To me, “fixed” means a successful implementation of the DX12 API, with dynamic memory management. This is not an easy task, since programming for the DX12 API is far more complex than with the relatively simplistic DX11 API.
Are they ‘optimizing’ DX12 by reducing LOD and other procedural tasks in an effort to simply reduce VRAM usage? Or are they employing programmers who are fluent in DX12 programming? It seems clear they did not have those people on payroll in the months leading up to the November release.
There are two things at play here:
The higher the resolution, and the more complex the graphical data, the more VRAM is needed. When the system runs out of VRAM, is uses shared memory. This is unavoidable. The only way to run smoothly with limited VRAM is to reduce resolution and/or the amount of graphical data the GPU is being asked to process. Again, no way around that.
We simply don’t know whether the DX12 API is being properly implemented, and we’ll likely never know that. We are left with the knowledge that trying to play the game @ 4K with complex aircraft models in data-heavy areas, using Ultra graphics settings and high LOD requires a lot more than 8GB VRAM (and it always will.) The question is, how far must we as users reduce our settings in order to minimize VRAM usage enough to prevent shared memory management? Or, is the DX12 API being worked on (fixed?) in such a way that it won’t be a problem any more?
Is 16GB VRAM now the minimum needed in order to enjoy the sim as it was meant to be enjoyed? Even then, will that be enough to have the high LOD settings (regardless of the resolution we choose) needed to prevent ‘object popping’ and other visual problems that break immersion?
I for one would love to have Jorg and Martial discuss IN DETAIL (perhaps by bringing in one of their high-level programmers as a guest speaker) exactly what steps have been and are being taken to ensure that DX12 is being properly programmed and implemented. Otherwise we’re left speculating, and we all know what the results of that are.
It doesn’t seem to be solved; the amount of memory needed is still excessive.
I have an Nvidia RTX 4080 Super 16GB, and in certain airports or regions, the VRAM “overflows.”
Compared to MSFS2020 with evertthing on max, the difference is about 5GB.
MSFS2024 need some settings donwgrade and limit FPS to 50 in Nvidia Control Panel.
SU2 BETA 1.4.11.0
DLSS 4
Frame Generation ON
4K
Intel i9 14
64 GB Ram
ASUS Nvidia 4080 Super
16 GB VRAM
If I have to lower the settings, I might as well go back to MSFS2020.
I didn’t really need to invest so much in 64GB of RAM, an i9 processor, and a new graphics card.
NOTE:
It got much worse after SU 1.
From the launch until the first update, I never got a VRAM shortage warning, even with all the settings maxed out and without needing to limit the FPS to 50.
Speculation: It’s a slight possibility Vram usage has been improved on Asobo’s end but they haven’t released the fix yet. I’ve noticed stranger things when participating in the beta’s.
Unless I missed it, I haven’t noticed anything in any of the release notes about this issue and it’s still bug logged in this thread.
I am honest, I threw money at the problem because I didn’t want to buy 2020 anymore. With 24 GB VRAM 4K @ High Texture Resolution is no problem. Even Frame Generation on top works great. But not everyone wants to get a GPU for almost 4 digits, I totally get it.
I think it is fair to say that 2024 might have slightly higher requirements in the end, though Asobo should have communicated realisitc hardware requirements.
While I don’t entirely disagree, I also think people need to have realistic expectations that the recommended requirements assume the best-case scenario in the sim. No addons, simple aircraft, simple airport, etc.
I don’t personally believe this to be the case, but if I test in those circumstances, I’ve been able to meet or exceed their expected performance based on the category in which my system falls.
I know they can’t test in every scenario and design system specs accordingly, but at least providing some transparency in how those specs are determined would be nice.
Edit: I think in a perfect scenario, their test case should be an advanced aircraft (likely an airliner) at a default-but-handcrafted airport. They cannot presume to make specs based on anything third party, but at least throw the most you can at it from the default assets and then tell us what will work well.
Note that a lot of people - me being one of them - have computers that exceed the “Ideal” spec and still have problems WITHOUT ANY ADDONS. Like being on the ground in a stock C172 at the sim’s own LSZR and going over my RTX 4080 Super’s available VRAM, resulting in single digit FPS.
The inconsistency of the issue definitely makes it considerably harder to fix, I’m sure. I have a substantially less-powerful GPU and apparently better performance than you do. (please don’t read that as a brag, just noting the wild inconsistency of the issue)
I guess it is up to the user to adjust VRAM by changing the settings. I have my 3070ti settings pretty low but am able to get by and it looks “good” but certainly not any better maybe worse that 2020, especially blurring of the cockpit instruments text even with ULTRA text resolution with DLSS.
I get best mileage with AMD FSR3.
Reading this thread and the woes people are having with higher end cards give me pause for buying anything in the near future.
I used to write C++ for simulations and we were able to test available memory etc and adjust graphics accordingly as well as free up memory. You would think that the programmers here could determine if you have 8, 12, 16 or 24 GB and make adjustments accordingly. Hard for me to believe that coding on this has deteriorated so much in 20 years since I stopped doing it.
As a user with 8GB of VRAM running the sim on medium settings at 1080p resolution it really hurts to not be able to enjoy every part of the simulator. Reducing the graphical fidelity further would make it worse than msfs2020 and since I and very many others are within the recommended specs that Microsoft/Asobo stated I don’t feel like this is my fault at all. Whatever the reason is, as a consumer I am at the mercy of the developers to deliver on their own promises.
Yes, I can avoid exceeding my GPU’s VRAM by further reducing my less than full Ultra 4K settings. But to my mind that is not congruent with “ideal specs”. And that is my point.
Yeah, I have some tests where I load in and I easily manage +80fps at Ultra, TLOD 400, and AMD FSR 3 Frame Gen. Then I will load the exact same flight again, same session or different session, and get a solid purple wall for GPU and/or CPU response and 5fps performance. Sometimes that fixes itself if I just sit there and wait, sometimes it doesn’t.
But to your point, there’s proof that it (the software, the hardware, etc.) can perform well, so the limit is something in the execution.
An improvement in VRAM usage is not the same as fixing the memeory leak (the overspill into RAM) and never releasing it, leading to more and more RAM being used and slowing down the system
Will this VRAM improvement be released yet? Has Microsoft already made a statement? I haven’t seen this improvement mentioned in the release notes for any of the beta updates.
