MSFS 2024 is Not Ready For Release

Discussion Hub General Discussion
,
2041

Yeah, I feel for all the customers, but I really feel bad for the third-party devs. They were told one thing, got another, along with an abysmal launch and no marketplace sales during the holiday season. Not only that, but many have been shut out of the avenues that symbiotically made themselves and the previous version of the sim so successful.

This whole aspect of the launch is more mind-blowing than all the bugs (which are likely fairly related at some level).

And the customers feel the effect of that. Hard.

10 Likes
2042

It really is the cherry on top of the already legendary level of incompetence shown in so many levels of this release. Imagine Apple bringing out a new iPhone and then having to shut it out of their own app store for weeks due to the phone being incompatible with existing apps despite repeated promises from Apple that it would be. :scream:

All MS had to do was declare 19-NOV an “early access” launch without Marketplace. Those that would have bought, would have been more understanding of the bugs and the closed MP. Now resolve the worst issues over a few months, assisted by these tens of thousands of paying EA beta testers, and release a decently mature sim with functioning MP, fleshed-out SDK, fully tested 3rd-party addons etc. in Q2 2025.

Just because this is “only” entertainment software, doesn’t make the management failures any less egregious.

13 Likes
2043

It really turned out to be an unfortunate scenario for all involved, the users, Asobo and Microsoft. The only way it really makes sense to me is that it was too ambitious of a project and development had gone on far too long. Other publishers, like Rockstar for example are somehow able to have very long and expensive dev cycles and the results have been so far paying off.

When you look at the main casual player gameplay loop, I do think that MSFS 2024 hits the mark. It’s only when you get into the details that the shine wears off a bit. When millions of players get it in their hands, they will find all the bugs.

When people give a review, I wish they would spend more time with the sim instead of rushing to the forums to voice an opinion. Many of us have tuned our MSFS 2020 installations over years and you can’t expect a brand new sim to immediately have all those optimizations.

Let’s say there was a high-level executive meeting where people wanted to see the sim and make a decision on whether to release or not. You could demo the sim in a way that makes it look incredible.

But what were the real options?

  1. Wait another 6 months for more development and testing.
    I don’t think the players that are enjoying the sim today would like that.
  2. Release an open beta to find bugs and give 3rd party developers a head start on their projects.
    This would have been good but doesn’t generate any revenue for Microsoft.
  3. Release a “Early Access” version which you have to pay for.
    I just don’t think this would go over well with the community and it’s not great for Microsoft either.
  4. Release the way they did but tell the community that they may find bugs and regressions.
    Probably the most honest way to do it but not in the best interest of Microsoft’s reputation and the community would still complain as much as the other options.
  5. Release it the way they did by saying it was really successful.
    They are going to hear an earful from the community but the sales numbers can do a lot to soothe the accountants so it’s not surprising this is what we got.

All this said, there still is a big leap with the SDK and over time this will pay off in a big way. Developers need to get their footing but the capabilities in the new sim are better in many ways above 2020. We needed to shed some of the old baggage to soar higher. It will just be a bumpy ride until we get there.

2 Likes
2044

They had already people pre-ordering, so early access likely wasn’t an option. I agree that it should have been early acces, because that is what it is in the current state and would have made clear to everyone buying (at a reduced price) that this was likely not going to be a smooth experience. You would have been a beta tester for a bit, but paying less for the early access would have compensated? Now we all are unpaid beta testers…

4 Likes
2045

Love it!!! :rofl: so true :sleepy: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

2046

Is there a bug report for the insane avionics brightness at night? It’s impossible to fly at night because the avionics screens are so bright they’re unreadable. And in some aircraft the brightness can’t be adjusted. “Photometric lighting” was tailored for daytime only, it seems.

2047

Is this what you are looking for?:

1 Like
2048

Kind of but it affects almost all planes and it’s not a proper bug report. I’m afraid Asobo will not bother with it. I will make more screenshots when I have the time.

This really is shovelware… whatever I try it’s bugged out one way or another. I haven’t had a proper, comfortable session in this piece of software yet.

4 Likes
2049

Although it is still in “Open Beta Status” IMO also, it has already solidified itself as the “The Flight Simulation Experience I’ve wanted for my entire life.”

Both the visual and audio experience of Free Flight is a devine experience within higher fidelity addons. The core of the game (just flying) truly establishes itself as a Miracle of modern computer entertainment technology for home use. And, it is basically still Day 1.

