I’ve got 16GB RAM and accidentally turned off my swap/paging file (I was moving it from one SSD partition to another and didn’t do it completely) and it CTD’d every time I tried to launch a flight - turning the (dynamic) paging file back on sorted it, naturally.
2 Likes
It’s only recording 9GB there, about 4GB less than what’s in the OSD.
1 Like
My paging file on the ram drive really makes sense 
2 Likes
So the load has definitely been “trimmed” since the last updates. Unfortunately, I can’t find my screenshot with the load of the earlier versions where even the VRAM was at 17GB load (3090RTX).
For RAM, I’m sure I was somewhere around 24GB over major cities, now VRAM doesn’t go over 9GB and RAM at approx. max 13GB (but I’d have to check exactly, system equipped with 64GB RAM)
My system is thumping along, but with Ultra settings. That would also explain the low FPS on “high end systems”. (I mean now compared to the expected high FPS)
Furthermore, you can observe that these sporadic stutters and FPS drops definitely have something to do with the server connection, you can also see that the load goes down at that moment. But my internet is stable at 100Mbit.
After that, the graphics card will only use about 50 % again, at “resolution scale 100%”. (CPU load is between 25-35 percent, Core i9 10940X)
Only when I increase this gradually does the utilisation value of the graphics card become higher.
But as I said, everything on Ultra (except cockpit refresh rate), resolution at 5760x1080 - the software is unfortunately a Ferrari with a Beetle engine - at least that’s how it seems to me (like cropped)!
I mean the goal of the optimisation will probably be (also because of the XBOX, now NOT meant negatively) to get the most out of minimum hadware, or to get nice “experience” there too, in itself a good effort, but it should not be limited “upwards” !
1 Like
How is it a myth when so many people have noticed the downgraded graphics since SU5?
It’s a myth that Asobo have said it will be the same. It clearly isn’t today, with the graphics settings being one very simple and obvious example. Add to that the community folder, the pre caching setting, vr etc etc. There is one common code base - that doesn’t mean it is the same experience on both.
Yeah, I have personally tried both experiences and the PC is much better, and the changes they made in WU6 made it even better. Xbox is great, but a high end PC is just better.
And think about this - the Xbox can only be optimized so much, since it is a fixed hardware target. Once they achieve good quality on it (which, arguably, they already have), they can turn their attention to the PC and continue to push it. The evidence is already there - if you edit the users.cfg file, you can really crank up the graphics, well beyond even what a 3090 can handle today (LOD 9!).
As long as they keep on working on the game, and why would they stop, the PC is bound to get better and better, while the Xbox will stay more or less static.
Ray tracing will show up at some point, as will DX12. Considering the sim already looks great, I can’t wait to see what it’s like in six months or so. I’ve been using it since the Tech Alpha, and have seen all the changes - yes, some things went backwards, but what’s the point of having a visually brilliant sim that runs at 10 fps on anything but a 3090 - and 25 fps on a 3090?
The engine is capable of doing more that what we have right now, and over time, I’m sure they’ll continue to crank it up.
1 Like
I did some measurements in London not long ago for data and RAM use with different settings.
Interestingly, autogen data costs more memory. But that could be because draw distance is lower with PG data on over London.
Flight from London City to Heathrow at 500ft, measuring data streamed from the server, max comitted physical RAM and max VRAM in use during the flight.
No PG Data
Terrain 800 0.74 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 20.4 GB + 5.0 GB Vram
Terrain 400 0.50 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 15.2 GB + 4.1 GB Vram
Terrain 200 0.34 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 13.2 GB + 3.7 GB Vram
Terrain 100 0.21 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 11.2 GB + 3.7 GB Vram
Terrain 50 0.16 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 9.8 GB + 3.5 GB Vram
PG Data
Terrain 800 5.25 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 14.4 GB + 4.5 GB Vram
Terrain 400 3.45 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 15.1 GB + 4.1 GB Vram
Terrain 200 2.04 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 12.3 GB + 3.5 GB Vram
Terrain 100 1.21 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 10.6 GB + 3.7 GB Vram
Terrain 50 0.60 GiB data streamed, max RAM use 9.9 GB + 3.5 GB Vram
This is much better than it was before:
Terrain 200 23.8 GB initial load, up to 41 GB committed landing at Heathrow.
However draw distance at Terrain 200 was much farther than it is now in London. That same flight consumed 4.38 GiB of data. Terrain 150 consumed 3.49 GiB of data, which is now Terrain 400.
(Draw distance in London got reduced a lot to compensate for the higher data density. The difference in NY is much smaller. It seems the higher density PG areas received a draw distance reduction to keep data consumption similar to lower density PG areas)
3 Likes
I edited my usercfg.opt file as suggested by others to make the TERRAIN and OBJECT LODfactors be 4.0 instead of the default 2.0 (also for VR from 1.0 to 2.0 for both). MSI Afterburner and Windows Game Bar both say that I’m using about 16 Gb of RAM out of a 32 Gb total with ~all ULTRA settings. It’s worth it! The level of detail has definitely increased over the default ULTRA settings, both in 2D and VR, although VR is not without a few microstutters here and there. I’m running at 100 TAA render, 200 LOD in MSFS graphics settings for both TERRAIN and OBJECT LOD, OXR custom scaling unchecked (let app decide) with motion reprojection always on. Following in the footsteps of others on the forum the 2D view is fabulous, the VR sharpness greatly improved at the price of smoothness.
