TASCHMANN

Will these "hand picked" beta testers also be subject to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) like the original alpha testers who were forced to keep the real state of this sim a secret from the community for years? If so, what's the point? Will it be another round of bugs and "features" that the unselected members of the community--most of us--we will have to figure out and try remedy ourselves. So far, it seems to me, that this project (MSFS) has been, from the very beginning of the advertising campaign, an exercise in marketing and profit maximization for Microsoft and its "partners" rather than in creating and improving a usable product. I remember reading several representations during that year long advertising campaign that came before the initial release: 1. That this sim would be complete in itself with no need for a lot of add-ons for weather, scenery and aircraft. 2. That the spectacular graphics that appeared in the early videos would be achievable by anyone with a fairly decent gaming rig. 3. That there would be a means of using existing aircraft from FSX and P3d in the new sim as a result of the "legacy" flight model. These promises seem to have been forgotten in the frantic attempts to chase the latest fixes that the previous "fixes" have broken. They don't seem to be discussed or even remembered by some. If MS/Asobo is really interested in improving the product, why don't they adopt the same beta system that is used by the other leading simulations? I anticipate that some will say that the reason that standard beta system would not work with MSFS is that it is a "very different kind of sim." With that reason--I would have to agree. It is understandable that a project as complex as this should take some time to develop and refine. What I don't comprehend is why MS/Asobo made express promises that it knew to be false--and why those testers who knew them to be false were silenced by the implied threat of legal action. My policy in the future will be not to believe any further statements by MS/Asobo. To do so would be to engage in what Samuel Johnson described as the hope of those who marry a second time--"the triumph of hope over experience." The only difference being that many second marriages work out very well. Instead, I will just try a flight in the sim every couple of months to see if it's working yet. If not, there are several other sims that are worth my time and financial support.

OK, The solution seems clear: 1. Buy (or build) a top of the line PC. 2. Turn all settings way down 3. Cap FPS at 20 Then, and only then, will you be able to enjoy half the performance of other sims. What could be simpler?

Would you be willing to share what it is you know about Asobo that makes you so clearly optimistic?

I understand that many people are interested in helping others here in the forums and that is greatly appreciated. There is, however, a certain mindset that tends to avoid any criticism of these developers and looks for any other reason to explain the existence of a problem. Sometimes it takes the form of acknowledging the issue and sort of apologizing on behalf of Asobo while expressing absolute certainty that all will be well in the future. At other times it takes the form of outright denial that the problem exists. Those who express these sentiments are, perhaps, more generous and kind-hearted than I am. But if the goal is to get Asobo to change direction and start making real progress on this sim, I'm not sure it is being served by them. It is like the student who gets a grade of 62% on his exam and refuses to discuss anything except the answers he got right. A "D" is still a "D." There are clearly issues with each update that affect some but not others. Is it rational to say that the software just makes the hardware issues more apparent. Is it a valid response to simply invest in new hardware with each new "update?" IMHO this sim has never risen above a "D" and when it begins to exact financial costs to those who use it, the grade drops significantly from there. So far Asobo is being congratulated for the huge undertaking they have attempted or for what they have promised. I look forward to offering mine when and if we see some real progress.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding the people who keep suspecting hardware. Do they really believe that software cannot cause a CPU or GPU to overheat? What about the very programs they are suggesting to test the temperatures. That's what they do. Once again for those whose minds are still open: These temps only occur when running the latest update of MSFS. ---Nothing else--- No other sims or other applications even come close, (at least in my case) There are some correlations that strongly suggest causation. It's clinging to an original hypothesis despite the evidence tending to show the answer lies in a different direction that causes the endless looping that we are seeing in this and all the other threads about the heat issue in this latest update.

Right!, When they said "We finished it a little early", we should have known that they meant "It is nowhere near finished and won't be for months or years--but you can pay us now" Are these the circumstances that were known? Really by whom? Ridiculous comment.

The odd thing in my case is I haven't seen any stutters, just fps in the low to mid 20's over London where I used to get about 40.

Thanks to everyone for your interest and and your useful insights into this temperature issue. I'll just update you on the present situation. I loaded a flight from London City in the Waco with settings set to High with the exception of "Volumetric Clouds" which was set to "Low". I wanted to test the sim over complex scenery in a simple plane because that is where its usefulness is supposed to reside. About five minutes into the flight, the sim stopped abruptly and went to the screen with the 172 picture and the blue line at the bottom. That blue line moved very slowly for 2 minutes during which my CPU temps stayed in the mid 90's. Since the blue line was not close to finishing and I was not prepared to let this continue any longer I closed MSFS in the only way available--through the task manager. I appreciate the input from those who suspect a hardware cooling issue, but it just doesn't seem likely to me that that is where the problem lies. The reason I say this is that the only way to get average temperatures over 60 on my rig is to load MSFS and have it crash like this as it almost always does. No other sim nor app of any kind gets remotely near these temps. I'd like to look on the bright side of this but my wife is kind enough to fry my bacon and eggs in a skillet.

