20 minutes ago, Sesquashtoo said:

OF course apples to apples, my MSFS is full Ultra with a few higher tweaks.  If you are also at Ultra 'plus' settings, then you are most fortunate to not notice anything of what I was describing for visuals.  Good go! 🙂

Well I will pay better attention since you mentioned it.   I come from SubLogic FS-II in the mid 80's so I'm not that particular as to graphics.  Anything's good.

I for one like that the posts are less toxic these days.  I only want to hear the fun stuff!

regards

bs

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Full Fibre To Property is why I now have those speeds. I live in a suburban part of Greater Manchester which probably explains why. All copper phone cables are being phased out as part of a government initiative. Is your feed full fibre from the exchange to a box in your house?

Good for you! 👍

Actually there is some fiber optics from my ISP, but in my neighborhood it is still (I think...) mostly coiled micro cable land lines. At least to my actual house from the pole..it is...  My ISP provider told me that Cable's top speed is max, 945 Mb's, so being I am getting that...I am right now at Cable's, max down through.

Edited October 3, 20214 yr by Sesquashtoo

2 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

I envy you.  For anyone living in the UK this is pure dreamland.

We struggle in most built up areas to get 70Mbs and even then the ISPs operate all kinds of hiden throttling methods so that downloads from the main speed test sites will show the full speed, but trying to get that speed from anywhere else, even when they have the high speed server capacity, will be disappointing.

 

I'm hoping for a better future outcome for you and those around you.   If you can get anywhere near my 945 Mb's...I'm sure you will see elevated scenic composition and rendering.  For myself from 360 to 945, Biggles, it has been night and day!

Cheers!

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I live about 12 miles south of Leicester. 6 weeks ago I installed satellite internet from SpaceX (ordered in April).  The highest speed I have seen so far is 400MBs, but my average is around 200MBs.  The service is currently in Beta.  Speeds have gradually been increasing.  Latency average is about 30ms, but 20ms is promised.  We are lucky in the UK because we are at the northern most track of the satellites so no dropouts in the signal. 🙂

I had been using EE home broadband on my narrowboat and had an average of 15-20MBs.  When I first installed MSFS (store version), it took several days 😂.  I re-installed MSFS a couple of weeks ago and it took a couple of hours - I was amazed to see MSFS reporting 130MBs!

After reading what you are dealing with..I will NEVER complain about the service in my area.  Not after reading THIS POST! Whew!

31 minutes ago, Sesquashtoo said:

Actually there is some fiber optics from my ISP, but in my neighborhood it is still (I think...) mostly coiled micro cable land lines. At least to my actual house from the pole..it is...  My ISP provider told me that Cable's top speed is max, 945 Mb's, so being I am getting that...I am right now at Cable's, max down through.

That sounds similar to my fibre cable hence why your speeds are similar to mine. Ethernet-connected devices only of course. Wi-fi still lags behind.

17 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That sounds similar to my fibre cable hence why your speeds are similar to mine. Ethernet-connected devices only of course. Wi-fi still lags behind.

Most certainly...

3 hours ago, Mace said:

I have 60Mbps.  If I'm seeing what you describe above, then I'm not noticing it.  <shrugs shoulders>

HAHA. I guess this is becoming one of those who can go the lowest and still see good visuals, contest. I know that for me when the weather gets rough, things do get a bit choppy and that even in good weather I do get some popping but in general I can fly around any city and fly in an out of most airports (so long as there are not too many AI) and  I can have the sliders all on ultra a few layers of scattered clouds and I get silky smooth flying,  Especially nice on approach with big cities in the background.   My rigs an i7 with a Nvidea 3060 and 32Gb Ram but here's the kicker, look at my abysmal internet speed, and this was on a good day. Yes I do get some messages stopping services and I get kicked out of the MS server sometimes due to internet connection loss. But I am surprised at how well this sim performs even in low speed internet situations. Of course I don't like that, but what choice do I have  if I want MSFS and my service provider is 100 years behind.  I would love to be where you are OP but even where I am is surprisingly not a million miles away:) 

 

Edit: Sorry. Have no idea why I cant download images but anyway download speed is 5Mbps!! 

 

 

   

Edited October 4, 20214 yr by Lord Farringdon

it’s not the ISP raw speed that counts…

it is actually the total quality of throughput from the MFS Azure servers all the way to our physical computers and Xbox’s…

theoretical ISP speeds do not actually measure the complete quality of service…

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I had FTTP installed in August. 900+Mbps download speeds. But a fast download speed hasn’t altered my choice on my preferred flight sim package.

We live on the outskirts of a City in South Africa on an "agricultural holding". There are no cables laid in our street for fibre, so my best is LTE. Depending on the time of day 10-30 speed.

I suppose I can dream/🤣

Laat month I went from 300 to 600. At 300 I almost had no terrain morphing already but 600 is better and more than enough.

Everyone with a slow IN connection should have at least rolling cache enabled and see a loading improvement when doing the same flight for the second time and more.

 

17 hours ago, Sesquashtoo said:

With my older Cable ISP package of 360 MB's , I did...see real time morphing,  building flashes coming into detail,  some (like downtown New York) as well as Seattle,  nuclear views...at 360 Mb's...so if ANYBODY tells you that you can get the same scenic performance at anywhere up or down from 360 Mb's...well, they are so full of ****,  as to their eyes are brown!  Most will be making that assumption, from not HAVING run their downloads from the MSFS Severs with a (Cable) of 945 Mb's . No sir....

