SU6 Beta 1.8.11.0 Surveys

[SeedyL3205]

Please use this thread to provide general feedback and impressions about Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 Sim Update 6 Beta (v1.8.11.0). For feedback about specific aircraft, please post in the appropriate forum topic.

If you would like to report a bug, please create a new topic (or upvote an existing topic) in the Bug Reporting Hub section of the forums. Please use the full bug report template when creating a new bug report.

What was your experience downloading and installing this build?

• The installation completed successfully, and download speeds were fast and smooth.
• The update installed successfully, but download speeds were slower than I expected.
• The download and installation did not complete successfully for me.

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), what is your Overall Rating of this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate the flight model, avionics, and aviation realism in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate the quality of the World Scenery in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate the quality of the weather depiction, including Live Weather in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate Career Mode in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate World Photographer Mode in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate Challenge League in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best), how do you rate Red Bull Air Racing in this build?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being smoothest), how do you rate the Performance of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on PC?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being most stable), how do you rate the Stability of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on PC?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being smoothest), how do you rate the Performance of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on Xbox Series X|S and Xbox Cloud Gaming?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being most stable), how do you rate the Stability of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on Xbox Series X|S and Xbox Cloud Gaming?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being smoothest), how do you rate the Performance of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on PS5?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being most stable), how do you rate the Stability of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on PS5?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being most stable), how do you rate the PS VR2 feature of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build on PS5?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being smoothest), how do you rate the Performance of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build in Virtual Reality mode?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being most stable), how do you rate the Stability of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 in this build in Virtual Reality mode?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

Thanks,
MSFS Team

[ExtraPilot6480]

Still no solution to the VR artefacts regression, still unplayable for me so again I won’t be back on MSFS till the next beta release.

MS/Asobo are certainly doing their best to push me towards other flight sims! At the moment, even FSX works better for me than this beta.

[DementedCorn327]

@ExtraPilot6480

Still no solution to the VR artefacts regression

Do you happen to know if there is an existing report about those VR artefacts regression in SU6 beta ?, I don’t see a specific one in Sim Update 6 Beta | MSFS 2024 > Virtual Reality (maybe I am mistaken), or in Bug Reporting Hub > Virtual Reality (VR) ?

[zipiol]

draw distance seems better on PS5 Pro
(can see city skyline from west end of Miami airport)

Broken EFB still in half of aircraft

Broken EFB map (map flickers, zooms in and out by itself, doesn’t load new tiles when zooming in or panning manually)

ISSUE DESCRIPTION EFB map constantly flickers and zooms in and out by itselfs and doesn’t load new tiles when zooming in or panning manually in VR and sometimes even in 2D. this started around v1.7.32 and still exists on current v1.7.35 live version. FREQUENCY OF ISSUE all the time REPRODUCTION STEPS launch game into career mode or free flight look at mounted EFB in cockpit or bring ‘virtual’ onscreen EFB with button combo YOUR SETTINGS PS5 Pro with PSVR2 and mouse MEDIA

No option to set analog triggers of gamepad to helicopters collective (currently digital provides maybe 10 huge steps while we need like 100 to precise control a helicopter collective)

Analog Triggers for Collective

Can we have Increment and Decrement Collective functions set to analog/axis istead of digital? jumping digitally gives you maybe 10 steps and is very imprecise, while doing it with analog triggers that are actually analog input gives much better range, which helicopter collective needs very much. currently the collective axis can be mapped to only one key/trigger therefore its impossible to use.. [19ed036118377-screenshotUrl] Digital input: Analog input:

[ExtraPilot6480]

I think this is the only one:

10 FPS drop with 1.8.5.0 and visual artifacts

1 tag is required - add them in the tag section next to the title above: One for platform (ms-store, steam, xbox , or xcloud) One for aircraft if related (start typing in your aircraft name in the tag section and pick correct option) Feel free to delete this quote section after adding your appropriate tags. ISSUE DESCRIPTION Description of the issue: 5.1 works fine. I get a consistent 45 fps. I am using the Blacksquare Bonanza loaded into Wall SD Airport with real world weather and fov…

[Roi7471752]

The annoying stutters when panning after landing are back. Too bad

[FlyingPapa71]

