FYI, BSOD 0x119 (VIDEO_SCHEDULER_INTERNAL_ERROR) is a very old issue - it has existed for a long time. This issue did not appear with the latest driver and concerns a specific scenario, namely a BSOD may occur when moving a game from primary monitor to a different monitor.
NVIDIA is expected to fix this in one of the R600 driver versions.
This is my first time playing 2024 and to say disappointed would be an understatement… horrible ground textures and looks extremely washed. The PG is horrible
2020 genuinely feels and looks better? Don’t want to be negative but does anyone feel the same?
I completely agree with Azlog regarding the performance of the 737-800 PMDG, which currently on Xbox with the 1.7.18.0 beta is actually the only aircraft that allows you to fly almost without problems, as long as you keep the cache clear and don’t abuse the ATC window.
Perhaps the Airbus 320 V2 also has decent capabilities, but it’s not at the level of the Boeing PMDG.
I’ve recently flown the Cessna Citation Longitude and CJ4, which are small planes with terrible performance and terrible flight plan management that isn’t reflected by the avionics.
I wonder: if PMDG has managed to optimize its aircraft, why can’t the others?
Is it too much to ask to be able to fly at least the main aircraft without constant stutters, freezes, and system crashes?
Not to mention the nonsense ATC keeps saying, like climbing to 20,000 feet 30 miles from your destination airport, or having to restart the simulation after every flight, or experiencing memory saturation if you go into settings three or four times during a flight.
It’s time for these problems to be resolved a year and a half after release, or openly declare that the console is incapable of handling MSFS 2024.
But this would imply a refund policy or financial incentives for the purchase of a new Xbox or PS6…
I hope that the new updates can at least address the situation.
Most? There’s been a lot of complaints from console users (personally, the sim got a LOT choppier and less fluid with SU5 release, even SU5 beta ran a lot more smoothly)
I’d like to add the inibuilds a340 to that as I flew her for over a week with the new Su5 patch and didn’t run into any major problems. I managed to get a few flights in with everything on medium though never did I touch the efb. I used the online planner for flight planning and reference
I am having problems with Career mode.
I bought an A330-300P2F for Heavy Cargo, BUT, there are no missions showing for it, it does not appear in the “Specialisations” filter menu and nor do “Heavy Cargo” missions show in the FILTER???
Also, but it allows me to buy it but kills my sound as soon as I press the first button to buy.
I signed out and in again and the sound restores but if you try again to buy it the sound dies again.
This is ever since I purchased the Phenom 300E.
Raul reported this to the Devs who were able to repro it and we thought it wasfixed but it is back again.
Boris didn’t state that it was fixed. He only provided a workaround, not a resolution. The bug-logged tag
just means the issue was registered, and the devs were able to reproduce it on their side. We’re still waiting for an actual fix to be implemented.
Actually, I have been in conversation with Raul and the sound was “fixed” because it corrected itself and I was able to purchase another 300E in Career mode. However, today it has appeared again.
Raul doesn’t implement fixes for MSFS 2024 - that’s done by Asobo. If the issue is bug-logged, it simply means it’s been confirmed, tracked and the devs were able to reproduce it on their side We’re now waiting for the final fix from Asobo.
That’s why the sound issue is appearing again - it hasn’t actually been fixed by Asobo yet.
I actually think both of you are correct. You are correct because you, along with many others in your group haven’t encountered errors. He is correct because of the frustration MS/Asobo just added to him not being able to enjoy the exact same game that you and your group are enjoying. For him(me included) I am sure the echos of, if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it, are reverberating in his head.
The main thing at play here is culpability. That takes you, me, and he completely out of the situation and sits solely on the shoulders of MS/Asobo. Shouldn’t they anticipate these findings when releasing major updates??? Of course they should. But the real question is, what are they doing about them? This isn’t their first rodeo. They are the experts here. That leads to the question of should these updates be mandatory or voluntary? Could there be a certain amount of time given to the user beforehand to gather as much evidence and data to prevent the many hours of frustrations some users are feeling as a result of waking up, choosing to play the game, and experiencing a waking nightmare?
I agree, there are countless numbers of computer systems and setups out there. But just as you have said it and others have acknowledged it, the folks at MS/Asobo also know it and they have to acknowledge that countless number by figuring out a different way to “push through” these major sim updates.
I’m not offended, I just want you to show me how PG should look. Could you perhaps show a 2020/2024 comparison, since you have both? I no longer have 2020 installed.
I’ll try to imagine what that looks like, unless you can demonstrate.
I’ve heard this complaint about PG dozens of times, and I don’t think I’ve seen a single user present an image where they state that “this” is what they expect to see, while instead getting “this”.
Unfortunately my suspicion is many have no idea what PG/TIN actually is, how it is captured, or how it works. So they make quite unfair comparisons to something like autogen scenery, or custom handcrafted buildings.
In this case, comparing to 2020 is a more valid comparison, but it would still be nice to see that we are comparing apples with apples. If ytou don’t provide examples, how can anyone ever replicate or refute?
They see oddly shaped buildings, and smeared textures, but don’t realise this looks fine as you fly over it. It will most lilkely never be good enough for street level viewing.
For the record, I don’t think I have seen a single airport with PG buildings. I’ve seen a few where the airport buildings are backing on to, or even through(!) surrounding PG structures, but not the airport buildings themselves. One of the ICAO quoted above didn’t even have PG anywhere near it that I could see, and all nearby buildings I inspected were sharp looking autogen, as expected.
As a general rule of thumb, I would suggest that when pointing out something is wrong, a picture really is worth a thousand words, and even then clearly highlighting on that image what is wrong is immensely helpful. Otherwise it’s a bit like this:
I would tend to agree that it feels like PG issues are often a matter of expectations. Maybe some think PG means real-world accurate structures when inspected closely, and it’s certainly not that. Hand-crafted structures are the most accurate representation. Auto-gen buildings are “clean” visually, but are rarely accurate to real world details. PG buildings are 2D pictures taken at a distance and used to attempt to reconstruct 3D structures. At a distance, PG is good for that. Close up, you see exactly what you posted. Things like towers and bridges look even worse. This is a limitation of the PG technology as I understand it.