Blueshark, Thanks for the info.

Thanks for the insight about "capping" Exactly my point. If its that easy to fix--why don't they fix it? It's stressing user's Cpu's!!

Blueshark, That would be helpful. More information would be available if you have an app such as MSI AfterBurner (freeware) that would graph the changes over time. Thanks.

I would be interested in hearing what your result is when you monitor CPU temp in MSFS during any "blue line" operations. Whenever the sim itself or a new flight is loading and the blue line is lengthening my experience is that fps spikes along with the temperature. This is an issue that has been widely reported on MSFS's own forum for months. It has become markedly worse with the latest "update." If and when the blue line "stalls" those temps can remain dangerously high for extended periods.

It is my understanding that bad coding, like the spike in framerates (200+) noticed while the sim is in menu or is loading a flight, can indeed be the cause of overheating.

Hyperfocal, Thanks for your interest. I'm running a i7-9700k at 4.6 cooled by a Corsair H100i Platinum. I run P3D v4.5, X-plane 11.5, and DCS. In none of these sims does this CPU rise above 75 degrees at any time. Average is in the 50's.

It's one thing when this sim shows a pattern of decline with each update; it is immeasurably worse when this incompetent coding presents a danger to expensive hardware. CPU temps are fluctuating between 95 and 100 degrees for several minutes at a time. I have tried setting parameters to "Low" but the problem persists. I am also aware of the throttling down of CPU'S when they get too hot--as an emergency feature--but there is still heat stress that leads to diminished life span of these expensive items. Isn't it about time for the developers to be straightforward with the community and seriously and unequivocally acknowledge these problems with a view to some entirely new approach. Making this sim progressively worse while at the same time making vague statements about plans for the future is not working. Even an honest acknowledgement of utter failure would be better than these pathetic games they are playing. They are beginning to become costly both in time and in the financial risk of wear and tear on CPU's and GPU's. This may come under the heading of a "rant" but my purposes are twofold: 1.To suggest that a better approach for the community is to shelf this thing completely until these very basic issues are resolved and 2. To warn those considering the purchase to hold off and read through these forums before risking there computers, their money and their time in what is acknowledged to be a decidedly frustrating experience. I am aware that some have expressed the view that, "It is early days, be patient all will be fixed." This would be good advice if there were any indication of progress toward a usable and safe sim. But it has been seven months and this sim shows no signs of being either one. It unfortunately seems clear to me that if these developers knew how to make this sim better, rather than worse, with every change that we would have seen some evidence of that by now. I simply haven't.

Will someone at Asobo please explain, in the name of all that is rational, why meeting their own self-imposed schedule is a priority for them--but testing the sim to see if it works before releasing an "update" is not? Changes that destroy functionality are something--but they're not updates. Stop trying to schedule and perform updates that are making the sim more and more unusable for so many. Just stop. Pull off the road and stop the car, then try to fix it. It doesn't need a new paint job right now --especially as it is speeding down the "roadmap" to the next item on the calendar. Put down the spray-can---Pause a while and think. *************************************************************** Given the thousands being spent for new hardware in a futile effort to make this thing work, and the fact that no one at MS/Asobo seems to give these periodic downloads even a cursory test, a less suspicious person than I might begin to suspect that this pattern of update disasters is purposeful. It surely isn't hurting the hardware industry--at all. But it is causing the waste of a considerable amount of the money and (far more importantly) the time of their customers.

$97.00 USD! I'll need to see some really sparkling reviews before I spend that kind of money.

I'm still struggling to understand how it is "negative" to give an honest and factual answer to someone who may be wondering: "What can I expect of this product if I buy it today?" There is certainly no shortage of speculation about what the future holds--and a lot less evidence for it.

