The whole thing is another case of “Minimal information is worse than no information at all.”
I don’t believe there was ever an intent to deceive. But they felt they were obliged to give us some guidelines, and simply didn’t think it through when they published and/or stated those (quite frankly) absurd specs.
And we also shall not forget that we are no longer dealing with the same sim as on launch day.
While I think, that minimum specs should never change, I appreciate that the sim is getting constant updates that might as well shift recommended and ideal specs over time.
Then would it not be wise to update them? Yes change happens, that’s the way of the world but most companies will update information available if changes take place.
We all know the MSFS 2024 hardware requirements are a bit understated. In reality, the ideal requirements should list graphics cards with 16GB of VRAM or more - not just the 12 GB they’ve specified. In my opinion, the “real” ideal specs look more like an Intel 14900K or Ryzen 7 9800X3D, an RTX 4090,5090 or Radeon RX 7900 XTX, Radeon RX 7800 XT and 64GB or 32GB of fast RAM.
Ultra settings 4K, EGLL, Fenix A321
Agreed - flight simulation has always pushed the envelope, and “ideal” specs really have always been “whatever the top of the line is approximately 18 months after the sim releases” 
Default Cessan 172 Skyhawk G1000, Default Ultra settings, Real traffic, default EGLL
The screenshot above clearly shows that on default ultra settings (4K), using the default aircraft at a default airport, VRAM usage is around 18GB. This has absolutely nothing to do with the “ideal specs” suggested by Asobo - unless they tested those specs while flying over Hawaii at night.
When I selected the default Dreamliner, VRAM usage was around 20GB.
Yep - I remain convinced that if there’s any benchmarking done to determine these specs it’s with a 152 at an autogen airport in the middle of nowhere.
At night, staring at the floor.
And don’t forget about the RX 9070 XT. 
In all seriousness I have to go back to what I stated earlier. What’s ideal for simmers my not be ideal for Asobo whose primary goal is to sell games. Stating specs that put the hardware out of reach of many may not be to their benefit
Short term goals, maybe…
How about long term “word of mouth” reputation?
The community of simmers is a powerful voice, even if Microsoft doesn’t realize it.
If they want to sell MSFS 2035, then we need to feel some sort of partnership, where long-term goals coincide. Selling product based on incomplete pre-sales information (or simply incorrect information) is not the best strategy, IMHO. Neither is ignoring your existing user base when they repeatedly ask about progress on resolving long-standing issues.
Don’t get me wrong - I see progress being made. But it often seems to be a surprise when things get fixed. We’re not trying to micromanage the process. But silence is not always golden…
