Check out the latest Weekly Briefing here:
Please use this thread for feedback and discussion. Thank you!
Hoping for word on a September dev stream soon.
SU6 has has now been fully released with “thousands of bug fixes”, but no comment about the regressions.
In my case, I have been unable to fly in the beta due to artefacts introduced in VR. These were pointed out immediately on release of the beta but have not been fixed in the final release, so I’m afraid that my choice of FS2024 as my “goto” flight simulator is at an end.
SU6 – EHAM Departure Rendering Bug (Technical Summary)
After SU6,departing from EHAMconsistently triggers a rendering failure.Tested with PMDG 737‑700 on EHAM → EHGG:
- After loading, the screen turnsgrey/blue, grainy, micro‑textured— terrain tiles fail to resolve.
- Rendererhangsuntil pressingESC, which forces a UI redraw.
- Sim resumes with a“Graphics settings too high”warning, despite stable hardware and correct settings.
- Flight becomes unstable or crashes shortly after takeoff .
In contras t:
EHGG → EHAM works normally— no rendering issues, no warnings, correct terrain streami ng.
Technical indicators
- Terrain streaming failure on departure
- Fallback texture activation
- LOD burst stall in SU6
- Elevation conflict (EHAM below sea le vel)
- Amsterdam photogrammetry load spike
- SU6 terrain‑blend regression affecting low‑elevation air ports
Conc lusion
SU6 did not resolve the long‑standingEHAM departure terrain/LOD bug. Arrivals load fine; departures still trigger renderer stalls and fallback textures.This issue is reproducible and not hardware‑related.
Short Technical Statement for SU6 Feedback
MSFS needs built‑in internal diagnostic controls.
Not external tools, not user‑side debugging. A simulator of this scale should
have subsystem checks, terrain/LOD validation and streaming integrity
monitoring.
The Python example I posted is not the goal — it only shows that
lightweight, modular control logic is perfectly feasible .
Right now MSFS lacks any internal quality‑control layer, which leads to
unpredictable rendering failures, terrain stalls, inconsistent airport behavior
and meaningless warnings like “graphics too high .”
A real quality improvement is only possible if MSFS adds native
diagnostic and verification mechanisms inside the engi ne.
I have to say SU6 was the most underwhelming SU I can remember. Barely any significant changes but newly introduced issues like CTDs (I had more of them during SU6beta and some easily reproducable like simply spawning at AS EDDS) but also old bugs reappeared and got reported swiftly, like the overblown POIs got logged and ignored. Overall I’m quite disappointed by SU6.
Dev streams should be quarterly, at the minimum. Going 6+ months without direct communication with the community about the state and direction of the sim just makes it seem like they don’t care. And no, these “Weekly Briefings” do not serve as the communication most of us are looking for.
I disagree. MSFS 2024 is clearly being worked on and continues to get better with each update. There’s obviously still a lot to fix, but fewer dev streams certainly doesn’t mean they don’t care.
I’m not convinced. But we can agree to disagree 
Do you remember su5 for 2020 version? As long as it’s nothing like that we ok