It’s a terrible idea to stream everything. Storage space is cheap and sure download times can be slow but at least the textures in the aircraft don’t look like something from 1998. Happy to wait and see how it all turns out but for me at the moment its a much better experience playing 2020.
24 Likes
Same here. Good internet speed isn’t always reliable.
4 Likes
Same here. I have 6 internal drives in my rig, and nearly 100 TB. I installed FS2024 to one of my M.2 chip drives to help with performance.
2 Likes
YES AMEN! I fully agree
3 Likes
As I stare at this loading screen because their servers are busted AGAIN, I can’t help but to to think the same.
Let me use all my terabytes of space instead of this nonsense.
3 Likes
We need more bandwidth from MS servers. I have 250 Mbps down and am getting huge blurry patches of terrain loading and extremely slow Photogrammetry loading. This is a result of the thin client architecture, so more resources from their end are needed
1 Like
This cloud base fantasy needs to go away.
Please allow us to store what we deem our favorite areas/aircraft locally.
4 Likes
Playing on series X , I also would not mind buying a TB storage card to make this game better looking and more stable.
At least give people the possibility to do so if they prefer.
Thank you for bringing this under the attention 
1 Like
Indeed. Have already upped the rolling cache to 160GB and am considering increasing it further.
Since my adventures usually start at the same airfield, it would be nice to have a say in what area of terrain is actually stored on my PC. I use 3rd party aircraft only, so they are already on my PC and are not a problem.
Say a 40 mile radius of my regular starting point would be nice. Also knowing what you are actually storing would also be nice, with the option of storing basic terrain features and streaming in the finer details.
Imagine being able to draw a box around the UK and the sim providing you with various levels of detail options and then, from this, calculating the storage required. Fully customisable for the end user to get the best performance possible from his particular rig.
I gather 200GB is well over 2.5 hrs of streaming during a flight at present. 200GB of basic terrain storage will cover a lot of area. Before I upgraded my internet, no way would I ever have seen 200GB in less than a day.
Heck, I believe the entire, fully detailed Syria map on DCS is around 100GB. It took all night and next day to download it on release on my old connection.
You should read this thread if you haven’t already. @nenenui has been doing very thorough and granular testing of Rolling Cache size. I don’t understand everything he talks about, but it’s obvious that he has an excellent grasp of the subject, as well as empirical test methodologies.
He’s going to do more testing, but from what I gather, he currently recommends:
- 256GB for the best performance with long flight plans over new territory.
- 100GB for the fastest load time.
- Recommended minimum is 100GB if you have the drive space.
- Not recommended to exceed 256GB.
3 Likes
Interesting how users trying to make msfs2024 work the way msfs2020 is working . Of course the big difference is , msfs2020 works flawlessly without any rolling cache . Asobo can say what they want , the switch to "streaming most data " basically kneecapped the sim . Wonder when will we first see reports of failing SSD drives due to the massive amount of constant data writing ??
1 Like
FS24 has much higher resolution scenery data, right?
That’s fine if the pipeline from the server to the client, to the Rolling Cache, to the CPU and GPU is fast and stable. The problem is that for some, it simply isn’t - at least not at the quality/performance level they desire.
I personally am not having any issues, but I’m lucky to have a 1Gb fiber connection, WiFi 6, and fast SSD’s, all feeding data to a reasonably powerful CPU/GPU/RAM system, allowing me to have a good 4K flight experience with DLSS Quality and mostly Ultra settings. Others are not so fortunate. For them, the answer is to allow more local data storage. The RC is the way, but as you said, that adds a level of risk.
I currently have my RC running on the same SSD as the sim. Even though the drive has a MTBF of around 1.5 million hours, there is always the risk of data corruption due to constant data I/O. I’m actually thinking of buying a 512GB M.2 NVMe drive just for a 256GB RC. If that fails, I don’t lose the sim.
Thanks BP. 256 it is.
1 Like
It’s not just speed it’s the ability to tinker. They really shot themselves in the foot with the ‘100gb footprint’ of the game printed on the ‘box’. Nobody is for want of space, HD space is cheap amongst other requirements. It should of been wiped off the whiteboard in the first few months of development. No matter what they do, unless they rescind the ‘requirement’, they are going to be trapped having to make whatever they do still adhere to the possibility of being only 100GB in size. It’s a huge(small) unnecessary burden. Should have been a 350GB minimum, 450GB+ ‘recommended’.
1 Like
Sure. But how many complaints did we keep seeing about “ridiculously long” download times with FS20?
I have the drive space, and the patience, to deal with huge those WU downloads.
But the cacophany that would ensue with similar WU downloads in FS24 would be deafening.
1 Like
What they need to figure out is improve loading times if we also do this, becuase in 2020 when I had over 100GB of add ons installed, the loading time of the sim increased drastically. I wonder if they are even using the DirectStorage API in the sim. If not, what in the heck are they even doing? A lot of PC games that take advantage of the tech there and their loading times are almost none.
Spider-Man 2 is a great example of them using the DirectStorage API where loading into the game is instant and even fast traveling from one part of the map to the other side is literally a animation which acts like a loading screen and you are back swinging in less than 2 seconds.