MSFS since SU7. Everything else would probably follow from that.

I think it says more about the community. Although the weather representation has been tweaked for years (some say there is development—but that's wishful thinking), there is still a lack of credible implementation of cloud formations in different atmospheric conditions. This may even be advantageous, as some flights would otherwise have to be canceled due to the lack of a convincing weather radar - but let's not open that can of worms. But that can't be the standard for a modern flight simulator, in which many areas (aircraft, avionics, scenery) see active development while the atmosphere will have to make do with tweaks to an apparently inadequate engine from the early days. And yet, weather related Bug reports or Wishlist threads seldom reach more than 250 votes. And I cannot but notice that many discussions about deficiencies in weather simulation are often stifled early on with mere subjective impressions ("looks good enough for me") instead of supporting efforts to improve the sim. The reasons for this behavior are a mystery to me, but it is striking that there is also resistance from the user base to improvements in weather and atmosphere simulation.

It is quite obvious what happened here: you are absolutely right, at some point they really improved the night lighting in MSFS 2020 reacting to a HUGE and longstanding thread in their forums and a catastrophic first attempt to calm the community which made the sim look more like TRON at night. That must have been the time when they decided to fork the code in order to develop MSFS 2024, and that's why the "new" one has so many flaws that have been ironed out in the "old" one. The sepia mask is another hint, as it was dialled down at some point in MSFS 2020. They are aware of the sepia issue as it played a major role in the above mentioned HUGE thread for MSFS 2020 already, and Seb has hinted at a solution in a recent Q&A. But why they weren't able to implement all the updates for MSFS2020 in the forked code in the first place will remain their secret.

And there are some misaligned textures at parking positions as well. I reported it via their own Zendesk reporting tool - if I remember correctly - and got a fairly quick response with an acknowledgement. Fixes never materialized though. Thankfully their gorgeous LIRQ doesn't have such massive issues. Their customer support is a shame, and although I love their work I probably would only purchase another Gaya product after I have seen a thorough review that proves there are no major issues. In general, I think it is not so much an issue of the communication method but the willingness of developers to invest time and money into an already paid product. My impression is also that the expectations of us customers play a major role. No manufacturer of aircraft add-ons can afford to ignore customers in the long run, regardless of the price tag. Scenery developers, on the other hand, generally seem unwilling to release more than one service package – if at all. I don't even want to start talking about adjustments to the current development status, which is very annoying for airports where construction is essentially constant. And they seem to be getting away with it, perhaps because the development time for a scenery is shorter than that for an aircraft, and they can therefore generate fresh cash more quickly and are therefore less dependant on customeer satisfaction.

During a recent sale, I initially purchased the Sim Wings version of LEBL, but my now low-end system struggled to generate a sufficient frame rate when paired with the FENIX. So I also purchased the MK version during the same sale, and the performance is better on my system. I imagine the differences might not be that significant on more powerful systems. In my opinion, both versions are of equal quality; I personally prefer the way the Sim Wings version blends into the surrounding standard scenery, but that's definitely a matter of taste. I am still on 2020, so '24 might be different in that regard.

I was very critical of the "unique" yawing characteristics of the PC-12 and had pushed the plane into the hangar despite the otherwise great quality. It's now coming out again!

It wouldn't matter if you'd had. I own their ENCN payware scenery and reported (years ago, via their website) misaligned ground textures. I got an acknowledgement, but to my knowledge no fix ever surfaced. There is one on fs.to adressing these problems, but Gaya didn't care. Considering their treatment of paying customers, I wouldn't expect anything regarding their contractual work for MS. I had a good laugh when I just checked their actual website where their contact form says "We're always keen to hear anything from you. Let's start talking!". 🤣

I can't comment on every airport, but as far as developers are concerned I am not enthusiastic of Thessaloniki, so I have avoided other MXI airports. I don't know anything about Salvuz or Fly2High, but I have several airports from all the other developers on your list and would recommend them in general.

1. RNP-AR is basically the most sophisticated category of LPV approaches (LPV on steroids), insofar it is also satellite based. RNAV and RNP are subcategories of PBN and are defined in specifications by the ICAO. The extent to which crew and equipment comply with these specifications determines the type and minimum of possible approaches. Depending on whether only lateral navigation (LNAV), additional barometrically supported vertical navigation (VNAV) or on-board performance monitoring and alerting (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance, LPV) is possible, RNAV (GPS) or RNP approaches are defined with a minimum "down to" LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV. And as FENIX and the PMDG can even fly RNP approaches with curved RF legs, they are LPV capable per se. Many more MSFS aircraft are (see below 3.1). 2. In the A320 family - (without the new SLS option) the autopilot mode for RNP(-AR) as well as LPV would be FINAL APP, the Boeing equivalent would be indeed LNAV/VNAV PATH. But those are simply differing mode announciations based on the manufacturers operating philosophy. The real differences are technical, legal and licensing-related requirements (see above). Keeping these separate is what causes the much-described confusion surrounding these approaches. 3. The same technical, legal and licensing-related requirements determine the kind of approach you would use if the initial approach has to be aborted. In case of your example RNP Rwy28 in LSZH that would mean: I haven't tried, but I am 100% sure every aircraft with the G1000, G3000, WT GNS 430/530 and all modern airliners in MSFS can fly this approach, including PMDG and FENIX. The minimum depends on the installed version, in case of Garmin e.g. the G100Nxi can go down to LPV CAT1, whereas an older G1000 without SBAS is limited to the LNAV minimum. Every pilot would have to check the aircraft POH and GPS manual to make sure the required criteria are met. As for the Airbus, this is what I take from an irl A320 Capt.: In case of the Airbus showing GPS PRIMARY LOST on one Navigation Display or NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD on one FMGS, I could continue down to LNAV/VNAV minimum using the remaining Flight Director/Autopilot, in case of those messages on both devices or XTK > 0.3 NM or NAV FM/GPS POS DISAGREE on ECAM I would have to abort the landing. I assume it is dependant on the POH and airline SOP's.