My first test flight in 1.8.11. From EGLC (Orbx) to EGLL (IniBuilds) with Cessna 172 G1000. PCVR, Quest3, locked at 36 FPS (72 Hz, SSW on). MSFS24 VR settings Medium-Ultra. FFR on at 0.5. Nice flight, nothing to report here. No stutters, everything went as expected. VRAM usage was a bit high, and maybe I should lower TLOD from 220 to 150 or something even with C172…

Intel I7-14700K, 64 GB DDR5 @6000MHz, MSI Gaming Trio 5070Ti 16GB undervolted and overclocked a lot, Quest3 @Godlike.

[VulcanPonFarr]

Back after a month away from the sim so a couple of things to consider before the reports: I didn’t fly or visit the forums even once during this time, thus I have no idea about the trajectory of this beta or what other testers have reported—these are my very early impressions after just two quick test flights comparing the experience mostly to late SU5.1 beta.

Default A321 Salt Lake Simulations livery

Default KATL - Latin VFR KFLL

Initially airport ground textures seemed ok, perhaps even slightly better than at the end of SU5.1 beta, but the runway still turned into a blurry mess during a very stuttery takeoff run. Overall performance was better than what I remember seeing in KATL historically. In flight, terrain hasn’t improved when at lower altitudes and close to bespoke/3rd party airports, though reaches acceptable quality once further away.

Worst moments were the approach to Fort Lauderdale where the tree circle has been reduced noticeably and the photogrammetry once again disappeared around the airport, as well as the landing/taxi with some of the blurriest runway/taxiway textures I’ve observed to date (bad enough to kill immersion and ruin the flight).

Since the ground looked pretty good in walkaround, I tried playing with the drone some more after parking. It’s the same behavior I witnessed before my break: Raising the camera even slightly above eye level turns the markings into mush, and it makes airport screenshots very problematic except maybe in walkaround mode, which seems to have improved since my last flight.

Default 737 Bravoairspace livery

MK Studios EFHK (v2) - MK Studios EFRO (2024)

Better ground textures on both sceneries, otherwise similar experience with poor graphics flying close to airports, then gets better as the altitude/distance increases. Tree circle in Rovaniemi at 10K feet was even smaller, just a couple of squares under the plane, but thankfully it got bigger further down. No stutters during landing gave me more fine control over the aircraft than I’m used to getting in airliners.

Object draw distance on airports wasn’t bad compared to pre-SU5 days, although I did notice some late LOD switching in Helsinki, especially on some of the snow removal equipment. At least I didn’t see any of those orange boxes that used to destroy immersion in most Nordic airports. Not graphically brilliant, but still enjoyable test flight (CTD on first attempt).

I’ll share my settings (they haven’t changed) when I try something more demanding during the weekend.

[ScorchedPine523]

I´m getting a lot of PG popping in when changing views or just panning…but nice performance

[FS20246320]

PC - AMD Laptop 12 Cores - 32GB Ram, 16Gb allocated to VRAM, shared RAM.
Build Beta 1.8.11

Ist there any way to Wipe Windscreen?

I am affraid this could interfer with Terrain quality . AirBus 320 Default.

Now, I can adjust Graphic settings to achieve the desired FPS.
Altought, at Airports and Approachs FPS drops too much, it makes very difficult to to Land. Would be very nice some implementaion on this.
Terrain looks better, than previous Builds since 5.1. Now, seems Dev have beeing palying around with Contrast and Sharpening, the result is very hard looking on Trees on Hills. They are too Dark, almost Black shapes..

[VulcanPonFarr]

Aerosoft CRJ700

Default KLAX - Default KJAC

In a lighter aircraft add-on it didn’t have to level the terrain even around a large bespoke airport. The LA photogrammetry loaded as far as the eye can see with nearly all of it visible at the same time (incredible sight), and the draw distance for the downtown buildings was just as good as in the early SU5 betas.

It would have been interesting to see if the sim managed to retain this level of visual quality all the way to KJAC, but unfortunately I forgot that setting a fix ring in this plane’s FMC can freeze the sim under certain conditions. After waiting for 10 to 15 minutes I had to give up and close the game. Still, this is the best flight I’ve had after the graphical nerfs in the late SU5.1 beta builds.

