Really I expect Jorg will have a funny time to read your imaginations 
you makes me smile, thnx.
Sry OFT
Which Frame Gen CTD is he talking about?
I think your concern about communication is fair, especially regarding the Frame Generation CTD. That said, I think the DoD software comparison weakens the argument a bit. I understand the point you’re making, but they’re very different environments.
For me, the more important question is whether the team is identifying issues, communicating them clearly, and fixing them quickly.
To me, the most interesting point the OP suggests is this –
- There’s a quiet population of technically capable customers — developers, engineers, sysadmins — who would give you much higher-signal feedback than typical forum traffic if you built a channel for it. We notice patterns. We have language for them. Most of us don’t say anything because the existing channels feel like shouting into a void.
Note to OP. see the MSFS SDK Forum 
https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/
I think the sentiment expressed in the open letter is a lost cause for MSFS. Quite clearly the development of FS24 was to monetise the franchise and expand its availability across all platforms, preferably as a subscription game. There is no future for in this model for user modding and refinement. In order to “optimise” the game for all platforms, the technical requirements for a true simulator must be compromised. MSFS is still a remarkable game for flying adventures and I will continue to enjoy its impressive scenery simulations in general. Unfortunately the textures and mesh detail appear to be diminished in recent betas. The development of TIN photogrammetry compensates for this somewhat but that is generally confined to urban areas.
Anyone can create a scenery or even an aircraft and distribute it across various platforms, free or paid. APIs allow control over certain aspects of the simulation. It’s not the total freedom some probably dream of, but it’s already superior to the vast majority of other games.
AMEN!!! Bravo
Although searchable, are the issues I’m having in KJFK and KLAX with stuttering SU5 related? I just spent big to upgrade my CPU, motherboard and still have time to return. I don’t recall having stutters at these airports until a couple months ago and just thought it was time for an upgrade.
Current System: Intel 13700F, RTX 5090, 64GB RAM 6400MHZ/CL32
may not be needed but ordered: Ryzen 9 9950x3D, 870E Motherboard.
I’ve been building my own systems since the 1990s so I think it’s safe to say I’ve become quite adept at troubleshooting. The other day I started getting CTDs trying to start MSFS 2024 with an exception error for both the exe and a runtime library. So, I ran sfc and DISM repair commands to find that I had a significant amount of system file/store corruption that needed repairing, which seemed to fix the problem.
That is now the third time I’ve had to run these utilities to fix corrupt files, on a system that is less than a year old. A system running up to date subscription-based firewall and antivirus software, two separate SSDs, running two separate instances of Windows 11 Pro (one just for games). A system that gets properly shutdown, receives regular updates and is generally very well looked after with more than enough cooling (CPU and GPU temps are below 60C 99% of the time, even while gaming).
By comparison, my old Windows 10 PC lasted me 12 years before it started to show hardware related problems. Up until then, I had next to zero day to day operational problems with it and ran everything from 3D modelling and rendering applications to games, office apps and video streaming.
I guess there’s no denying that developing state of the art tech is hard. It takes considerable time, skill, effort and trillions of Dollars of investment. But I think it’s also true to say that to succeed and stay ahead in an increasingly competitive world, you also need something else: a vision, attitude and approach to things that are ‘hard’, still relevant today as it was more than sixty years ago:
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win…”
[Insert ‘First time?’ meme…]
It’s gotta be something with that SU5 name!
July 2021 - Long freezes after SU5
August 2021 - SU5 before and after
August 2021 - Allow to refund … after SU5 graphical downgrade
August 2021 - VR performance much worse since SU5
June 2025 - (More screenshots of how MSFS 2020 looked before SU5)
Just went with Xp12 and find it much easier to configure hardware.Stayed with 2020 after purchasing 2024.
I’m still flying 2020. Don’t mean that in a way of: what great of a hero I am.
