2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

But as per what Torsten Liesk said, MSFS 2024 is already using the most optimal asynchronous architecture

He said it's asynchronous. He didn't say it's optimal. That'd be a pretty hard claim to make anyway - no software is ever optimal, there's always room for improvement.

Edit: What I'm getting at is: The improvements in the SU4 beta are impressive enough without resorting to hyperbole.

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by martinboehme

MSFS definitely delivers higher FPS overall, but X-Plane feels smoother and has fewer stutters.

Personally, I’d rather have a stable 40 FPS on approach than deal with stuttering at 60.

Both platforms can improve on different aspects…

5 hours ago, MarcG said:

Yes but I don't proactively start flame wars between sims to prove a point, my reasons for being critical of Asobo are factual and my opinions, on the flip side I am also very complimentary of some of their work.

Factual? Your language is constant hyperbole. You consistently say Asobo has ZERO QA yet there's an abundance of evidence that they do. For instance, in SU4 beta we currently have the Ortho bleed through bug but as soon as it got reported, Asobo indicated that a fix was already implemented in the next build. If there was no QA, that wouldn't be possible. For the most part your criticisms are based on emotion more than anything else from where I'm sitting.

19 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

The title should be "yields" but there is a character limit on the title.  Anyways, the Toliss founder, Torsten Liesk, explains why MSFS gives higher FPS, because it is able to utilize more CPU cores, because the architecture is more asynchronous at the 18:49 mark of the video:

The key quote from Torsten Liesk is:

I know a lot of people in this MSFS forum keep talking trash about Asobo, but Asobo came up with a really good architecture for MSFS 2020, and they enhanced that architecture even further in MSFS 2024 to make it even more asynchronous (actually, in the last Twitch Q&A, Seb talked briefly on the additional optimizations they made for SU4, so that they could take advantage of multiple cores even more).

If you have done software development and you have worked on multi-threading before, the way you take advantage of multiple cores is to make everything as asynchronous as possible.  The downside of making everything as asynchronous as possible, is that it becomes more difficult to program for, as Torsten says (having everything synchronous makes programming easier, but then the performance can suffer because fewer CPU cores are utilized).  But the upside is that performance is so much better if everything is made as asynchronous as possible, because then you can take advantage of more CPU cores, which ultimately leads to better FPS, just as Torsten says.

Among all civilian flight simulators, and even if you include the military flight simulators, there is no other flight simulator out there that can yield the level of graphics of MSFS 2024, and have as good as FPS that MSFS 2024 gives.  Torsten is saying right there that going as asynchronous as possible is the right thing to do, if you want to have a flight simulator that maximizes FPS and has as best performance as possible.

And looking at how SU4 is turning out so far and the performance that the SU4 beta testers are experiencing, I think the MSFS team have done a wonderful job of optimization and architecture.

They have done well on that front. They just can’t do QA to save their lives. 

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

They just can’t do QA to save their lives

Without being an insider it's hard to differentiate how much could fall under 'QA', which must be very explicitly defined, and how much is prioritization of where to put their resources relative to their end game.

7 hours ago, GCBraun said:

MSFS definitely delivers higher FPS overall, but X-Plane feels smoother and has fewer stutters.

Personally, I’d rather have a stable 40 FPS on approach than deal with stuttering at 60.

Both platforms can improve on different aspects…

Can't compare as I've only tried the XP DEMO, but it's rare for me to ever have any stutters anywhere including after 3h flights into demanding airports, and smoothness is absolutely stellar, corroborated by very low frame time variance in MSFS 2024.  And I read here this may improve yet again in SU4--I'm in SU3 currently.  My frame rate upon arrival into EHBP was 106FPS-fg a few moments ago.  Not a demanding setting but again, I nary a stutter.  Some, rare, but again, rare, meaning I might see one or two brief stutters on a full flight in demanding aircraft.  All ultra, Render Scale 120, TLOD 200 on the ground.  

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by Noel

5 hours ago, Krakin said:

Factual? Your language is constant hyperbole. 

Agreed. I think Asobo has done a relatively good job, given the cards they were dealt.  SU4 is showing what they are capable of.  And they also have a good record in MSFS 2020 after 4 years.

