I am not lying. Maybe i should say this is my experience and be more specific but i am not lying.
Loading up a cessna flight over uk one of my usual west of london and the sim used to be using approx 20gb. It now uses approx 8GB sometimes to 10GB. Much less than before and so yes that can be because of changes asobo have made to improve efficiency in RAM usage which is good but also the new methods increase pop in and pop out.
I havent tested fbw airbus since SU5 as it would CTD on every flight even after reinstalling the mod.
This is my obversation and not universal and is my experience. So im not running around lying just badly stated.
That may be, but there is nothing I, you, nor anyone else can do about that. There are probably at least two other lines of âobjectionsâ that people might throw at my little experiment.
1- Some people donât have 17GB of RAM TOTAL, which means that Windows must find a way to stuff that 17GB worth of âstuffâ into a much smaller amount of memory, which it can and does do. But that must come at a cost somewhere⌠Either in the form of increased disk cache usage (which far too frequently, even today, is being shuttled off on to a spinner, my word for a physical spinning HDD), possibly some of the stutters that some people are seeing, possibly other performance issues, and more to the relevant point to this thread, quite possibly a root cause to some of the graphical issues that some people see and others donât. I have always recommended a minimum of 32GB of RAM to run this sim properly, a statement that has gotten me quite a bit of flack because some people are very emotionally invested in their 16GB rigs. My theory on that, which is really little more than rank speculation, is that many of the people who objected so vociferously to that suggestion are kids who are using their parents money to buy and pay for their rigs, and they feel like a request for more memory will fall on deaf ears.
2- âIf you give Windows more memory to use, it will try to fill it up!â Probably a true statement. But my response to that is âSo what?â If the sim wants 17GB, and you give it 17GB, rather than forcing it to, once again, stuff that 17GB of âstuffâ into some smaller amount of physical RAM (because you donât have enough), then you are allowing the sim and Windows to have âroom to breatheâ, metaphorically speaking. As already stated above, it is possible to make it work with less. But by giving it that room to breathe, you are allowing it to not have to work so hard to use less physical RAM, which may improve performance, fix graphical issues, all the same things as objection One above.
So the bottom line to the point Iâm trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make is that while itâs possible to make it work with less physical memory, by forcing it to use itâs âtricks and magicâ to make that happen, there simply must be a price you are paying elsewhere. Perhaps this may be a direct cause of the indisputable fact that some people experience the problems so frequently mentioned and others do not. Iâm not saying that it should be considered the sole cause of that discrepancy, nor the sole cause of peopleâs graphical anomalies, but it is a darn good place to relatively inexpensively (though the price of RAM has been going up, thank you very much Mr. Covid) give your system some additional resources and headroom it may desperately want and need to give you the experience you seek.
There are at least two downsides to this analysis, though. The first one is that your computer is not going to turn on Cortana, and just tell you âLook, dude (or dudette), if you just give me 16GB of more memory, I think Iâll be able to run your sim more efficiently, and maybe get rid of those problems youâve been talking about on that forum of yours.â
The second potential downside is that here is no way to guarantee that such an upgrade will actually work as I have theorized. It could very well be that someone could go out and buy an upgrade, only to find no real changes to their problem(s). Which will leave them wondering if they simply âwasted moneyâ on a âpointless upgradeâ. Now, to that question, I would say no, that there is simply no such thing as too much RAM, within the bounds of reason, and in all probability that RAM will find a use somewhere, unless you have an upgrade planned for the not so distant future that requires going to DDR5. I have 64GB of system RAM⌠is that overkill, or is that contributing to the fact that I do not see many of the problems, and not just graphical ones, that others have been dealing with?
I donât know the answer to that.
All I can do is make what appear to be reasonable speculations. But I absolutely think that giving the sim what it wants is better than forcing Windows to use its âtricks and magicâ, which almost certainly come with consequences of some form somewhere.
Not bandwidth, some users have not been receiving bing data in the recent days. The notice has been on the main page at the top here in the forums for two days now. I wonder how many just clicked it away without giving any thoughts to it.
