MSFS: “A Loss Of Trust From Our Player Community"

[flying_carpet 689]

This gets a bit silly now, but ok ... one last response.

12 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Huh? For the 2 weeks you didn't play the beta, you'd have been able to play with the previous version of the client lol. Here is a scenario where MS/Asobo does maintain two sets of services, one for the regular/released client versions, one for the beta. And it makes sense to do so. Another scenario where they'll be maintaining two sets of services is once v2024 releases, to also support v2020. But they've made the business and technical decision to not maintain multiple sets of services for all/various released client versions out there, as that'd be far from prudent (how many sets of services should MS/Asobo maintain in order to support users who want to stay on SU13, SU12, SU11, etc? where should they draw the line?).

Topic missed 🤦‍♂️ ... I wrote analogously "I don't want to be the guinea pig, therefore I DON'T use the beta, but wait to update to the 'stable' version. However, if that is borked and I have no possibility to skip that update for a certain time, then ...🔥💣".

[Krakin 6,188]

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Are "you guys" aviation experts? Then you might know that many systems in planes are duplicate or triplicate. Why? To avoid a failure of the (whole) system. If one system fails, the second (or even third) takes over. And the second (or third) system are NOT configured as the first one, but often even made from different hardware, or if on the same hardware on a different OS or programmed in a different programming language to avoid the single point of failure or configuration error. Isn't it?

Oh what a brilliant solution since server infrastructure management and aircraft systems are soooooo similar! Brilliant!

[lwt1971 7,989]

23 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Topic missed 🤦‍♂️ ... I wrote analogously "I don't want to be the guinea pig, therefore I DON'T use the beta, but wait to update to the 'stable' version. However, if that is borked and I have no possibility to skip that update for a certain time, then ...🔥💣".

Oh so you meant purposely not using MSFS in order to avoid the forced update in case it has issues.. well once a SU releases the only choices are to use MSFS and get updated, or not use it all. And I'd say the easy choice is to update than not to use it all for two weeks *just* in order to monitors others' reports of issues 😕. Such is the nature of forced client updates. For all the reasons explained here on this thread and before, MS/Asobo don't want to get into the business of maintaining multiple sets of services just in order to serve different client fixpack versions. They have decided (prudently) to maintain a separate set of services for the betas, and also for the different major versions (i.e v2024 and v2020). That's that.
 

Edited December 14, 2023 by lwt1971

[flying_carpet 689]

6 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Oh so you meant purposely not using MSFS in order to avoid the forced update in case it has issues.. well once a SU releases the only choices are to use MSFS and get updated, or not use it all. And I'd say the easy choice is to update than not to use it all for two weeks *just* in order to monitors others' reports of issues. Such is the nature of forced client updates. For all the reasons explained here on this thread and before, MS/Asobo don't want to get into the business of maintaining multiple sets of services just in order to serve different client fixpack versions. They have decided (prudently) to maintain a separate set of services for the betas, and also for the different major versions (i.e v2024 and v2020). That's that.

Ok, last last quick response. As I've said already earlier, in other environments you can do BOTH: beta AND skip update if you want/need to for the stable version (although you have server/client communication, too).

[GoranM 3,894]

49 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Also the actual problem being discussed in this thread was about the download speed issues in getting the update

You mean the absence of download speed.  

49 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

for which the legacy thinking of "backup servers" is not really a solution given the Azure configuration issue/bug detailed in MS's report.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're suggesting we should simply accept the fact that the download servers can fail again at any point, and we should just accept that, because a backup/redundacy solution is "legacy thinking".  Is that correct?

I use a cloud based backup server to backup all my files.  Am I using a legacy method of keeping my files safe?  Is there something more modern?

I genuinely want to hear your take on this.  If I missed something, by all means, clarify.

54 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

So, it seems that the sporadic users of MSFS in this forum are more outraged than the so-called "hardcore" fans of the platform. Why is that? Personally, this slight delay in receiving the update has not affected my temper at all.

Well, in my case, I didn't show outrage.  I simply expressed an opinion in my original post in this thread.  What followed was, well, you can see for yourself.  I just quit the download and came back the next day.

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[lwt1971 7,989]

Just now, flying_carpet said:

Ok, last last quick response. As I've said already earlier, in other environments you can do BOTH: beta AND skip update if you want/need to for the stable version (although you have server/client communication, too).

Ya you're still not getting it.. what "other environments" with this level of complex server/client interactions supports multiple client versions? And like we keep telling you, it's not a technical impossibility but one of feasibility where MS/Asobo has *chosen* to not maintain multiple sets of services for multiple client fixpack versions given the myriad of potential issues with that.  And btw in the current MSFS paradigm, the "stable version" is the latest released SU.
 

[lwt1971 7,989]

4 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're suggesting we should simply accept the fact that the download servers can fail again at any point, and we should just accept that, because a backup/redundacy solution is "legacy thinking".  Is that correct?

