36 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

That's obvious, but many people are using 2K, to get better performance, myself included. I am used to working with 8K displays at work, but on my home sim, 2K is fine. 

Worst mistake I made was going 4k. Have a 43 inch right in front of my face. If I downgraded I would notice. But I don’t disagree with you 

32 has served me fine throughout in VR on the Reverb G2.  Increases in RAM speed did, however, make a noticeable improvement.

Your desktop monitor resolution has nothing to do with the amount of system ram you need or use, higher resolutions do use more vram however.  

Currently on 64GB but getting ready to do a CPU upgrade with faster memory, new MB and the like once the 7950X3D is out so it will need the expensive DDR5 stuff. So 4k on a 50" OLED, a second 29in wide screen monitor, MSFS on Ultra settings, Volanta, Navigraph Charts, AAO, Streamdeck, TrackIR, VRinsight MCP2 and 4 different pieces of hardware for flying. You guys are saying all that is good with just 32GB? Was planning on going with 64.

Had a flight with Fenix with almost 25gb ram used. 

 

 

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Seth2021

For the sake of science, a similar screenshot taken at EGLL in the Fenix on the runway.

https://imgur.com/a/Pszohe0

Physical memory is still 16 GB. Memory usage looks to be between 7 and 8 GB with graphics settings on Ultra and 4K. Frame rate is lower as expected for a system with two generations older CPU and a full step plus less capable 8G GPU. MSFS adapts nicely. 

 

PS Sorry about the link. Can't figure out how to use the "Insert image from URL" button from Imgur. Not much to see really.

I believe the figure displayed in game is "committed" rather than currently in use.

I regularly saw all 32GB committed in the past but that dropped to more like 10 or 15 after a recent patch.

On 1/8/2023 at 8:40 AM, MDFlier said:

I started flying MSFS with 16GB installed. I upgraded to 32GB to accommodate a different piece of SW. I can honestly say that I can't tell if it made any practical difference in MSFS. It uses more memory than it did before, but I do not notice any other differences in performance or stability.

Anything from 16GB up is good.

I hate quoting myself, but if you find out that you gave someone bad advice or incorrect information, you need to correct it.

After the above post, I had some non MSFS related issues with my system, so I decided that it was time to do a clean OS re-install. I bought a new M2 SSD, pulled out my old one, and did the Windows 10 install (so I could have a local admin account), followed by all of it's updates, and then a Windows 11 upgrade along with all of it's updates. I have MSFS and all of it's associated add ons and supporting SW installed on its own drive, and all of my installed apps are on their own drive as well. Afet the OS upgrade, I just needed to run each installed application's installer to add it's registry entries and do all of the initial install tasks. I am in the AAU beta, so after getting the Xbox Insider app updated, I launched the MSFS installer. I am happy to report that MSFS recognized it's previously installed files and skipped the download process. It fired up with all of my previous settings intact. GSX and AIG had to be reinstalled to get them to work, but it was fairly painless overall.

So what is the bad advice or incorrect information (dare I say misinformation) here? The Windows 10 and 11 installations themselves went fine. The updates to both versions were nightmares. I kept getting failed downloads, corrupted files, and bombing installations at completely random points. I thought that maybe my new M2 drive was bad, so I started testing. The drive was fine, but my memory failed (!!!). Windows Memory Diagnostics (which works great and is a worthwhile use of 45 minutes' time) confirmed the first tests that I ran. I had 16 bad pages (out of  8,309,551) in my G.Skill Ripjaws F4-3600C16D-32GVKC 32Gb memory. I had to remove them and reinstall my old 16Gb of G.Skill Trident memory. G.Skill just sent me the RMA document this morning, so I'll be sending them out today.

I've been running MSFS for 3 days now with 16Gb installed. Just sitting at the gate at FlyTampa's CYYZ with 65% AIG traffic and GSX running (but not activated yet) has Resource Monitor sitting at 15.8Gb used. I can see and feel the difference.

New and correct advice. For MSFS, get 32Gb of ram so you will have some headroom and Windows won't have to swap pages. 

 I also see 32GB as enough, my CPU is also not so much used, in average 15-20%... the GPU is mostly stressed (up to full load and memory, between 9 and 11GB from my 12GB available).

On 1/8/2023 at 12:49 AM, Cavemanhead said:

Is it a waste?

A waste indeed, 32gb is more than enough.

19 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

A waste indeed, 32gb is more than enough.

The exception might be those really high res $4000+ VR headsets.

Also it really does depend what else you use your PC for. While MSFS may not use the full 32GB of ram - It all depends on all the other software you're running at the same time. The other day for example task manager was stating I was using 24.9GB out of 32GB. 

Edited January 11, 20233 yr by Zangoose

It's not DCS, it runs fine on 32GB.

With 100% traffic with all airlines downloaded, using AIG + FBW A32NX + Inibuilds EGLL sometimes my used memory jumps to 29GB... The good news is that my 4090 is arriving soon... 3080Ti is always max-out 😉...

Maybe in the near future 64GB will be the new standard for gaming...