Over the years (about 30 of them) I have found these forums to be of incalculable value to me. They have saved me-without exaggeration—hundreds of hours in finding solutions to issues that I never would have been able to solve myself. They have saved me thousands of dollars—again without exaggeration --in pointing out features and shortcomings that led me to avoid purchases which would not have met my expectations. Those who maintain this site, and others like it, provide a service to the community that would not otherwise be available. They are indeed what make us a community in the first instance. They do it by providing a space for the sharing of opinions, solutions and suggestions from people with a wide range of experience. Many contributors (and I emphatically do not count myself among them) also possess a deep level of expertise. Recently there has been a trend among a small group of people who feel called upon to mount ad hominum responses to those with whom they disagree or--more accurately-- to those who disagree with them. Why, they ask, is it necessary to continually question the value of this product or that one when it’s already been criticized on other threads? Since it is a fair question, I would like to venture an answer. Many new people have recently joined the community and others are discovering the hobby every day. They will look to these forums to find ways to use their (perhaps) limited funds to maximize their enjoyment of the hobby. Some may have limited time for tweaking and would prefer to spend their time in the “air.” Some may have a more specific purpose, like IFR training. Because the most recent posts are listed first, the newcomers may find only unalloyed enthusiasm for products about which others have been more critical. In other words information, that may be useful to them in getting the most of their time and money may become buried. This can result in an unbalanced—and consequently unhelpful --presentation of the facts. In the end, I suppose, the question always comes down to this: “For whose benefit do these forums exist—the community-- or the developers?” If it is the former, then how much sense does it make to label the balancing of enthusiasm with objective criticism as “negativity” or “noise”?

Tweeks, Your are right, of course. Patience is always in order. I am eager to see if, after the release of VR tomorrow, MSFS will find its place as a usable VFR platform. If so, perhaps some of the disappointment that was brought on by the year long advertising campaign will diminish. I hope it will. You also make a good point, as others have, that complex software takes time. It does. What has seemed to me to be different in the case of MSFS is the amount of resources they have used to promote the product as opposed to ensuring that very basic features are operational. I applaud the many many reputable developers in this industry who finish their products first and then sell them. My concern is for those members of the community who are eager to abandon products that have served us well for years. I would like to suggest some alternatives to those who may have limited resources and are interested in a particular aspect of our hobby. I was also very concerned about those who wrote that they were considering deleting all their other sims when MSFS was released. So much time and work goes into these installations that I began to feel like William Holden in "Network" when he yelled "Don't do it Buddy--you've got your whole life ahead of you!" In any case, I sincerely hope you are right about the future of this sim--I just don't want to overlook what is already available now. Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays.

I would heartily agree with this.

I always operate under the assumption that forums exist for the expression of differing opinions and points of view--that their value is the availability of a wide variety of opinions, information and the experiences of others. My belief is that there are many people who are actually interested in an opinion which may be at variance with their own--that there is value in discussion. I wonder if the hostility to this idea is, itself, an unfortunate sign of the times.

Once again, the discussion seems centered on graphics--which is fine. I know there are those for whom this is very important. ( I do sometimes wonder why, if the scenery is so spectacular, such a huge industry has spring up overnight to develop replacements for it.) What I am suggesting is that there are those of us who see a big difference among the sims in flight systems and dynamics. To be clear, I am not necessarily referring to airliners which I fly very infrequently. Let's just consider the 172 as an example. For things like: -realistic crosswind landing practice - a reliable autopilot and - IFR approaches with glide slope interception which can be counted upon and -at least a minimally usable ATC such as the one in P3D there is still very little reason for me to prefer MSFS I read again and again that "the sim has only been out a few months--just be patient." But let's also bear in mind that MSFS has been in development for years and these fundamental things have yet to be attended to. It just seems to me that MS/Asobo are not very interested in those features and are therefore unlikely to improve them any time soon--if at all. Yet there are alternative platforms available right now for those who find them essential to realistic flight simulation.

It has been said many times but bears repeating. Their are clearly two kinds of enthusiasts: Those who are primarily interested in aircraft fidelity and those for whom the scenery is a first priority. I read, with interest, the interview with the developers in the Jan/Feb issue of PcPilot on "The Future of MSFS." They went on for four pages about plans for the scenery. There was not a word about the future of aircraft, of the flight models, or of the SDK which, of course, is crucial to future development of quality aircraft by third parties. It could not have been clearer which of the two groups of simmers are a priority for them. The rest of us should be aware of that and temper our expectations about MSFS accordingly. The other two major sims, P3D and, especially X-Plane have far better flight models and aircraft because those are the priorities of their developers. They are likely to remain the favorites of those of us who are primarily interested in...airplanes. I don't anticipate MSFS ever offering serious competition to P3D or X-Plane in the area of flight dynamics and aircraft systems because it seems very clear from their performance and their public statements that they don't want to. The final, and happy, result is that there is something for both groups of simmers at the present time.

Hello Dai, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Is it that Stefan is not aware of what he is doing or that you are not in contact with him so as to make him aware? In any event, I will contact him. But an unpublished email from me does not serve the purpose of this forum --which is to make the community aware of what they are getting and at what price. This is simply not the study level product that it is represented as being and charging a "study level" price will not make it so--especially when the basic functionality found in any model is still missing. The over-arching point is that companies should finish their products first--then sell them--not the other way around.