Looking at that specs sheet above for fs24, I’m struggling to not use up my 12GB of VRAM, but I’ve noticed that it says to pair 12GB VRAM with 64GB of RAM, and 32GB for 8GB cards! Is there a definite connection there? or am I reading too much into that?
If there IS a connection i’d be curious to know how many people have 12GB cards and 64GB RAM paired together? Is this the reason why some people don’t have a VRAM saturation situation with ultra settings?
I’m wondering because I only have 32GB RAM. Would upgrading be advantageous?
There was a whole thread on the topic of 32GB vs 64GB, so worth looking that up. I upgraded 32GB to 64GB and it did help a bit. SU4 seemed to finally get VRAM management working much better, SU5 has perhaps made a few marginal further improvements. As it stands currently I think you can tune your settings to stay within available VRAM much more easily and reliably than you could in previous versions, that said it works a lot better with 16GB on 5080 than the 10GB 3080 I had.
I feel like a broken record here, but we cannot discuss VRAM usage without discussing resolution choice first.
When 2024 came out and people were experiencing the VRAM overrun issue(s), over and over again you’d see posts where people with identical systems were experiencing completely different VRAM usage. One person would be running out and another would be using half. All that people would say is “Ultra” or “High” settings, LOD this or that, blah blah.
I started probing everyone and rapidly discovered that the issue seemed to nearly always be one of screen resolution. If you are running native 4K on an identical system to someone running 1440p, you’re going to be using way more VRAM.
That’s the point though isn’t it, I would assume anyone with an ideal spec machine, according to the recommended specs, would be using the sim in native 4k as anyone with a 40/5090 should be doing after shelling out for the hardware, and yet it’s still only recommended to have 12GB VRAM, but paired with 64GB DRAM.
So are the ideal specs wrong or is this sim just coded wrong? Or some other issue?
You have to look at the issue from Asobos point of view. 5090 owners are the exception rather than the rule. If the ideal specs, let’s say required a 5090 with the 9850X3D, it would put the game out of reach of most users. They needed to come up with a spec that would be in reach of most gamers based on medium-high graphics settings at 1920 x 1080. Not high-end machines. IMO
I think they anticipated optimizing the sim more to meet those specs, and they’ve definitely made progress towards that end with the various Sim Updates
There is, I believe, a flaw in how the specs are determined vs what the community interprets them to be. A user might interpret that to mean the sim can run anything, even third party addons, at a high level as long as they meet the outlined spec. Another user might interpret it to mean they can run any default aircraft and/or scenery at a high level as long as they meet the outlined spec. What I believe is true is that the sim can run simple aircraft at a simple airport at a high level as long as the hardware meets the desired spec.
And with that last bit in mind, even with a 7900 GRE I can achieve a usable frame rate at 4K Ultra - provided I’m in a single-engine piston at a small default airport, which is how I believe they benchmark the spec reccs.
True, but even with that in mind, the sim can still be more demanding than the specs suggest - especially if you choose a demanding aircraft and airport (both still being default).
Agreed. Case in point. There is a 50+ FPS difference between the C172 and 747 using the same graphics settings for both. How can you come up with a standard spec. Too many variables.
This wouldn’t be a perfect solution due to some settings requiring a sim restart to fully take place, but I would be a fan of aircraft-specific graphics presets just like we have for controls presets. I think this is already a wishlist item, so we’ll see.
I use an RTX 5090 with a 3440×1440 monitor, with every in game setting maxed out and terrain level of detail set to 200. Using the Fenix A321 at Asobo’s handcrafted SBGL airport, the game was using 23 GB of VRAM, and even after climbing to cruise altitude it was still holding at 19 GB. Their recommended system requirements are a complete joke, and the VRAM management is absolutely terrible. I was previously using a 5070 Ti, and 16 GB of VRAM was simply not enough. Stuttering and frame drops were happening constantly. I ended up having to spend a huge amount of money on a 5090 just to pay for Asobo’s awful technology
Did you reinstall Windows when you put the 5090 in? I was just bitten by the VRAM bug the other day, and after 4 installs in as many days, I got things working normal again. I don’t know what causes it, but I had a simple steam gauge aircraft soaking up 14GB of VRAM. Use the USB media creation utility for the rebuild.
I’m failing to see why , because the sim is using the RAM on your card, that that is a problem and goes against the recommended system requirements. You brag that you are maxing out your settings and yet you have 5GB of headroom when you are at cruise. People with less VRAM are not using 23 GB. My 4060ti 16GB card rarely comes close to using all the VRAM. The VRAM on your card is there to be used not saved mysteriously. What the sim should not do is exceed the limit and I hardly ever see anyone complaining about that anymore.
If your 16gb was not enough on your 4070 ti, then you had your settings and expectations too high.
Exactly. My poor old 3070ti has to handle 3440 x 1440 pixels, too. It has just 8GB of VRAM so obviously I have to reduce my settings. Still, I often get the message that my settings would exceed my VRAM. That’s ok, I know I’m running it at the limit, that’s not Asobo’s fault. With SU5 beta it seems the sim handles those situations better than before, no stuttering for me. So at least for me it’s a positive experience so far. Of course, the jury is still out how it will be on the non-beta servers with a lot more players around me.
A lot of people want the highest resolution textures, huge displays, etc. No wonder that’s eating VRAM for breakfast. Sadly, it looks like we won’t get a 16 GB VRAM 5070ti, that would have been a natural upgrade path for me.
My 4060ti 16gb has been an amazing card so far. It’s giving me smooth flights in VR with decent graphics and the power consumption on that card is amazing.
The problem is these expectations are set by MS/Asobo by claiming the ideal spec can run 4K at Ultra and achieve 40-50 FPS while doing so. As a reminder, the ideal spec calls for 25% less VRAM than what a 4070Ti has.
(Which it might can do with a 152 at a default airport in the middle of nowhere, but that’s about it)
Where are they claiming that? I spent a few minutes yesterday trying to find the official recommended/official system requirements and couldn’t even find anything for MSFS 2024 on the Microsoft pages. I found screenshots from official looking tables on other sites, those included VRAM size but none of the things I found mentioned display resolution. So it wasn’t even clear if those specs were meant to support 1920x1080 or whatever. And yes, didn’t mention C152 over the desert vs. an airliner at JFK.
Would love a link to the official information because I was too stupid (or impatient) to find it.
It was said during a pre-release livestream in September of 2024 by the executive producer of MSFS at Asobo. While never marketed that way, it was stated during an official livestream and picked up and repeated many times by the community.