The graphics settings on Xbox are still made on the aircraft selection screen, as evidenced by the visually disastrous A350 flight I’m currently trying to force myself to complete. The reality check is pretty harsh, will report later.

[BearsAreCool510]

Whoa I had slept on this beta as the very first SU6 beta deleted most of my control settings, so I rolled back to SU5. BIG mistake, just trying this build now and VR GPU performance is AMAZING compared to before. Much lower GPU frametimes and much smoother feel. Amazing work!

[Stendec341]

Thanks for the good, well detailed reporting - appreciate it.

[mbraortns]

I’m enjoying it? X Box X.

Honestly, I am not sure what to say anymore. Flying only the default C152 with an addon livery and all graphics options at default.

Flightbeams KSFO to Spinozas KMOD: nice flight, uneventful, good scenery. I then ‘End Flight’ and load just north of Santa Cruz at the north end of new TIN and fly all through the mountains for a while and land at some small strip in the valley… the flying looked great and went fine but there were a few stutters on landing.

Next day I fly from the nicely done addon airport south of Sydney (I cant remember its name but I love it - at the far south end of the PG) and I flew north along the coast and ended at Maitland. The one thing I kept noticing is that some of the residential structures just looked ‘crushed’ and were very slow to go higher def if they did at all – but the overall scenery was good - clouds looked nice enough - I love those fields around Maitland.

It is beyond my understanding how big city areas that have lots of small buildings can be fine (Oakland for example or Sydney as well or Melbourne though I havent checked recently) but yet you see small collections of residential structures in suburban areas and they cant seem to look good. add to this that the Countryside TIN can be exceptional in some areas such as Montery down to San Simeon (start at Hearst San Simeon and go north in and out of the mountains - its awesome) – and theres just no blurriness at all in the TIN.

Today I did that San Simeon to KMRY with addon KMRY that was a bit slow to come in full but it didnt cause any stutters ar blurries. I had time set to sunset and clouds were pretty cool.

If you havent tried Dolby Vision with 10 bit 4k lately then you should. Remove equal parts red and blue from both gain and bias (?) - ( brights and darks) – and then use white balance to equalize other areas that need it.

I really just want all scenery to be good but I am enjoying it. Asobo - please fix the ‘crushed scenery’ especially the three dimensional shapes of buildings… I am so sick of triangles and pyramids.

Concerning Flight Model: C152 default and also C172 G1000 – there is absolutely no way that I believe that a light breeze of less than twenty knots is powerful enough to have any great influence over the RPM of a propellor driven by a combustion engine but yet in the sim it seems that the wind and the airspeed can add or subtract hundreds of RPMs and the engine can’t do a thing because its too weak. its illogical to me as a non pilot. also, the overwhemling 1500 fpm up and down drafts on clear days is just strange.

Weather depiction: my focus has been generally on cloud appearance with hopes that weather is somehat accurate and I notice there are many locations where clouds look generally better and one particular location (Florida USA) where clouds and weather just often look terrible. Im not sure why that is but I hope the whole system gets and overall or at least an upgrade. I cant tell if things are improving or its simply a matter of where I choose to fly. Both california USA and Brisbane area have pretty good clouds. So did my Sydney vicinty flight.

[GimbalAxis]

I’ve completed 4 very long long-haul flights in the past week, on high end PC with triple 4K screens, and overall performance is mostly stable, with a few gripes.

Positive:

• I can now see the horizon when atmosphere is clear, and far away mountains, with slightly more detail than before.

• Performance on high end PC seems really good in demanding scenarios, but… (see Negative, below)

• Weather and colours seem more natural, more subtle, in most hours of the day.

Negative:

• I had my first CTD in months, mid-flight in the Inibuilds A350. I could find no reason for it, but, after clearing WASM folder, DX Cache and Rolling Cache, it has not repeated.

• Running triple 4K screens on a 5090, average GPU VRAM usage is about 27 GB, ranging up to 31 without issue. At the end of a 12 hour flight in the FBW A380 (WSSS-EGLL) I started getting “Resource usage too high” messages - but perhaps a memory leak with the A380? No idea.