All of the added activities, features, and minigames in the game are an astounding bonus. They are a solid teaser look into the foundation of what the platform intends to develop and adjust over the next few YEARS - which is EXACTLY what I am most appreciative of - longevity and staying power of the platform.

2020/2024 is the first MSFS product to have longevity of the critical SDK Team intact for the duration of it’s journey (more than 4 years now): The SDK Team IS the foundation for the continued future of the game, and it still appears to be on solid ground - albeit a little shakey at the moment.

  • 3rd party Developers are who ultimately provide the TRUE playable features singular to each individual and how they want to enjoy the game. The SDK team provides the tools to facilitate 3rd Party develoment needs to be able to provide their additional gifts to this community.

Ultimately, I just want to fly within this beautifully simulated MSFS 2024 World. All of the initial issues haven’t stopped progression towards it’s stated ultimate vision for delivery. The sincerity and commitment of Jorg, Seb, and Martial to the MSFS communtiy appears genuine to me.

  • This game already delivers an unmatched visual and aural flight simulation Paradise.
  • I personally consider it well worth the price I paid for it.

For most people that are fortuitous enough to post on this forum, it’s like being born, starting a new job or career, or starting a new relationship. It’s just beginning.

A lot people in this World will never even be afforded an opprtunity to experience entertainent in their lives at all.

2050

SIncerely Msfs 2024 is far away from what we call a Flight Simulator

FACTS:

I was able to lift the C152 at 30 kt without even wind on the ground and even with wind it is impossible to take off at this very low speed.
I just made the test thanks to a pilot on youtube who said that the flight model is pure garbage, he was also able to TO at 20 kt on his side with an other plan.

The inertia of heavy birds do not really translate the mass of it, so that some of the stock airplanes fly like a C172 in some eras, it is heretic in terms of flight model!!! I’m talking about default aircraft only, which kills the immersion and the feeling of flying like you got in Xplane and even if you did invest in very expensive hardwares such as Yoke/Rudders/Throttles as I’ve already done for my Xplane home-cockpit, msfs sxxx.

The live weather is outrageous, flying a C152 in TS, big dark CB gives a very bad idea of how it works in RL, there is no clouds density implemented, no up/downdraft, no severe turbulence, no severe icing conditions that could put you in such a dangerous situation which could make your bird unflyable because of a stall (like in Xplane & Real life) and the list of bugs is so heavy that I didn’t want to mention it so much it was already discussed here and there, on other forums, on a bunch of youtube videos.

So when I hear one of the team member answering to an interview to a real and frontal question about the weather/danger in the sky and straight in the eye the dev said “you can be tossed, you have big turbulence” something like that (still online) it is pure lies, why do not say “it is arcade, there is no heavy turbulence in TS, CB, but we are working on that” even if it is not true it sounds better in terms of marketing…yeap like other promises for SU12 MSFS 2020 thermals, turbulence will be implemented etc (still online to check it out Q&A) blablabla and so on it is pure bad marketing/rethoric like if they were forced to claim such things … they definitely lost my trust as many other users and it is legitimate.

Fortunately i had msfs 2024 for free because I bet that all the features annonced about realism will be missing for sure (even with bugs) anyway, sorry for my buddy but I’m a nice dude for real, I offered him the Xplane license and he’s very happy with that knowing that he’s working on his PPL, he has now a Flight Simulator and now he knows what SIMULATION means!
Hey man in msfs 2020 and 2024 you can fly a C172 in CB,TS without any danger in the skies, come on! This is what we call GTA stuff, Arcade mode (i really like GTA but the devs don’t claim that it is a simulation therefore I know to whom I gave my money for!)

Fying in CB, TS could be very very dangerous even for a B747, we learn that in flight school, it has to be simulated at the first place for a flight simulator before implementing elephants, lions on the ground and career missions…

MSFS 2024 is not a flight simulator based on factual things (not opinion) it is objective facts… no matter what the devs promised but same as other simmers who already said clearly (and i second that) that microsoft/Asobo wanted to seduce gaming and casual users (I’m a gamer too for other products) they want a large number of clients (which is understable) and sure, it’s a great thing that it can create passion for aviation and maybe future pilots, however Asobo totally negligated the simualtion for the benefit of arcade and gaming.
It is so obvious and factual!

I have my PPL, my CPPL since years thanks to microsoft FS 2004, I started to believe that this dream was possible, we had only 20 fps back in the days but we had in front of our screen what was promised …

Now we are just alpha-tester but we pay the full price for that which is a deep shame, it is a very bad marketing philosophy and somedays I’m sure that this kind of business won’t work anymore…

That is sad

16 Likes
2051

There are a few planes with good flight characteristics but so many flying just bad. So many regressions. For example the F18 wasn’t perfect in 2020 but now it’s horrible, the flight modeling is broken in some situations. It glides like a ultralight with throttle set to 0 for example. It porpoises at lower speeds (around 200 knots).