Except when you make a statement like âAsobo is forcing the PC version of the sim to live within only 8GB of system RAMâ, based on seeing the results of my little experiment, you now KNOW that is not a true statement. I do not think you were âlyingâ, per se, the last time you said it, I think you truly believed it to be true, but were simply mistaken. But knowing what you know now, I would expect you to never make that statement again, because if you do, then it will be an intentional falsehood, and while I lack the time and the desire to follow you around the forum, not to mention how creepy it would be, should I happen to notice you doing so, I will call you out on it.
Itâs not even important for you to believe me, if you have the plane, and at least 32GB of physical RAM in your rig, you can do the experiment yourself. The results will almost certainly vary a little, maybe youâll only catch it using 16.8GB, or maybe 17.2, but should you find yourself doubting my truthfulness, then by all means, go do it yourself. Although you said that you believed that even attempting to load that aircraft will cause a CTD, I have no idea why you said that, nor if itâs just speculation, or the voice of experience talking.
However, even if you happen to be right about that, all it means is that you canât run the experiment yourself. It does not create any reason to question my results nor the conclusion they lead to.
Your past results are irrelevant to the question of âIs it even hypothetically possible for the PC version to use more than 8GB of RAMâ, which you and so many others are putting out there as if it were an indisputable fact. The answer to that question, which my experiment proved, and even using your own words against you, sometimes you are now using 10GB, which is more than 8GB, which you stated was a hard limit, is an resounding YES, it can (and does) use more than 8GB!
So, to repeat my prior point, that myth needs to be put to bed because it is not true. At all. Not even âsort ofâ, or âa littleâ, or âmostlyâ. It is not true, period.
For me its not âgoing backâ as I fly XP11 & MSFS in equal measure (and DCS when I wanna do A-10 runs). MSFS looks fantastic but (I speak for myself) visuals arenât everything. I love XP11, always will but Im no fanboi of it. I love MSFS too and was on FSX for 10 years. If I enjoy it I fly it no matter who the dev is.
Do I feel the hit seeing the visuals jumping from MSFS to XP11? Of course! But once Im in Zibo it doesnt affect me. It also has a certain charm to it .
MSFS, XP11 & DCS do not compete on my system, they are all brilliant in their own way and I enjoy all of them. I wont understand the bashing of [insert sim name here]. If a person enjoys it then thats all that matters. Instead many on here get worked up about what other gamers are doing âWhy would youâŚâ, âHow can youâŚâ
No, the graphics have been downgraded, which is a fact and confirmed by Asobo. These constantly false statement like yours are somewhat salt in the wounds of any Simmer, who was playing it in ultra with decent graphics before and is now totally frustrated by the outcome of SU5. Please just stop it.
Hi. So after the update, my controls completely reset. I used to be able to click around in the cockpit of planes, although now it asks fir me to set a key under for each individual control. Is there a way to get back my controls used before the update happened, because it is a little frustrating that the update also changed the sensitivity of my flight yoke system without notice.
Iâm not even sure using committed memory is any indication of the actual memory use on Win10 though, and even just using the working set is not sufficient (but probably closer in my opinion when comparing Win10 and Xbox):
š Itâs not quite that way. The system does not assign a physical page or a page file page to you when you commit.² The system merely does enough bookkeeping to ensure that if you write data to the pages that you committed, then the system will have a place to hold this data and produce it upon demand. That place might be physical memory, or it might be the page file, but the system doesnât know at commit time which it will be (and it may end up being both at different times).
² This delay-assignment of committed pages means that reserving address space and then committing it as needed doesnât save you any physical memory. The commit doesnât require physical memory. The physical memory doesnât get assigned until you try to access the memory. All youâre saving is system commit, which is just a number (although as noted in the previous footnote, the number does have a maximum value). Unless you are doing this to save large amounts of memory (dozens of megabytes or more), committing on demand is usually not worth the effort.
[update]
I didnât search the other article I read in the past, so I donât remember if this is only since Win10 or Win8, but lately the OS is lazy-resetting new committed pages on access only. In other words, if you commit and do nothing with the committed page, it is book keeping only. If you read only, it will lazily return 0. If you write bytes and they are all zero, it will lazily do nothing and return 0 on read. It is only when you write anything but 0, even 1 byte only, that it will actually use the physical memory.