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by abrams_tank

5 hours ago, RobJC said:

They have done well on that front. They just can’t do QA to save their lives. 

I also want to note that having an asynchronous architecture makes QA way harder.  It's as Torsten Liesk said in the video, a task that should have taken him one day to do if it were purely synchronous, ended up taking him a few months.

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Agreed. I think Asobo has done a relatively good job, given the cards they were dealt.  SU4 is showing what they are capable of.  And they also have a good record in MSFS 2020 after 4 years.

What cards were they dealt?  Curious on this one... 

12 minutes ago, psolk said:

What cards were they dealt?  Curious on this one... 

I don't think it was Asobo's call to release MSFS 2024 prematurely with all those bugs. It was ultimately Jorg's and Microsoft's decision, and the schedule they set. Using the year 2024 in "MSFS 2024" would also fall on Jorg's final responsibility, which made it even more difficult to postpone the release.

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by abrams_tank

20 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I don't think it was Asobo's call to release MSFS 2024 prematurely with all those bugs. It was ultimately Jorg's and Microsoft's decision, and the schedule they set. Using the year 2024 in "MSFS 2024" would also fall on Jorg's final responsibility, which made it even more difficult to postpone the release.

So in other words, poor victim Asobo who were obviously given a deadline well in advance but couldn't meet that deadline?  Yes, I'm sure ultimately MS made the decision but I'm fairly certain Asobo also had some input, both of us are just guessing.

In MS's defense if we waited for Asobo to get 2024 to where it should have been it with the likes of SU4 it would have been a November 2025 release instead of 2024... 

We have no idea how long they knew MS wanted to release last year but I'm guessing it was longer than we did so they don't get a victim pass in my book.  

For all the amazing work they have given us with these two incredible simulators/games/titles/software (trying to not offend anyone here) they have also repeatedly shown certain aspects of their own business is poorly lacking for a project of this scope.

 

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by psolk
here not herre

I think you have it reversed - Asobo probably wanted to release later given they're in the firing line and knew how limited the simulator was at that time, but Microsoft wanted the revenue now. 

If Asobo had been given a year, SU4 would have been the initial release - and I feel that sentiment would be MUCH more positive than it has been.

Aside from the community fallout, who knows what mental struggles the Asobo team went through watching their work and reputations being ripped to shreds despite working their tails off. 

Just look at the delays with GTA 6 - Rockstar aren't releasing until they're happy. They have that luxury. Asobo, I'm guessing, very much did not.

 

1 hour ago, psolk said:

So in other words, poor victim Asobo

That’s a pretty catty reading. I don't get that from what he said.

39 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

That’s a pretty catty reading. I don't get that from what he said.

Well he literally shifts ALL of the blame to Jorg and partially to MS including calling it 2024 which apparently was Jorg's decision personally and then makes out Asobo were somehow dealt a bum rap...

I seriously doubt the conversation went like this:

Jorg: Can you have it ready for a Q42024 release

Asobo: Heck no, absolutely not, not a chance, not even close

Jorg:  Perfect, and we shall call it 2024!  

 

Blame is "usually" at least somewhat on the developer as well as the publisher in these situations.  At some point I'm certain Asobo knew what they agreed to and I'm SURE Asobo wanted revenue as well as MS.  In terms of MS, it is really MS gaming, the larger MS probably sees MSFS as a blip on the radar in their overall revenue stream... 

As for Jorg calling it 2024 thinking anything happens at a company the size of MS on one person's word or decision is pretty unrealistic.

 

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by psolk

44 minutes ago, psolk said:

Well he literally shifts ALL of the blame to Jorg and partially to MS including calling it 2024 which apparently was Jorg's decision personally and then makes out Asobo were somehow dealt a bum rap...

He wasn't using any emotional language like 'blame' or 'victim'. You've introduced that language into this discussion.

Although I agree Abrams is a far-from-neutral observer, I don't think it's at all controversial to believe that it was Jorg's deadline for the whole project and final decision on release timing. And if Asobo were to have been pushed to release in a state they weren't happy with, they would hardly be the first developer to have been put in that position by their publisher. And I see no signs of them, or Abrams crying 'poor victim' about it to be honest. But if that's what you see....