Artichoke

I had the same problem appear recently; it went away after disabling GSX. It's a new issue so I assume it will be fixed.

Great update. Can't wait for the F70/100!

It was more like anti-gravity or Wingardium Leviosa; the jetways lifted up slowly and started dancing around 😂. I haven't seen it happen again.

I have a similar problem with persistently low-res ground textures. It doesn't matter how long I wait or fly around; the ground will never increase in resolution. This has happened to me all over the world. Either something is wrong, or the streaming system is designed to maintain the best continuous level of quality and won't actually cache your surroundings. Preventing caching doesn't make sense to me though, so I think it is a bug. In MSFS2020, the system works fine on the same connection (and I am flying with third-party airports and aircraft in 2024, so those objects are not being streamed).

Just finished my first full flight; lots of improvements in the core engine (e.g. lighting, handling, etc.)! Unfortunately, we'll definitely need updates. Here I am departing KATL: Laser beams: After departure: Loading times are much better now, but in-game the situation is still poor. I am currently using a 30Mb/s connection, which has worked perfectly fine in 2020 for years. So, either the servers are still struggling to deliver, or my connection speed will not suffice for the increased network load.

Still haven't been able to even start downloading. The launch issues, dev issues, and in-game bugs are unfortunate because, based on the Tech Alpha, there is great potential for 2024. I do agree, however, that moving so much to the cloud causes more problems than it solves. Obviously, it is not feasible to have worldwide scenery locally, but most other things you can. There were already issues in 2020, let alone with the increased demand in 2024. I think it would have been better to keep core content local, but instead of installing everything and then having the option to remove it via the content manager, it should ask at initial launch which packages you want (similar to when you install Visual Studio or MATLAB). This would both allow users to only install what they want and reduce server load as people opt-out of downloadable content. Or, for a hybrid approach, they should ask at initial launch (not after!) what packages you want, and whether or not you want them stored locally or cached from the cloud. To end on a positive note, I certainly do not think this will kill MSFS. Eventually, we will all be enjoying it with our favorite third-party content.

Seems like there are new ones, and maybe some of them are updated. I do a lot of Wizz ops to/from Sofia in the sim and have been using a Google-based scenery as MSFS does not have its own. The dots don't all seem to be placed very precisely, though. At the very least, wonderful to see new Eastern European cities.

Yes, from what I remember, Seb explained that they quantified the accuracy of the model and went from ~80% (I think) to >90% accuracy. Of course, we know neither what variables they used, nor which in-dev FM was used. The data itself also matters. There could be lots of data from normal flying and the model could be overfitting, so it will look good in typical scenario, but really mess up in specific other scenarios. Personally, from a "feel" perspective, I thought it felt better and more reminiscent of my own experiences flying the C172. It's the only plane I've flown, so I won't comment on any of the other ones. For more non-standard stuff, I tested stalls (not the ones I showed in the video from my other thread), and the MSFS2024 version snapped the nose down in a very characteristic way, whereas I couldn't get the MSFS2020 version to do it the same. IRL, I remember that in many of the stalls I did there was this snapping effect if the stall developed fast enough. This is but one scenario of a million, though. Ultimately, we all perceive even real life experience differently, so not everyone will agree on the feel side.

Fully agree with the many improvements discussed here; I don't want to leave the alpha now 🥲. One new feature that I haven't heard much about is the new soft-body physics capability. The tagged pitot cover looked amazing waving in the wind. I'm very excited to see what developers will do with access to this. I imagine you could have cables swinging when a jetway is attaching to the aircraft or have a GPU cable slither across the ground as its being moved to the connection point (in addition to more serious uses, especially in mission scenarios).

My testing is quite limited. In the specific areas I compared, I think MSFS2024 TA is better. Based on Alec's testing in other areas, I tend to agree with his assessment there. The thing that's hard for me to translate to the sim is the fact that IRL there is increasing resistance when moving the control surfaces. So, at home, it's much easier for me to instantly input right rudder, and the sim will immediately respond to that input. The lack of feedback in the sim makes it difficult for me to compare in those scenarios, especially when people have different sensitivity settings. I do use curves because otherwise it doesn't "feel" like real life, but that itself is subjective. I would say that from these two tests, I liked what MSFS2024 shows. Things like the crosswind behavior, for example, cannot be masked with control settings. Thanks for the test @Alec, the more direct comparisons the better. It should be noted that MSFS2024 is supposed to come with methods that allow us to quantify these feelings, so once we get the full release the picture should become clearer. Regarding the stalls @Muds, I was rushing because I did not have much time earlier and did not adequately explain the test. The behavior shown in the video was the intention. Specifically, I wanted to see what would happen in both sims when there is a slight bank during the stall and you keep trying to prevent it with opposite roll. I just wanted to let people know what's in the video in broad terms. I will try to be more specific in the future. The standard power-on and power-off stalls are much more similar between the two sims than the actual test shown in the video.

Although not the purpose of the tech alpha, we do see some of the new capabilities of the sim that will be available upon release. I have made a quick comparison of the takeoff phase (in both zero wind and strong crosswind conditions) and some stalls in both sims. The video starts with a takeoff in zero wind conditions. MSFS2020 is set to the realistic turbulence preset. Note the improved ground "traction" in 2024. As I fly over, you get a look at a quarry. This may be a coincidence based on what data is being used, but you can clearly see how much better it looks in MSFS2024. I then do some stalls and there are big differences. Note the "snap" in MSFS2024. Lots to discuss here. Finally, a crosswind takeoff. Both sims are set with the wind from 271 degrees at 15G25 (takeoff runway is 23). In MSFS2020, we actually start spinning. I purposefully use no aileron to counter the wind. Notice how in MSFS2020 there is no issue at all, whereas in MSFS2024, the aircraft clearly needed it. This next example is not in the video, but showed a similar difference. Landing with 15G25 as a quartering tailwind, in MSFS2020 there was little effect, whereas in MSFS2024 the aircraft kept being lifted up from the back-right side, exacerbated by rapid breaking. Of course, much more in-depth comparison should be done, especially once the final version releases, but I wanted to show this quick comparison for everyone to discuss, whether good or bad.

Although it's a stripped-down version, my first impressions are quite positive! There are multiple improvements even in this version: 1) The lighting is much better, both outside and inside the cockpit. The interior shadows are fantastic. Also, the clouds are fixed, but still far from recreating the diverse clouds of reality. One day, it may be possible! 2) The new ground detail is also much better, especially now that it changes based on the season. I did notice, however, that setting winter time would leave almost all of the trees a desaturated green. Perhaps it is overestimating how many evergreens are in my area. 3) The handling on the ground and in the air is great. I have many hours in different C172s and it feels quite good. As many have discussed before, there was a general lack of inertia, but far less of a problem now. When going fast in a C172, the controls are actually quite heavy since you're fighting the wind. Also similar to real life, when it's not very windy, you can more or less "let go" and the plane will generally follow where you put it, as long as you trimmed correctly. I have often had a problem in MS sims where the plane will continuously drift because of how precise a trim setting you need, whereas IRL it's more forgiving. I am flying the C172 without autopilot as I write this reply and have had no need to babysit the controls. 4) Performance is very smooth. There are no stutters at all (with dynamic settings on) and my previous performance issues and artifacts when using DLSS and FG have been fixed. I can't even use DX12 on MSFS2020 without serious problems, so I'm very glad about this. My hope right now is that the final release will have more of the ground filled in with AI to mask low-res imagery.