I don't understand most of the complaints about msfs 2024

Discussion Hub General Discussion
1

Starting from the premise that it should have been sold now as an “early access” since it is far from being a finished product and has countless bugs, and it has surely created unrealistic expectations.

Most of us expected it not to be perfect at the beginning… maybe not so many bugs, but in a way it was predictable, but I think it has incredible potential.

Many people who complain that they have paid 70, 100 or 200$ for MSFS, have probably spent more just on a paid addon than on MSFS itself, not to mention the hardware, on which they will have spent thousands of euros, which they can use with X-Plane, DCS or 2020… or with any other game or software. There was the option of waiting a bit to see what the reviews were… or getting a Game Pass…

To those who complain that it is a game and not a simulator, because it has a career mode or some kind of aircraft, etc., I remind them that they can use MSFS as they please, no one is stopping them from programming a transoceanic flight and spending 8 hours in front of the screen without moving after having connected the autopilot in the Fenix ​​A320…

To those who also complain because it has been brought to the X-Box… On the one hand, it benefits those of us who do not have totally top-notch hardware and on the other hand, it is a showcase for new users, who perhaps otherwise would never approach this world and who in the future may be true simmers or pilots in real life.

Personally, I think that until now, the world of civil aviation had basically focused on airliners, at least on high-quality mods, and very little on GA, I suppose due to the deficiency in graphics and that therefore, VFR was less attractive. That was changed by MSFS 2020.

2024 has also incorporated the rest of the professional pilots, such as agricultural pilots, firefighters, etc., who for me are the real pilots (I’ve always seen airline pilots as a bit like bus drivers)

If 2024 had disabled the use of 2020 or X-Plane, I do think there would be reasons for complaint. They can coexist.

In any case, if you think X-Plane is better, use X-Plane… If you think 2020 is more polished, use it. In my case, in real life I am an RC pilot, so neither X-Plane nor MSFS are my main simulator, it is Real Flight, which does not even come close to having the graphics of MSFS, but I can really judge its flight physics, which simulates RC flight much better and does help me improve my flight capabilities.

And to everyone, whether you agree or not, Merry Christmas, happy flights and better landings.

37 Likes
2

Only thing I do not agree with you is saying that airline pilots are not “real pilots”. Those pilots there have all undergone vigorous training, have spend years of racking up thousands of flight times hours, have taught others how to fly, and in the most necessary times deal with emergency situations many times. This is not discounting what you mentioned such as the firefighting pilots, agricultural pilots, and so on.

All pilots who are working in the above fields are true professional pilots whether it be military, agricultural, Ariel survey, airline pilots, and so on, they should all be treated the same because in the end when things go wrong and thing need to be worked out by the pilots, they are going to be the ones ensuring that the aircraft is flying and getting down safely with their many years of experience. All have their strengths and weaknesses, some may gain much more depth and knowledge by flying professionally in a airline than a ariel survey pilot or agricultural pilot may not get flying on their own.

9 Likes
3

Of course I consider them to be real pilots and I am aware of their training… In fact, most of them, before entering to work for an airline, have surely worked in some other field of those I have mentioned… I simply believe that in most cases it is a more routine and overly regulated job (if you remember the case of Sully, when he landed in the Hudson River, they almost ended his career for making an unconventional decision).

4 Likes
4

2024 launch has been nothing compared to what 2020 launch was like. This iteration is so far ahead, despite all the complaints, compared to the predecessor. The issues it has cannot be compared to the ones that plagued 2020.

4 Likes
5

Most (valid) complaints are about the metric bucktonne of bugs and bad performance (after same to better performance was promised).

15 Likes
6

Not really, if you are referencing the movie where it portrays the NTSB as the bad guys in trying to blame Sully on that, it was all dramatic effect. In the real world investigations their only motive was to figure out the decision making process he took and ultimately they said he made the right call. There is no evidence supporting that they were trying to permanently ground him or blame him for it.

Anyways don’t want to go off topic here before this reply gets deleted but all the other points I agree with you. Everybody will have their preferences and I believe 2024 is being harshly mistreated although I do agree with most that the launch was disastrous and should of not happened that way. The platform however is promising, just need more time in the oven.

1 Like
7

You lost me with the ‘real pilots’ comment.

I think there were a whole string of poor decisions during the development and release of MSFS2024. One would be is the overuse of streaming. Why would streaming a download of a cockpit instrument be a good design choice? Terrain, sure, but some animation of people walking out to an aeroplane? This is one example among many.

People are allowed to complain about buying a product expecting it to be one thing when it turns out to be something else. We’ve let software publishers get away with too much when they just expect to patch everything post release. Lots of people on this forum are doing the work of software testers and unpaid.

Where does it end? It’s like buying a cup with no handle and a note promising to send you one in the mail for you to attach yourself.

29 Likes
8

I think many users are expressing concerns that the product isn’t performing as advertised.

