Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 struggles to take off The debut of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 yesterday was met with severe turbulence as servers struggled to keep up with user demand. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 was hotly anticipated. New life was breathed into the old franchise in 2020, and fans have anxiously awaited the sequel, hoping it would iron out some of the …
This post has been deleted by its author
The new high quality map in 2PB in size
Eek! Reminds me of a time when I worked for a GIS company who had a customer that had a requirement for a complete DTED model of the Earth (including oceans) at a 1m resolution.. Which was back in the early '90s and big disks were measured in GB, not TB.
Plus from the article-
Having its name linked to a failure of server scaling and planning is, therefore, less than ideal.
Indeed. So potential Azure customers may have learned 2 things, that, and it might struggle a bit with large datasets and workloads..
so it has to be steamed
Perhaps nicely Freudian, but possibly apt and which of MS's datacentres were doing just that. Plus Azure being a shared platform, at what point might resource demands from games like this start to impact those datacentres other users? Steam often struggles when big titles release, but their platform isn't shared with people who're trying to get work done. Unless they've shifted some of their back-end to AWS or another CDN like some other games companies have done. Which is mildy amusing given going onliine cut out retailers and allowed games companies to keep the full retail price, but now are going back to sharing that with online 'retailers'.
Actually, the client map used by flight sim 2020 is 2 petabytes. Works fine on high-end pcs with fast internet - except for the frequent service interruptions because Azure can't handle the peak load.
The increased map data will eventually be 4 petabytes, but much of that increase is because many parts of the world have very low-resolution coverage. And all that map data is available for use by those who don't "upgrade."
The forums at https://forums.flightsimulator.com/latest are awash with people successfully demanding refunds, and others saying "don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so."
Fortunately, the previous version works better. Maybe next year ... Or probably not.
If that is the case, they SHOULD have an offline version and everyone just accepts that the offline map is lower quality. Relying purely on online means its simple a new version of DRM and once the game tanks and MS have had enough, the servers get turned off making the game useless.
Its one of the reason I was really annoyed with my Elite Dangerous banking on Kickstarter. David lied claiming it would have an offline version then changed his mind midway through "for the experience". Once they give up that game (and the company hasn't been doing well lately) that whole game will be dead, unlike the original Elite that is still playable to this day.
It's easy to take the piss but what they're trying to do here is actually quite difficult.
Given it's Microsoft the use of Azure isn't surprising. Saying "but a database cache crumpled under demand on launch day" suggesting this is an Azure-only problem, which couldn't possibly happen on AWS or Google Cloud, is simply bollocks.
They should have perhaps tested it more by degrading individual services like the cache.
At least it's not *real* flights unlike with BA earlier this week!
Nevertheless there seems to be a difference in the way any good programmer asks themselves that question and the way Microsoft do.
Good programmers ask it to probe for likely problems and deal with them in advance. For Microsoft it seems to be a form of self-assurance inviting the answer "Nothing". Of course for the rest of us nowadays, when asked in the context of a Microsoft product, it's asked ironically.
> It's easy to take the piss but what they're trying to do here is actually quite difficult.
Not sure what was difficult compared to other launches, which a hyperscaler should be familiar with, particularly given years back it was this type of event (rapid elastic scaling without performance hit) that cloud was promoted as being good at….
True but I'd argue this has happened time and time and time again by big companies that have the infrastructure to cope. They knew this game was going to be big but clearly decided to not put enough cash to have that extra "just in case its massive on launch" instead would rather it fail like all the AAA releases.
I have only seen Flight Simulator once, way back when, and that was on a peculiar Olivetti PC - pretty impressive at the time.
But these are simulated aircraft in clouds so a bit of turbulence then. I wonder are all the concurrent users' aircraft flying in the same simulated sky?
The main failure on Microsoft's side was not allowing people to pre-download the game and activate it later.
With the entire world trying to download and log in at the same time it was to be expected that something could be wrong, big time.
Apparently they haven't learned from the launch of FS2020, they've made exactly the same mistakes - but on a bigger scale this time.
There is nothing wrong with the fans going crazy in a flight simulator assuming they adjust based on the throttle setting. Can they get them to have a proper audio beat for the proper black helicopter experience?
I had a Sun T1000 that would be quite nice right behind me while flying a jet fighter simulator.
Upvoted, and yet...
Akshually, that's one of my gripes: ever since they announced it I referred to it as "Flighsim The RPG", with its gamification, "missions" and "careers" - and yes, from what I've seen in vids, copilots that I would jettison in seconds if they sat next to me with perky voices like that.
I'm sticking to 2020 for now and will wait and see whether this is a eye-candy-but-dumbed-down game, or still straddles the "game that's realistic enough to serve in lieu of the Real Thing". As I can no longer get a medical (never mind the cost nowadays), it's the best I can do.
As I "fly" IFR a lot, XPlane would be the better choice, but you DO have the eye-candy and wider a/c selection in FS2020. If only XP would sock it to MS by making a deal with Google and using Earth.
Maybe releasing a game that requires an always online simply to run, and requires hundreds and hundreds of pounds in extras to actually be playable... was a bad idea.
I once worked out on an older version of MS flight sim.... that to own the whole game, would cost in the region of £1000+ and even with the sales they used to have (sales are worthless now) on the DLC, owning it all in a sale was still in the £500+ region.
That's not a game... that's a scam.
I would have thought with their knowledge of software & virtualization that Microsoft should've been able to promptly spawn new VMs to cope with demand. Isn't that what everyone's been doing, allocation of HW/SW on-demand for cloud systems?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