1 Like
2052

i agree,at least right now, the flight model doesnt make any sense to me
the 172 shoots up from the runway as if it was made out of paper, and then it flies on rails

in 2020 the flight realism was not its strongest point, but it was acceptable
in 2024 its worse, it feels completely game-like to me, and this makes sense because, even though others deny it vehemently, i find that for 2024 they very much gamified this sim, feels like the flying aspects of the thing were way, way down the priorities list, its all about eye candy, and fun features, but the realism part is, in my opinion, worse

5 Likes
2053

Lol yes that was sarcasm that apparently didn’t register.

2054

I haven’t experienced that at all. I rotate at around 51 knots, using about the same amount of backpressure I use in the real plane, and it kind of skips and finally leaves the runway. I have to keep the nose relatively down to get to Vy, and once there, it climbs at a rate that is very reasonable for the environmental conditions and loadout. Just like the real plane.

In fact, a few streams ago, I calculated the performance for live conditions, went out to fly it, and it flew pretty much exactly to calculations.

1 Like
2055

Which 172 though? Is the basic/steam variant using the new CFD that the G1000 does? For all the myriad of issues that the simulator has, I was going to say that flying the glass 172 is one of the nice points to 2024. It was one of the areas they put work into instead of neglecting or rushing out unfinished.

Also wondering if the weather sometimes messes things up. For example, I had a mission in Career with a constant and rather extreme updraft. That would certainly cause your plane to feel like it has extremely unnatural flight characteristics. Whatever caused that might rear it’s head in free flight under certain situations.

1 Like
2056

It’s not a simulator, it’s a flight game. :smiling_face_with_tear:

2057

If it’s any consolation, I was quite cautious about MSFS2024. I still remember the frustrating first months of MSFS2020, so I wasn’t nearly as confident about jumping into this new release.

Back in 2020, I bought it almost immediately, but this time, with my 3070 Ti which is starting to feel quite outdated! I decided to hold off. Instead, I chose to wait a week or two and keep an eye on the forums. And honestly, I’m glad I did.

While the game seems to work fine for some, the sheer number of bug reports and major issues, like poor VRAM optimization affecting so many users, blurry textures whilst it’s so important to look good, has made me hesitate. I don’t see the point in spending that much money until the complaints and bug reports relatively die down. Some of the problems being reported seem deeply ingrained, and I’m not optimistic they’ll be fixed anytime soon. From what I know, implementing a fully functional DX12 is a massive challenge, especially if you’re building your own custom graphics engine.

To be honest, I’m starting to wonder if Microsoft and others made a mistake choosing to follow the low level “closer to the metal” philosophy for DX12 or Vulkan for exemple. Even companies like Unreal struggle to implement efficient VRAM management and gain FPS advantages with DX12 over DX11. Achieving this level of optimization and effectively take advantage of what a low-level API could offer vs a high-level one like DX11 just demands enormous expertise, time, and resources—money that most studios simply can’t justify unless their entire business revolves around engine development, like Unreal. Financially, it’s just not worth it for many studios, and I doubt we’ll see significant improvements in this area for at least a year, maybe longer.

Really, almost nobody makes advantage of Low-level and I’ve yet to see a single game managing VRAM to RAM as well as DX11 could do on its own without it killing FPS like crazy unless you own vast amount of Vram.

I hope I’m wrong, but hey, at least you’ve found someone who agrees with you and actually acted the way you’d like to lol! :wink:

1 Like
2058

Ive lost ALL faith in any of the the default plannes even being semi realistic. Something went seriously wrong with them if the SIM was/is engineered for more realistic handling than 2020. Im begining to question if it is any better at all? If it is a better sim for handling how did the planes like 172/etc end up being so bad ??? they somehow regressed from 2020

1 Like
2059

Could you please elaborate on what makes the 172 for exemple so bad handling wise compared to its FS2020 counterpart? This would help me further ■■■■■ where 2024 is at the moment

2060

Again, I’m not seeing major handling issues with the exception of some aircraft have gear that are too stiff, which makes them very wobbly on the ground - the XCub and Cessna Corvallis are two that come to mind.

I know some people are seeing some major discrepancies and I believe them, but I haven’t been able to replicate, so it could be a local bug or a control setup thing, who knows.