I know you can remove the tooltips, etc, and the blue circle by going to legacy or lock, forget which way.
But I didn’t think it removed the blue from the walk around, I could be wrong and maybe missed it.
I kinda like the idea of the walk around, even if “toyish” and “rushed”, and personally don’t think it needs to be optional (from a subjective standpoint)..
The only time it gets annoying to me is when i didn’t fly FS24 for a few days and forgot about the necessity to remove / check certain things because it never was a thing in any other flight sim before and currently i fly.
Also in case i have to restart the flight multiple times because of desync w/ online buddies or something on that line, the pre-flight checks get annoying, but other than that i don’t think it will get old to me.. It’s just something new and refreshing, even if it surely can get improved on and isn’t bug free at all.
However, somebody else mentioned weather, storms specifically and the walk around was used as just one example, i want to iterate on my thoughts regarding weather:
I don’t necessarily need to fly my little Cub through a hailstorm or whatever, it would be nice to have the option.
My problem with the weather and “realism” lies more in the multiplayer space.
A friend and me do little trips in XCubs etc, mainly aircraft with no anti-ice options.. We do fly live weather and given it’s wintertime, more often than not circumventing clouds is therefor necessary - however despite being in a group together with the live weather being controlled by the leader only, my friend constantly has different cloud formations than i do and vica verse.
Now THAT really sucks out the immersion for us every time. It’s cool in SP but having completely different weather while weather being so influential in these situations really kills MP for me, at least on those days.
Vote here on that issue: MSFS2024 is randomising the positions of the clouds for each person that spawns in
2 Likes
Nobody is saying that pre flight checks are “toyish” or “rushed”. It’s worse than that because MS announced that “Preflight inspections and walkaround checks add to immersion”. Immersion? Not at all. IRL you can cold start a plane and fly with the pitot covers on. Immersion would be when you notice the consequences in the air. Just like what happens if you forget to remove the chocks.
What’s the problem with making this nonsense optional? You can already get it for a $5 addon, but not from Asosbo.
I can’t state that this is true for all the default aircraft (I still have to fly some of them), but I have occasionally forgotten to remove the pitot cover & noticed the results in-flight. Same for the chocks - wondered why, at full throttle & parking brake off, I was going nowhere. 
Each of the 3rd-party aircraft developers seemed to have been left to their own devices when creating their aircraft, which has resulted in many inconsistences seen by us users when comparing functionality between aircraft that should be the same, but is not.
2 Likes
ok, I have only tested the C 208 and the C 172. The C 172 doesn’t allow cold starts unless the following parts are removed: pitot cover, chocks, static port cover, front air intake cover. I assume that all original MS planes behave like this, I have not tested any 3rd party planes.
Excuse me for misinterpreting what you wrote, of course it’s a lot worse than that.
Now to the actual criticism you raised here:
I simply ask you to explain the screenshot i just made, pls.
As you can see, i am airborne, engine running, no IAS / Altimeter data because pitot cover is still on… You say that is not possible. How did i make the screenshot?
3 Likes
How exactly did you test this?
I just tried and can confirm @IrieGibbonz result, but with the C172.
1 Like
OK, here is the test.
FS 24 Version 1.2.11.0
free flight mode (no career mission)
C 172 C1000 Cargo
EDTL on the apron
cold and dark
-
Get in immediately (click on the door), normal start procedure, the propeller turns but the engine does not ignite
-
Get out (Shift-C) remove covers from pitot, air intake, static port as well as chocks. Then get in again (click on the door) and turn the ignition key again just one time shortly, engine starts immediately
The only explanation for the different behavior regarding pre flight check is that different versions exist
Ok, there seems to be your mistake: If you go in directly, ALL covers are still in place. Off course you can’t start your engine if the air intake is still blocked 
If you leave the pitot and static port covers in place and remove the air intake cover only, you can start your engine. If you also remove the chocks you can go flying, just without any necessary instruments.
2 Likes
Those aren’t engine intake covers for the engine to run… The air intake on a 172 for the engine is below the prop, a smaller box that has a filter behind it. Those are the intakes for the air cooling. You should be able to start the 172 with the engine covers on, it will just overheat
Engine cooling intake covers with flag that you can see from the cockpit so you don’t forget them(engine intake visible below Prop). If you forget them you can still start the engine and maybe even get airborne depending on weather and airport.
Engine air intake that leads to either the carburetor or intake manifold if fuel injected.
5 Likes
Didn’t know this, thanks for the insight 
Maybe the box is also covered in the sim? Have to check that later.
In the 172’s I instructed in there is an alternate air intake flap for the engine that it located on the intake plenum that is spring loaded shut that can pull air from inside the cowling if the engine intake was covered (induction icing, bird remains, debris etc). This would happen automatically with no indication in the cockpit that it was open. So in the sim there is no cover, unless it’s invisible to us, but even if it was you MIGHT still be able to start the engine but I can’t imagine it would run well if it did. Thinking back if it did start it would probably die as you advance the throttle as it would probably get too rich and starve of air, but I’ve never tested that or know of anyone who has
IRL I have 900 hours logged on a C 172 Sky Hawk. In 30 years of flying in Germany I have never seen any C 172 with these red covers (even with little flags) nor in any of the “1000” hangars I have been visiting in Germany and France.
But if even an A 330 at the gate (!) is equipped with these red covers, then I haven’t seen enough of the world yet.
1 Like
The covers are mainly to stop birds or other small animals from getting in there and nesting. But will also stop any foreign objects from getting in there on a windy day
What is the point of the FS 24 pre-flight check if you just remove the cooling air intakes and the plane can be started? What about the oil check, which is just as important if not more so? Therefore, either do it right or not at all. Preferably optional.
Then I have maybe seen more than you, because just a few weeks ago I saw an airliner at the gate with covered engines 
Admittedly, it was in Norway and it was still early morning and snowing, so maybe that had something to do with it…
Ok, got it. But I looked in all No. 1 German aviation shops to see if I could find such red covers. Negative. Maybe because there is not enough space for birds at the C172 air intake, because the cylinders behind it leave little room to build a nest. But in a sandstorm it should make sense.
There’s enough room for small birds to nest, squirrels etc.
As these covers really only block the cooling air and not the engine air, it is implemented the wrong way. On the Vision Jet you also can’t start the engine if you leave the air intake cover on (tested it already 
), but there it would make sense as the engine can’t start without air. Here it is just bad programming to link the air intake cover to the engine start (maybe the programmer didn’t know any better?). Forgetting to check your oil doesn’t prevent you from starting your engine, but trouble may await later. All other covers seem to be correctly linked to their instruments, and forgetting to remove your chocks also works as intended.