• auzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago

    That’s not really odd. It likely caches decompressed assets and such.

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      They’ve also talked about massively leveraging cloud computing and streaming, it’s likely a lot of actual scenery isn’t part of the offline file size unless you cache the areas for offline play (if that’s even an option)

      • auzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yeah. That was admittedly the big issue with Australia. With VFR it was useless unless we used Orbx in the days

  • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    The hardware and bandwidth demands of the first game were why I stopped playing it. I had a machine that could run it (and an even better one now) and internet that could handle it, but it still just wasn’t a smooth experience. I don’t have a cap on my internet data but my speed isn’t particularly high, which meant the 80-150gb per week of data the game consumed was certainly felt.

  • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I wonder if it’s going to take several hours to download all the world content before allowing into you into the menu screen like MSFS2020 does.

    I wonder if they’ll insist on using MS servers for the content and will be kept at MS server caps at 5MBPS, meaning that it will take 20+ hours of downloading before you can even play, pulling you outside of the 2 hour Steam return window.

    • Aussiemandeus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah fucking MSFS2020 was such a bust for me living in Australia. It took days to download then I finally got it working something went wrong with install files and had to dick around. In the end I played 3 hours of it but have hundreds in download time.

      Fuck MSFS

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Afaik Steam does refund games if you tell support that you spent time troubleshooting or waited for the launcher to download the actual files.
      Though I only think to have read about it. No concrete proof.

      • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Yeah the Steam refund 2 hour thing is just the no questions asked guaranteed refund window. You can absolutely request a refund outside of that window and they’ll be quite reasonable in most cases.

      • UmeU@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Years ago, I tried cities skylines on a sort of shitty PC… spent at least 8 hours trying to get it to work, then just gave up.

        Requested a refund and it was granted almost immediately.

        I bought a better PC and repurchased, and not it runs fine but the game itself is pretty mod dependent and I have spent more time installing and uninstalling mods than actually playing the game.

        So yes, ask for a refund and you will probably get it even outside the 2hour window.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Hell, they’ve been refunding Linux users for GTAV this week because of the change to BattleEye.

  • TheRedSpade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Is there any reason to choose MSFS over Flightgear other than simply being unaware of the latter’s existence?

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean, yes, as I’m sure you know already. Flightgear is a fine product and lots of respect to the contributors, but the support around MSFS, the level of detail and whole host of other factors make MSFS the one to beat; even if the flight model of XPlane is probably a tad better.

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t know that other one, but what hooked people on MSFS was the AI terrain made from satellite images letting you fly from anywhere to anywhere, and some capitals are handmade.

      They also added missions based on the previous games to celebrate the series history.

  • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    This game feels like the perfect candidate for streaming from XCloud/GeForce Now since all those data doesn’t really need to be transferred all the time. And the game’s design can tolerate a bit input latency.

  • Skates@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Oddly? This is not odd at all.

    It’s been a while sincce I wrote code, but I’ll try to remember. Basically disk size and ram size have no connection. Disk size is for already generated assets (maybe you need to remember how the planes look like, so you create assets for all the planes. Or you want to have textures for the scenery, or for the Lincoln monument, or whatever).

    But then you need to load those resources into RAM to access them faster, because if you try to load them directly from disk, it’s a lot slower. So some part of those 64GB of RAM is because you are loading some premade assets.

    But aside from this, there’s also dynamically generated data that you have no way of knowing about at the beginning of the program, so you can’t prepare in advance and generate assets for it. Like say for example the player wants to begin flying the plane - he’s gonna have some different inputs than any other player. Maybe he drives slower at the beginning, or goes a little to the right when he takes off. Or his destination will be completely different. You now need to remember his velocity, his position on the map, the direction of his flight, his altitude, his plane’s weight and who knows what else, I’m not a pilot. All of this, you allocate memory dynamically, based on user changes, and this uses the RAM as well.

    Not to mention - you can make a 1kb program that takes 64 GB of RAM. You just ask the operating system for that much memory. You don’t even need to fully use it. It’ll take you one line of code.

    All this to say - nothing odd about the program being smaller than the RAM requirements. It can mean it’s not optimized, but it can also mean it has a lot of dynamic calculations that it’s doing and a lot of stuff it needs to remember (and in the case of a flight Sim this wouldn’t surprise me).

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      You now need to remember his velocity, his position on the map, the direction of his flight, his altitude, his plane’s weight and who knows what else, I’m not a pilot.

      You’re not wrong per se, but I’m having trouble fathoming gigabytes of data being consumed by these types of parameters. You could probably track hundreds of thousands of airplanes with that much space. The only thing that I could imagine taking up that much memory is extremely detailed airflow simulation.

      However, as a rule of thumb, the vast majority of memory data for video games is in most cases textures and geometry, and not so much the simulation. Based on the article, it seems this game streams high resolution geometry data based on your current location on earth, which I would say is the most probable reason it asks for so much memory.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically correct, but if I’d have any input into hiring a person whose background involves making a flight simulator requiring 64GB RAM, that doesn’t emulate every mol in that plane for that cost (I’m exaggerating a bit), I’d ask many questions.

      • loutr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        It requires 16GB RAM, which is perfectly acceptable. But it can use more if available, for high res textures I assume. Which are streamed from Microsoft’s servers, explaining in part the difference between install size and max memory requirements.

        • nik9000@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          My guess is the big video ram is high resolution textures, complex geometry, and a long draw distance. I honestly don’t know much about video games though.

          The smaller install is totally the map streaming stuff. I’m unsure quite why it has to be so big, but again, I don’t know video games. I do recall you having to tell it where you want to start from and it’ll download some stuff there.

  • thejml@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    30GB plus unlimited data streaming while using it…

    That said, I suppose one plus is that this hopefully wont need as many 10+GiB updates literally right when I finally have an hour free and want to play it.

    • sneaky@r.nf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      30GB to install then 100+ after you open the game and it downloads updates and scenery. Same deal as 2020.

    • sneaky@r.nf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m thinking 30 before opening the game and then 100+ after.