It’s all relative, I’ve been stress testing the game to find the extremes. Just now I did a flight from Southend to Heathrow at 2,000 ft altitude. Much more reasonable height. 185 knots TAS, the sim had no trouble keeping up, network usage stayed just under 50 mbps over London.
I’m running on a very modest setup, slow CPU, 16 GB ram, wi-fi, 1060, it’s a laptop.
This is on high settings with a couple things turned up to Ultra (trees, texture synthesis, windshield, 8x8 texture supersampling, 16x anisotropic, high cockpit refresh rate) Terrain detail 200, object detail 150, and it completes the flight without any issues. Fly high and fast, no problem. Low and slow works as well. Low and fast is no go with my avg gaming laptop. But good to test the limits an find the bottlenecks.
This flight consumed 1.24 GiB with most of that over London, way less than the 4.38 Gib needed when flying at 500ft at terrain 200. What the game can use is smarter LOD. At 500 ft altitude, it pretty much looks the same with terrain at 100 or 200, the only difference, 1.65 GiB extra data you can’t see from that height. At 2,000 ft terrain 200 is still on the short side, the horizon looks rather bare.
One thing comes out in every test flight, need more RAM! 16GB just doesn’t cut it.
Comparison with Tokyo, 500ft altitude, sim can keep up on my system
(Switched to 150 render scale to get GPU limited again, 2880x1620 render resolution)
It’s far less data. Even after crashing into those buildings (500 ft is too low) picking the plane back up, doing a circle and finishing the 12 minute flight from RJTL to RJTA, data consumption was 1.36 GiB, only slightly more than London at 2000ft and less than 1/3rd of London at 500ft.
London has an unprecedented level of detail in this sim in the largest continuous PG area yet. Sure, it could use a lot of refinement, but very impressive nonetheless.