14 Likes
9

I think the people saying this isn’t as a bad as 2020 are clearly having a better time with it. Both releases have been an utter beta testing shambles.

2 Likes
10

The launch of MS2024 was not very good, sorry to say.

1 Like
11

There is a fundamental difference between MSFS 2020 and FS2024: MSFS came from 14 years of nothing, FS2024 came from the evolution of a stable sim with all its features already set up and working: real weather, real traffic, scenery streaming, etc.
As mentioned multiple times, people are disappointed because of the regressions. Nobody expected 2024 to be perfect, but we all expected that it would continue from the point where MSFS had arrived.
Instead, we see regressions in scenery streaming, AI traffic (totally dead since weeks!!!), ATC, airport vehicle/aircraft nonsense, instability, performance, etc.
And no, it’s not acceptable as a paying customer, to be told to continue using MSFS or other sims. If you’re happy with this lack of QC and shabbiness, good for you, but please also understand other points of view.

50 Likes
12

i am totally frustrated with the whole thing, there is nothing that I can point to that seems to be the catalyst for the sim to fail. Just when i think it seems much better, it kicks me in the guts and fails at every flight. It also seems to run at a higher temperature than 2020 - this never seems to fail. I am struggling with career mode that fails 9 out of 10- flights and I take the cost of moving the aircraft but when it fails, the mission disappears, and I have to relocate again. and yet there seem to be users that dont have any issues, why is that- what are they doing that is different, my config is certainly above medium config i71300, 64Gb 4070ti RTX, heaps of storage, GRRRRR

7 Likes
13

Who is ‘they’? Are you referring to the NTSB-board in the movie who pressed Sully very hard, implying he had made an error? To my information that part was exaggerated for movie drama reasons.

4 Likes
14

Your GPU has 16GB VRAM. At Ultra settings its easy to overload the VRAM with high res FS24 textures.

It stalls, leading to stutters/freeze.

So try med-high, many users get great results that way.

15

Depends what you are broadly calling most of the complaints. Most complaints I see and hear are related to the sim taking a step back rather than forward. I therefore can’t get why anyone wouldn’t understand why folks would be upset with what is from that perspective a regression.

8 Likes
16

I reckon you are an armchair pilot…

17 Likes
17

And this right here is where you basically answered your own titular question. Had they respected the consumer by being honest with us on the state of the sim and launched it as an early access, beta, or even alpha version, we would be having an entirely different conversation. What happened is they hid all the glaring problems from us and tried to sell that to us as a finished product. THAT is the reason for all the complaints, compounded by ignoring initial complaints and cases of patches causing major regressions (i.e. the Airbus white screen bug after the latest patch). And let’s not also forget the gaslighting from them claiming this to be the best thing ever.

41 Likes
18

Correct…well said.

19

I think that’s why I haven’t been overly critical. I knew this was going to have a poor release. It was 100% predictable. I can’t even pretend to act shocked and disgusted because I knew this was going to be an ugly release. It’s a “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” scenario.

I assume just about everyone here who are even somewhat active on the forums expected this, even if they’re acting shocked and appalled now. We’ve learned over the past four years not to have too much faith or expectation. MSFS2020 released with tons of problems, and so many bugs and issues in MSFS2020 took months and even years to fix, many fixes causing more bugs or general downgrades, and some things still unfixed to this very day. You can’t really have gone through all that and then be shocked that 24 released the way it did.

My biggest complaint would be to the decision maker(s) who forced the release date. They deserve all of the blame. Everyone else who worked on it knew the disaster that was coming but there was nothing they could do about it. I think the worst part is that if they wanted to reach new players and more casual players, they most certainly ensured that the majority of those players will not return to purchase the next release. If I wasn’t an active flight sim user and this was my first experience, I’d never buy another. And that’s disappointing that there are probably a lot of people out there who feel that way.

10 Likes
20

I don’t disagree at all. But I can also imagine the wailing that would have happened here had they announced in October that the release was going to be pushed back to spring of next year. I can hear the calls of “Just put out whatever you’ve got and we’ll deal with it and help you beta test it.” Which appears to be just what happened.

So MS was in a bind no matter what they did. Personally I would have been disappointed to see it delayed further, but that probably would have been the better choice. I am at least getting to fly some in spite of the problems. And honestly, with all of us testing it, the bugs may get fixed sooner than they would have had it been left to internal testing or a closed beta. There are always going to be things that slip through no matter how much time you spend in QA.

Whether it was MS or Asobo, somebody had an overly optimistic view of how long this development was going to take. But there’s naught that can be done about that now. I would just like to see better communication as to what the path forward is from here. And let’s put aside all work on world or system updates for the next 6 to 12 months and fix what’s broken now. There’s no reason IMO that it should take longer than that for 2024 to achieve the level of stability that 2020 currently has.

3 Likes