Edit_Update: Should add this is with the new precache slider on ULTRA, too, in MSFS graphics settings.
I increased my RAM from 32 GB to 64 GB (3200 hz DDR G Skill Ripjaws) just for the hell of it, 4 months ago. I have I7-9700K, 2070 Super Mini, 1TB SSD. All settings on Ultra, LOD’s all the way up, and monitor 1920x1080. I was hoping to make better utilization of RAM, but most recent system update (5) uses only about 7-9 GB. FPS on complex cities varies about 45-65 (temporarily decreases when suddenly changing the view). I tried going back down on page-file size and even turning it off, with little difference, or any observable performance difference.
1 Like
32GB was alwyas enough and still is now. I have no idea why some people jumped to 64GB so early. You’ll be switcing that to DDR5 in couple of years.
1 Like
On my rtx3060 I’ve seen over 9GB of vram logged but I don’t read too much into it. By comparison a full petrol tank in no way means your car will run any faster or any smoother than when it’s just quarter full.
I can say the same thing about myself (and may others) jumping to 32GB before SU5, I had heard it was going to address the memory usage issue but I still went ahead anyway.
Oh yes, my 1080 Ti often exceeds 9GB in MSFS, that’s why my next card has to have a minimum of 10GB. But seeing as even a 2080 Ti won’t get me to 60FPS at ultra in 4k I’m not sure it will be worth it.
An Xbox S has 10GB (g)ddr6 ram total which it has to share with video so it’s unlikely MSFS will ever demand more until it’s considered obsolete hardware.
32GB made sense and it still makes sense for gaming because some games eat a lot of ram (cities skylines, DCS).
Vram allocation and how much the game actually needs are two different things. Currently 10GB should be enough even for 4k gaming.
1 Like
32GB was also the MS ‘high end’ recommendation but to be fair the Xbox plans to share the platform might not have been in place then.
32GB still makes sense since Windows 10 will refrain from using the pagefile as long as you stay under 50% physical ram in use (under 16GB total). And Windows will use the rest to cache files to speed everything else up.
Before the XBox release 32Gb wasn’t enough, I’ve seen the sim go up to 41GB on my system, others reported over 50GB in use. However those extreme cases were bugs.
I did my test flights again to measure data use and ram use for different terrain settings. My test flight is from London City to Heathrow in the Bonanza, clear skies, noon, 500ft cruise altitude. Flying slow enough to make sure all data can be read.
Object detail stays on 200, buildings etc on Ultra, putting my weak GTX 1060 6GB to the test
(testing on a laptop, 2.2 ghz i7-8750H, boost disabled, 1080p)
First number is data downloaded during the flight, then
Max committed ram during the flight / peak CPU ram / peak GPU ram
SU6 London City to Heathrow, 500ft, Bonanza, noon, clear skies
No PG Data
Terrain 800 0.87 GiB 20.5 / 15.6 / 5.2 8-15 fps
Terrain 400 0.60 GiB 16.4 / 11.4 / 4.4 15-22 fps
Terrain 200 0.38 GiB 12.1 / 7.7 / 4.1 21-22 fps
Terrain 100 0.23 GiB 11.6 / 6.8 / 3.7 22-25 fps
Terrain 50 0.17 GiB 11.1 / 6.4 / 3.6 22-24 fps
PG Data
Terrain 800 5.45 GiB 20.8 / 15.5 / 5.5 7-14 fps
Terrain 400 3.76 GiB 15.5 / 10.4 / 4.4 14-22 fps
Terrain 200 1.95 GiB 12.5 / 8.0 / 3.9 21-27 fps
Terrain 100 1.26 GiB 11.1 / 6.9 / 3.7 27-30 fps (22 on autogen)
Terrain 50 0.65 GiB 10.5 / 6.8 / 3.5 31-32 fps (22 on autogen)
Newark KEWR to Laguardia KLGA, Bonanza, 800ft, noon, clear skies
PG Data
Terrain 400 2.77 GiB 19.0 / 12.4 / 4.5 13-19 fps
Terrain 200 1.77 GiB 12.3 / 7.1 / 3.9 18-29 fps
Terrain 100 1.02 GiB 10.8 / 6.5 / 3.0 25-36 fps
For Terrain 400, which is the new UI maximum since SU6, 32GB is definitely recommended.
My GPU ram usage measurements don’t mean more VRAM doesn’t help, the game will use the extra VRAM and keep more data on the GPU for when you turn the camera around. My GPU ram usage jumps up when I turn the camera and then I get stutters when it’s hitting the 6GB physical limit.
Now add mods, 4K rendering or higher, clouds, live traffic, multiplayer and 32GB ram will start to feel cramped. Yet as I’m currently flying at FL380 over open ocean (or rather over an ocean of clouds) at terrain detail 200, it’s only using 9.4 GB of ram.
I get 42% VRAM usage with a Asus ROG Strix 3090 OC.
CPU utilisation is 11% (Ryzen 9 5950X)
8GB RAM MSFS 2020 is current using (3 hours into a flight) / 64GB.
That’s with everything on max graphics options wise.
To be fair, that is some accomplishment considering how good the sim looks.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.