The problem in comparing Xbox and Win10 memory use is that we donât know (at least I donât) how is the virtual memory handling reservations, commits especially when considering direct storage which can make you, as the developer of the game, choosing a different strategy to memory allocations which are better suited to exploit streaming from storage instead of allocating virtual space for example. Which in essence would be a proof of some sort SU5 is not limited by Xbox specs on PC either
Comitted memory is just a a comitted amount promise, a guarantee you can use that much for you as a process. never do i use comitted as actual in use?
An OS canât commit more then virtually exists.
Correct.
You reserve, then you commit, then you use (extremely simplified).
Hotel analogy:
Make a reservation, use it without a comitment, aka you have not checked in, access violation. When comitted (by the hotel aka OS), the check in has been done. You can use it, hence write.
As far as I understand this, the hotel analogy would be instead:
reserve a room (memory)
commit a room (memory) is just telling the front desk youâve arrived and will use the room. As long as you donât open the door, the room is empty and not used either.
open the door to look inside the room (read mem) is just returning empty but the room is still not used
open the door and enter to take possession (write mem) now the room is no longer available.
A room here would be a physical memory location, not a virtual page.
If keeping the hotel analogy when the hotel is fully occupied:
reserving more rooms than what the hotel has is just telling the manager they might need them to build new floors, unless a room frees when you enter yours.
commit a room is actually telling the manager he might need to evict tenants.
open the door and enter in a room is telling the manager to find a room with sleeping tenants and move them in another hotel (disk). When theyâll wake up, theyâll knock the manager door to get back their room.
In fact, if the hotel has itâs book keeping in order, 2-4 can be combined, yes, it will initially be âemptyâ, but itâs yours. The commit was only in the context of a guaranteed space, not whatâs in it.
If trying to put more people in the room then fits, you will get an OOM, despite still having 10GB for example available.
If, big if, iâm correct, this is already handled before even a reservation is done as win tries to keep a minimal for new processes on tha stick as part of self management
I ended up playing farm simulator 19 and age of empires games again because I was watching age of empires 4âs release date waiting for the pre order date, Iâve been eagerly waiting for farm sim 22 also and watching NASCAR ignition on steam plus Wyoming is about to be released for American Truck Simulator
All this to say it is hard to assess any voluntary memory limiting decisions just from the external look of it because the metrics at our disposal are no longer indicative of the real physical memory used at any one time. The closest to this notion is the working set which is the amount or physical RAM actually used, but even this one has some particularities because it counts IIRC any shared physical RAM as well (or the reverse Iâm not sure).
However pertaining to the big question du jour about SU5 PC is not using the full potential and runs within the specs of the Xbox, the only real metric for this to me would only be the VRAM usage, and if you enable the Xbox LOD mode in the Developer mode menu.
It definitely is in respect to the xbox memory structure, i really have no clue how this has been setup (like RAM and VRAM availability is dynamic, and even if it works that way )
The only thing iâm seeing is when combining OS comitted memory + budgetted VRAM it easily exceeds 15 GB (if iâm correct 1GB (ish) is privately minimally claimed by xbox OS).
On xbox it would never be able to do so. And OOMâs as i have understood, can happen pretty fast on an xbox, hence iâm questioning if a page file is present. There is live app switching, but i donât think itâs a memory page file used for that (speculation). Please, someone tell me, because then i need to stand corrected! Iâm just unable to find the info.
I do think we can agree that a working set is able to grow to comitted amount, but not exceed.
The above, kind of prooves, it exceeds xbox norms. (iâm open to be corrected though )
Interesting, I did not know that could be activated. Overlooked the option⌠i think all we need is a slider for max memory load (a percentage). Folks with 32GB or more can make good use of that. My PC has 16GB and it runs London more smoothly compared to pre-SU5. No stutters. I think that is because it does not hit the cache anymore. When you take 11.5GB - like it was - on a 16GB machine, things slow down.
Tricky, one could quickly select 100% and then see less used, that could create difficult discussions like now. Maybe a distance slider? Then it would be more explainable to be memory limited if the full distance was not shown.
I wanted to edit my responseâŚ
)