I think everyone has to make his decision for himself. For the things I use MSFS, which is mainly flying big jets with IFR at high alts, my benefit of using 2024 wouldn’t be as much as for other simmers. Would I fly VFR on 1000 - 5000 ft, I may have bought 2024. I think here are the most benefits with 2024, comparing to 2020.
Still flying 2020, I don’t have to buy 2024, don’t have to uninstall 2020 (cause of disk space) and most important don’t have to update every (of really many) addon(s) to fit 2024 or to be the best version for 2024. I don’t have to google and find hundreds of tiny things, I would have to adapt in 2024 to make it fit my needs and likes. My 2020 is 99.9% ‘fixed’ (by me), to adapt it to my needs (as it is since some years now). And also a quite important point is: my last CTD on 2020 was… I can’t remember. It runs super smooth on my machine, with no flaws at all. Even with long haul flights.
What you peolpe describe - that from SU2 on, 2024 did lose performance and still every new SU is a bit of gambling - I am right now pretty sure, I will skip 2024 in total and (may) jump to the next version. I do understand, that developing such a complex product is a tough job. But for me as a customer, it is enough, to go through this procedure every eight years, instead of every four.
I do hope though, that you’ll get the sim you like eventually!! 
People have the tendency to think their issue is universal; that everyone is suffering the same problems and that the sim is the obvious problem. I think that’s rarely the case. Obviously there were identified issues with a subset of hardware, hence SU5.1. But I have had absolutely flawless performance with SU5 and had zero issues with the SU5 beta as it was ongoing.
The other thing is an issue I’ve addressed with the beta testers themselves. A not insignificant number of beta “testers” bail on the beta the second they have any sort of issue. You can already see it with SU6 beta. “Chaseplane doesn’t work, I’m out”. Well, great! Thanks for the in-depth testing. How is Asobo supposed to test anything under such conditions?
So many people just use the beta process as early access. This is a disservice to the community. As is, frankly, writing long letters to Jorg stating that you “don’t say anything” about the problems you find.
Regardless, I’ve had basically flawless performance since probably SU2.
You are one lucky person! After SU3 I had BOD’s and CTD’s coming out of my ears. Nothing about my system had changed from 1 day to the next - so my system or the SIM?
SIM!
Since SU5 I have been having many successful flights. I have been enjoying.
perhaps you are making the same mistake yourself?
since it works for you, then, obviously, it should work for everyone else
also, you may be circumscribing your view to just unexplained anomalies like a crash to desktop which of course may very well be user related. But then there is also the the bugs in the aircraft themselves, say, a switch that doesnt work (but should) and it is hardcoded into the aircraft, hence, it will most certainly be, as you say, universal
i understand that a lot of people may not care that that switch doesnt work… but that is a different thing altogether
That the sim can be broken isn’t evidence that it is broken. Getting bad performance is easy. Which is not to say getting good performance is easy also, but it can be done. We’re talking an extremely complex piece of software that we’re expecting to run well on every hardware combination and software environment imaginable. It’s just not realistic. If there were an easy fix that eliminated all problems immediately, I’m sure it would have been implemented by now.
For me, there is only one solution: open it up to mods. I’ve been saying this for years now. I am sure that modders would find solutions to these problems in weeks—definitely not in months, or even years. I’m sorry, but I still think Asobo hasn’t really been up to the task. Opening it up to mods would also be a way to prove my thinking wrong. I’d be willing to publicly apologize at that point. But at least we would have cleared up the doubt.
Opening up the sim itself to modders is the one sure way to make it absolutely unusable. We’d go from having it working for 95% of people and not working for 5% to the other way around.
Depends on what you’re talking about and who is doing the modding. But by opening it up, it allows the more experienced modders to at least troubleshoot and present their findings. Hopefully that’d at least allow a consensus as to how to resolve issues and maybe better document and perhaps standardize things going forward.
Also, contributions by modders can themselves be moderated and quality-checked prior to release to the public. That’s what we had in the World Hub in regard to airport modding.