Are you using rolling cache?

If you’re worried about the environment, play on a laptop that uses about 1/10th of the power a desktop uses with external speakers and display.

E-Waste is a much bigger problem as well

Better play this instead

3 Likes

No need to argue or discount some other person’s criteria using strawman arguments.

We can all agree to disagree and every one of us can choose on or off based on observed results.

2 Likes

You are completely missing the point.

1 Like

It sounded to me like you were making an argument to use rolling cache to help the environment. That to me sounds like getting a car with a bigger fuel tank to save on trips to the gas station. About as effective as that to help the environment.

Anyway I always find it funny to drag the environment into it when talking about highly demanding games for entertainment. Use the rolling cache or not, for most it will not make a difference environmentally at all. Only if big enough and always flying the same route will it make a tiny dent on internet bandwidth consumption. Turning PG data off or flying in remote areas will save a lot more.

My experience with the rolling cache was that it created a higher workload for my laptop, causing the sim to fall behind, stuttering, heavy pagefile use, high CPU temps, eventually leading to CTD or restarting myself (and redownload the area basically)

2 Likes

Thanks for that explanation…it’s all about the more you know.

Read further down the screen for “Rolling Cache”.

you say that, but using OnAir if have been flying the same two triangular routes for the past week, one is EGSS > LIRF > LEMD, the other is EGNX > EDDP > LFBO.

before the first trip my data for the month was just over 13GB after the first loops of each it had risen to 15.15GB, and after 6 additional days of flying them >12h/day it has risen to 15.32GB.

so I have saved many tens of GB being downloaded by reusing data rather than having to continually download data because of an absence of rolling cache.

Few months ago - around UK update, before or just after - I got issues with hickups. I switched off both manual and rolling cache, that helped. Later there was a topic on this forum with a tip to put Flightsimulator.exe in the Windows Defender settings as trusted app. Don’t know if all that counts now… it was back in december or so. I still avoid cache… afraid to “fixup” the SDK stuff I’m playing with, when it does not see Bing updates, my mod will rise above the ground when it does get the updates…

I don’t deny that, as I said it will make a tiny dent if you keep flying the same routes.

Saving tens of GBs isn’t all that much, considering the last update started with a 27GB download plus extras, as well as triggering a full re-install for many, voluntary of by verifying files. One 2 hour 4K movie on Netflix already costs 16GB. It’s all relative, and there is also the extra wear and tear on the SSD to take into account.

Anyway, it does help if you fly the same routes and your cache is big enough to fit them in. The default 8GB doesn’t cut it, 32GB is better.

Btw you can safely turn off the rolling cache (don’t delete it) to fly somewhere outside your usual routes and turn it back on later. That way it won’t get ‘polluted’ with a one off trip pushing out stuff you want to use again. Kind of a workaround for manual cache not working very well. I haven’t tested swapping out different rolling cache files for different areas but I guess that would work.

I’m exploring the full 2 peta bytes, no way that would fit on anything locally :smiley: Too bad the data counter resets now and then, no way to know how much data I have consumed since the start of my world tour. Most of the time it’s very little though, outside PG areas it’s only about 1.5 mbps while flying at 180 knots low over terrain. Where I am currently (polar circle) there isn’t even any aerial data, just low res sat data.

It works not like a synthetic test where all bytes are carefully rewritten at equal times to show nice marketing numbers: most memory sectors placed under content are nailed till the end of universe and some parts under caches and temp files are rewrited tenth thousands times per day.

2000TB endurance for 1TB ssd means 2000 rewrites befor sector got corrupted? :roll_eyes: I heard about ~35000 times for sure

Well… it had nothing to do with marketing as the tests I had seen were done by a third party reviewer, and the tests were “real world”, ie. random data. If anything, the tests have shown Samsung have been very conservative with the TBW numbers they state.

I’m curious, do people who say they experience stutters only when using rolling cache have slow spinning-platter HDDs?

I’ve never noticed any cache-related stutters (just stutters that happen whether cache is on or not); I started with an SSD on SATA and later moved to another SSD on M.2.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.