I have 600 Mbps and have no issues with texture streaming or photogrammetry in most regions, however I believe that some areas are intrinsically bugged and problematic. 

For example London, which since UK update was a morphing fest of terrain and PG buildings even precaching the entire area. Even Sebastian Wloch recognized it and said that he was not happy with London and would remake it. I had to buy ORBX London to fix that and I don't know if Asobo fixed the default scenery with WU6 eventually.

Also the area near LA and San Diego was affected since day one by long pauses and abnormal stuttering for everyone regardless of the PC / connection speed. I don't know if they fixed that either.

There are also other areas in Russia and Northern Europe where the satellite data is simply missing. And these are universally recognized issues that have nothing to do with download speed.

Your theory, then, does not explain why the bandwidth and data usage is so low (a few Mbit/s intermittently and a few GB downloaded in hours of flying).

Moreover I cannot help pointing out that your theory also seems to imply that MS/Asobo are the most full of sh...ocolate of all, stating that the minimum bandwidth requirement is 5 Mbps and the "ideal" is 50 Mbps. What do you think about that?

3 hours ago, craigeaglefire said:

it’s not the ISP raw speed that counts…

it is actually the total quality of throughput from the MFS Azure servers all the way to our physical computers and Xbox’s…

theoretical ISP speeds do not actually measure the complete quality of service…

^^^

This.  If Microsoft is saying the ideal bandwidth is 50 Mbps as per the picture from @MrFuzzy above, it probably doesn't matter if your internet speed is 300 Mbps or 1000 Mbps, assuming you are not using your bandwidth for other uses when you play MSFS (ie. streaming Twitch as you play MSFS) and your ISP is not throttling you.  Provided you can reach the maximum speed that the Azure servers have allocated for you, making your internet connection faster probably won't really improve the streaming in MSFS.

24 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

Moreover I cannot help pointing out that your theory also seems to imply that MS/Asobo are the most full of sh...ocolate of all, stating that the minimum bandwidth requirement is 5 Mbps and the "ideal" is 50 Mbps. What do you think about that?

The MFS team is right ( yes, it happens sometimes 😆). I do have an unreliable 4G connection of an average of 40 Mbps and get maybe not great but very satisfying visuals. To let think that you need 1 Gb to really enjoy MFS is not true and should not discourage any newcomers.

This sim has its share of shortcomings but Asobo did a great job to provide a lovely simming experience with lower end hardware and bandwidth.

As a side note, I would say that most people do not have much choice in terms of connection anyway

Edited October 4, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

54 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

I have 600 Mbps and have no issues with texture streaming or photogrammetry in most regions, however I believe that some areas are intrinsically bugged and problematic. 

For example London, which since UK update was a morphing fest of terrain and PG buildings even precaching the entire area. Even Sebastian Wloch recognized it and said that he was not happy with London and would remake it. I had to buy ORBX London to fix that and I don't know if Asobo fixed the default scenery with WU6 eventually.

Also the area near LA and San Diego was affected since day one by long pauses and abnormal stuttering for everyone regardless of the PC / connection speed. I don't know if they fixed that either.

There are also other areas in Russia and Northern Europe where the satellite data is simply missing. And these are universally recognized issues that have nothing to do with download speed.

Your theory, then, does not explain why the bandwidth and data usage is so low (a few Mbit/s intermittently and a few GB downloaded in hours of flying).

Moreover I cannot help pointing out that your theory also seems to imply that MS/Asobo are the most full of sh...ocolate of all, stating that the minimum bandwidth requirement is 5 Mbps and the "ideal" is 50 Mbps. What do you think about that?

Well, in the question you asked me, they don't say that you will have a superior non-artifact, non pause, non anything at that  download pipeline speed, but I feel they imply that you can at least get the minimum performance, (which implies performance at the low scale, or the 'entry' (my wording) level for the settings you wish to run, Mr. Fuzzy.   What I stated, was actual on my system, from the 'A' (360 Mb's) download pipeline) and the sporadic graphics anomalies I posted, to my 'B' (945 Mb's) and absolutely no further artifacts, or as-you-fly, or flashes, or building A.I. morphing that can be seen in real time. I have gone with the pipeline upgrade, from the prior, (which most people note, and most threads complain about, and most ask what to do, to alleviate the artifacts..., to all of that (which I also had...) to now zero, but only stellar full rendered in real time Photogrammetry and  A.I. layers, in Ultra (Plus).  I did not change one setting, in-sim, or did I upgrade either my ancient CPU, or middling, GTX1070.  I only upgraded from 360 Mb's ISP Cable service to 945 Mb's ISP Cable service. 

The results were night and day steller!  Of course I'm not saying that at ANY download speed, you can't (with your settings' get 'a' level of scenic rendering that won't have you delete the program, no, but I am typing with my having gone from a 360 Mb's service (with all the same artifacts (occasional during a flight) that everybody (including myself always had...from the get go), to with now a 945 Mb's download pipeline from the MSFS servers, while hot and in game...to zero artifacts of any kind.  To having (with any full 360 degree pan direction) fully formed out to the horizon,  ground (with full Ultra (Plus) Photogrammetry,  and real world or dense cloud atmospherics, a total and now believable 'real world' depiction. That is what I am typing about, and I certainly DID NOT see that rendering performance, at any time, when running from the servers with a 360 Mb's pathway to my system.  Nope...

Do I recommend that (if you can even get it in your area of use), going to a 1GB download pipeline ISP service.  YOU BET I DO! 🙂

Ses

Edited October 4, 20214 yr by Sesquashtoo