I tried searching for this but didn’t seem to find any dedicated threads, though I’m sure it’s been discussed before.
I have a lot of space to spare and wouldn’t mind setting the cache to 500GB-1TB, but ChatGPT seems to think any size above 128GB or so could cause issues. Is this really the case? Is anyone running a huge cache without issues? Or what are your experiences?
Thanks!
I wouldn’t much trust anything ChatGPT tells me. My best guess would be to say look at your network utilization during a flight and see if increasing the rolling cache size reduces that to your liking. After all, the whole point of the rolling cache is to keep a local copy of streamed items so the sim doesn’t have to keep re-downloading them.
Given the size of some sceneries and aircraft I fly, I have chosen 256 GB but neither have I looked at my network traffic nor have I had any problems at all with that size. Your mileage may vary.
Yeah that’s why I’m asking, I can’t imagine a large cache size causing issue. Maybe if you set several terabytes, I dont know. Thanks for your perspective, guess I’ll do some testing.
Honestly, Chatgpt isn’t really suitable for this kind of help or the questions you’re asking, so it’s better to avoid relying on it in the future - asking us directly is much more reliable. That said, there is a great thread on the forum where someone tested - and I think is still testing - a rolling cache. If I can track it down, I’ll let you know.
Anyway, I’ve set my rolling cache file to 96GB but I’m wondering if that might be too small.
EDIT
@BearsAreCool510
I found the thread. It’s definitely worth posting your question there, since rolling cache plays a crucial role in MSFS 2024
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/rollingcache-ccc-performance-debugging-and-tuning-how/670564
That is an excellent thread. It’s pretty technical, but @nenenui does a great job explaining his research in terms that even a dummy like me can understand.
What I’ve gotten out of it is that 128GB seems to be a good target. He reports that he’s used 256GB, but experienced some stutters with that larger cache.
The approach stutters many of us endure (including myself from time to time) won’t be solved by the Rolling Cache. Microsoft streams what they want to stream, and enforces LOD curves in object-rich environments. (My humble opinion, of course…)
I know, I wasn’t expecting the “truth” from chatgpt, but sometimes it can be helpful to get a general summary of what people online have said. I treat as a tool to get a first impression, not as a single source of truth. Which is why I posted here directly afterwards after not having much luck with the forum search.
Thanks for the link!
EDIT: It seems the answer that Chatgpt gave was actually based on that thread.
I completely agree with this—I think the lion’s share of the stutters we deal with are related to servers/network issues, overly aggressive settings, add-on compatibility or lack there of, or other local system factors. I know others strongly disagree but suspect all the cache clearing makes little difference.
I have mine set to 128GB and never clear or refresh it. I read every word of @nenenui excellent analysis and actually reduced mine from 256GB to 128GB but did not really notice a difference.
Same here. I set mine to 128GB and have forgotten about it.
Whats the reason for reducing to 128gb? Doesn’t he write everything up to 250gb is fine?
I’m also curious about this, because now I’m not sure whether to set it to 128GB or higher.
Originally, he suggested sizes up to 256GB seemed completely fine.
However, posts starting on Jan 20th suggest that RC sizes over 100GB may impact performance because of the size of block index writes.
Oh, strange. I thought the high-level summary in his initial post included the most up to date info, including the statement of up to 259gb is fine. Is that not the case?
I tried reading it all but got confused because it seems like it starts repeating itself.
The initial post did mention 256GB but later in the thread — about January 20th — identifies the issues with the index writes and suggests a size of about 100GB.
Ah, thanks. It seems he never added it to the summary:
I think I will now have to add something like
- Sizes above 100 GB may impact overall performances (e.g. more stutters etc.)
Kind of unbelievable this was never communicated by Asobo.
And very disappointing that those of us with enough space can’t make use of it without risking performance loss.
I’d also like to see a detailed explanation of what Rolling Cache actually does.
I know in FS2020 it was ‘supposed’ to cache graphics in frequently traveled areas.
Is it doing that in FS2024 with it’s greater reliance on streaming data?
We don’t know.
I mean we know roughly what it does. It caches all kinds of assets. So unless you’ve downloaded them explicitly, that’s planes, handcrafted airports, and probably some other stuff. If you’ve downloaded everything that’s possible, it should only be ground textures, PG, and probably DEM too.
So you don’t think it caches ground textures, PG, planes, and handcrafted POIs/Airports?
And neneui said what he said about the TECHNICAL characteristics, not about the content it contains. I’d say that’s a different aspect.
Maybe we don’t know every single thing, but the main categories of content that go in there are pretty well known. Hence, we roughly (!) know what it does, although not exactly how.
It was a few dev streams ago. As I recall Martial suggested 128gb. That’s what I have mine set to.
Of course people with different configurations might have a better experience with higher or lower rolling cache settings which could be why Asobo hasn’t made any further recommendations.