I genuinely want to hear your take on this.  If I missed something, by all means, clarify.

Read again the various folks' responses to you on this thread, and read the technical accounting/report by MS of what actually happened, and then you might, just might, clue in 🙂 (that is, if you really are that interested/concerned as you make yourself out to be).
 

Quote

I use a cloud based backup server to backup all my files.  Am I using a legacy method of keeping my files safe?  Is there something more modern?

You're talking besides the point again, no one said cloud based backups of files is a legacy method lol.
 

[GoranM 3,894]

8 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Read again the various folks' responses to you on this thread, and read the technical accounting/report by MS of what actually happened, and then you might, just might, clue in

No, please read what I posted.  I asked YOU if I interpreted what YOU were saying, correctly.  You said...

Also the actual problem being discussed in this thread was about the download speed issues in getting the update for which the legacy thinking of "backup servers" is not really a solution given the Azure configuration issue/bug detailed in MS's report.

And my question was...

16 minutes ago, GoranM said:

but it seems to me that you're suggesting we should simply accept the fact that the download servers can fail again at any point, and we should just accept that, because a backup/redundacy solution is "legacy thinking".  Is that correct?

And I asked for clarification on what YOU said.

8 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You're talking besides the point again, no one said cloud based backups of files is a legacy method lol.

Did you even read what I posted.  lol (I do get a kick out of people condescending enough to post a "lol" in their response.  Amazing how 3 little letters can reveal so much about a person, given the specific context.)

16 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I use a cloud based backup server to backup all my files.  Am I using a legacy method of keeping my files safe?  Is there something more modern?

I simply asked for clarification.  You keep skirting around the questions, when all I want is a straight answer.  You present yourself as knowledgeable in this field.  So a simple yes or no will suffice.

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[Krakin 6,188]

1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

You're talking besides the point again, no one said cloud based backups of files is a legacy method lol.

At this point he has openly admitted that he is being willfully obtuse. This is just a slick way to get another MSFS thread locked as far as I'm concerned.

[lwt1971 7,989]

10 minutes ago, GoranM said:

when all I want is a straight answer.  

Yes I maintain the issue that happened here was not one of backup/redundancy failure, nor does that have anything to do with actually happened and nor would that've solved the problem given what the actual issue was. Further details and answers are all here in this thread and MS's report already, for your consumption and education.

And no, I am not saying cloud based backup of our files is a legacy method (no one said that, no one even talked about that).
 

Edited December 14, 2023 by lwt1971

[David Mills 4,774]

I think all of us MSFS enthusiasts will stipulate that future downloads of XP should suffer no problems at all with server overload.

[GoranM 3,894]

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

And no, I am not saying cloud based backup of our files is a legacy method (no one said that, no even talked about that).

Apart from the lack of redundancy in the Azure servers when it comes to MSFS updates (that apparently doesn't affect Windows updates, Office updates or any other Microsoft software updates), that's all I wanted to know.

11 minutes ago, Krakin said:

At this point he has openly admitted that he is being willfully obtuse. 

Hardly.  I keep using this phrase in here, and only in here.  How you interpret my posts is on you.  If you think I have some kind of hidden agenda, then I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.  As a matter of fact, I've DM'ed the. mods here and asked them to please not lock some threads, because they can be useful.  If I see problems, I point them out.  If I see positives, I point them out, too.  And yes, that includes every software I own.  Actually, I post far less of the problems than I notice in any software.  Servers that completely stop a download, to me, is unacceptable for something backed by Microsoft.  Slower downloads?  Fine.  Server traffic.  Downloads that completely stop?  Nah.  That's a 1st step to getting rid of the software.  But that's me.

Edited December 14, 2023 by GoranM

[Krakin 6,188]

2 minutes ago, David Mills said:

I think all of us MSFS enthusiasts will stipulate that future downloads of XP should suffer no problems at all with server overload.

You know what's funny? LR probably wishes they could be in a situation where their servers were getting hammered if you catch my drift 🤣.

[GoranM 3,894]

4 minutes ago, David Mills said:

I think all of us MSFS enthusiasts will stipulate that future downloads of XP should suffer no problems at all with server overload.

Who said "no problems".  I just posted above, slow download speeds could be anything.  But a download that stops...that could easily be 1 of many times it can happen.  

Although, I have to hand it to Asobo.  Publishing a report is pretty good.  I still think there SHOULD be ways to get around a stopped download.

[lwt1971 7,989]

1 minute ago, GoranM said:

Apart from the lack of redundancy in the Azure servers when it comes to MSFS updates (that apparently doesn't affect Windows updates, Office updates or any other Microsoft software updates), that's all I wanted to know.

Yes obviously the specific Azure configuration issues/bugs experienced during the MSFS SU14 release period has not been apparently seen in the Windows/Office/other MS updates because they're using a different  Azure config and setup. And once again, the SU14 issue is not about a "lack of redundancy in the Azure servers".