• In contrast, I just completed a 14 hour Polar route in the A350 and here is the GPU VRAM usage while landing - which seems very good, making full use of resources without exceeding:
  

  

• LOD scenery is still weird. There is obviously an LOD bubble around the aircraft, and as you fly, the ground colour changes within that bubble - usually from bright green outside the bubble, to a kind of brown inside the LOD range. Colours really need to be harmonized so it isn’t so obvious.

• Water features prominantly in the MSFS 2024 trailer, but in flight, above FL120, the ocean is just flat tropical blue. Unnaturally flat - there should be some indicaton of ocean waves…and In areas where the wind is really blowing, there should be some white caps. And in colder regions the water should not be tropical blue - it should be much darker.

• Please use AI to replace all Photogrammetry trees with the new Auto-gen trees.

Concerns:

• With triple screens I depend on Frame Generation (on an RTX 5090). DLSS Frame Generation is NOT an option (for whatever reason NVIDIA only supports FG on 1 screen, even though GPUs have multiple video out ports…).
• So, FSR FG is my only option. Removing the ability to update the FSR version (via DLSS Swapper, for example) has obscured the version of FSR being used for FG, and, removed the ability to update it.

[Matt831064]

Performance so far on this latest build seems very good for me flying from Inibuilds Manchester in the PMDG 738. I’m not getting the audio drop outs when memory is low when flying over large cities in this build which is good. I really hope we see more improvements to performance on Xbox. A few people I know have made the switch to PC now which is a shame.

[WombedPlanet260]

Constant stutters on pushback after a couple more CTDs. Then some craziness on takeoff, felt like flying a C172 in a hurricane, but once I was in the air, everything was butter smooth and beautiful.

[VulcanPonFarr]

Xbox Series X

ini A350

MK Studios EFHK (v2) - Default EGLL

The only time I saw photogrammetry load in was when it flickered a couple of times after takeoff and when a tiny patch of it appeared for a few seconds in London (not fully loaded, just pyramids). Otherwise, gray pool table in both cities. Visually, it made no difference whether I was in Helsinki or London, which made the whole trip feel like a waste of time (quite a contrast to the earlier CRJ test). Apron/taxiway/runway textures in the EFHK scenery also suffered under the weight of this aircraft add-on, not a huge change from the default 737 flight, but it was there in a more subtle capacity, until in Heathrow it got bad enough to really hurt the experience.

Vacating the runway resulted in black avionics which didn’t recover—fortunately, the A350 no longer crashes through the ground when this happens and remains controllable. During taxi, a multiplayer aircraft right in front of me only had some inner parts of its fuselage appear, the rest was invisible. Disgusting. Looking around in drone cam after reaching the gate, the airport buildings had their textures and the object draw distance was good, it’s just the blurry ground markings that are a massive eyesore. Proper shutdown/securing impossible due to the memory issue.

(I already have a more positive A350 report from a less congested area in the world, posting it in the next few days)

Traffic off, MP on, PG on, all qualities medium (except MP models high), all quantities off (except traffic medium for MP, parked planes from LVFR statics), effects low, seatbelts off, no ATC/EFB, fiber 500 cache 128. (I always use these settings)

[MildCashew3696]

Feedback on PSVR2 Visuals in SU6 Beta: Please remove the distant blur

First of all, I really appreciate the recent improvements in cockpit instrument clarity. It is a huge step forward for PSVR2 and makes flying much more enjoyable.

​However, the intentional blurring of the distant scenery in the recent SU6 Beta updates feels very unnatural. It ruins the scale of flying in a vast space, making the world look like an artificial miniature garden or a diorama.

​Since LOD pop-in is happening either way, I strongly request that you at least make the distant scenery look sharp and beautiful. Please bring back the visual clarity of the initial SU6 Beta. Instead of blurring the distant center view to save performance, I would much prefer that you aggressively utilize Dynamic Foveated Rendering (DFR) to blur the extreme peripheral vision.

​We want to experience the true, vast scale of the sky. Please give us back the clear horizons!

[CurrentFoil3744]

Rated performance lower than all other previous builds because of much lower fps. Also, have had a few times when I click to quit and SIM never shuts down without ending the task. I’ve reported this in the Gen Discussion and as a potential bug.