In a YT video about MSFS the guy said he decompressed memory as a stutter fix for Flight Simulator. This video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhvczVXNHQ

---------

And here's the video he linked to how to quickly decompress and then compress computer memory (using a command prompt via powershell):

Hard for me to test because I don't have stutters in MSFS right now.

This might be useful for older underpowered systems but will have little or no benefit with a decent modern rig from what I'm able to tell.  In fact it might do more harm than good.  Still an interesting watch though.

It will be interesting to see here how many tried it and got or did not see a benefit 

Likely see performance degradation with M2. Definitely for low-performance systems. Wouldn't do this on a high-performance computer.

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by flightskyc

2 hours ago, flightskyc said:

Likely see performance degradation with M2. Definitely for low-performance systems. Wouldn't do this on a high-performance computer.

I wouldn't do it on any computer.

Yep, I have encountered those Panjno videos earlier also. Snake oil.

Looks like another one of those 'throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks' tweaks. Searching around, I see no confirmation this actually increases performance or gives users a better experience. Just one of those things that sound plausible and good in theory, so maybe someone feels it helps them but with absolutely no confirmation. You could even argue this could make your performance worse, as you could end up in a scenario where it starts using your page file instead, which is a LOT slower.

Some things never change. To be honest in a high end system, stressed out, there is very minimal or any stutters at all. If you do encounter one or two, trust me from 30 years experience, they're not worth chasing...! 

I have a now nearly 4y/o system and having fully appreciated the value and discovered the pathway to achieve ultra low frame time variance at modest frame rates, for someone using a 3440x1440 flat/curved display there is no need to upgrade any hardware at this point in time and this includes all planes and all scenery, all on Ultra.  This is what the CapFrameX capture looks like in my current flight from EDDF to EDDB.  The capture started from pushback to cruise.  Doubling the frame rate will offer little to nothing in this scenario--I've done it, I know.  Run CapFrameX and see what kind of results you get w/ your super high end FG capable system--I'll bet you won't match this

54 minutes ago, Noel said:

I have a now nearly 4y/o system and having fully appreciated the value and discovered the pathway to achieve ultra low frame time variance at modest frame rates, for someone using a 3440x1440 flat/curved display there is no need to upgrade any hardware at this point in time and this includes all planes and all scenery, all on Ultra.  This is what the CapFrameX capture looks like in my current flight from EDDF to EDDB.  The capture started from pushback to cruise.  Doubling the frame rate will offer little to nothing in this scenario--I've done it, I know.  Run CapFrameX and see what kind of results you get w/ your super high end FG capable system--I'll bet you won't match this

Doubling from 30 to 60 fps will offer better fluidity for starters. The feeling of flight. We’ve been through this over and over and over again. 
If it didn’t offer anything, people wouldn’t do it. 
Porsche offer a new 911 that is only 40 bhp faster. So why bother? Lots and lots of reasons. And the same applies to this.

I am sure people who have actually doubled their fps will chime in here, but I’ll start by saying, 60 fps is a world of difference over 30, in terms of the feeling of flight. 
 

PS I would take 10 minimal stutters per flight at 60 fps over 1 stutter at 30fps. It’s that much better. 

Edited October 6, 20232 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

19 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Doubling from 30 to 60 fps will offer better fluidity for starters. The feeling of flight. We’ve been through this over and over and over again. 
If it didn’t offer anything, people wouldn’t do it. 
Porsche offer a new 911 that is only 40 bhp faster. So why bother? Lots and lots of reasons. And the same applies to this.

I am sure people who have actually doubled their fps will chime in here, but I’ll start by saying, 60 fps is a world of difference over 30, in terms of the feeling of flight. 
 

PS I would take 10 minimal stutters per flight at 60 fps over 1 stutter at 30fps. It’s that much better. 

The only clear difference I notice at 60fps vs 30 is better fluidity when panning, is that a crucial difference in playability? no, but for me personally it was worth the cost to achieve it.

1 minute ago, Ixoye said:

The only clear difference I notice at 60fps vs 30 is better fluidity when panning, is that a crucial difference in playability? no, but for me personally it was worth the cost to achieve it.

It's crucial when using any form of head tracking. The fluidity, in my opinion is worth the cost. Flight is fluid, therefore a fluid sim is better able to replicate the feeling of flight. 

24 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Doubling from 30 to 60 fps will offer better fluidity for starters. The feeling of flight. We’ve been through this over and over and over again. 
If it didn’t offer anything, people wouldn’t do it. 
Porsche offer a new 911 that is only 40 bhp faster. So why bother? Lots and lots of reasons. And the same applies to this.

I am sure people who have actually doubled their fps will chime in here, but I’ll start by saying, 60 fps is a world of difference over 30, in terms of the feeling of flight. 
 

PS I would take 10 minimal stutters per flight at 60 fps over 1 stutter at 30fps. It’s that much better. 

If you'd actually witnessed what I do, you'd realize you're wrong in terms of fluidity.  I've certainly witnessed 60-80FPS and w/o the ultra low FTV offers nothing and sometimes it's worse.  But I don't believe you've witness utlra low FTV at modest frame rates else you could speak with authority.   Go ahead, post the CapFrameX and show us.  Standing by....

Not again. Please!

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

you'd realize you're wrong

It's my opinion. It's neither right nor wrong. Same as yours. I don't need to prove anything, because it's just my opinion.

It also Appears its the games industries opinion too, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered and would have just kept everything at 30fps. But they push for 60 FPS min these days, and more if you can. And yes MSFS is a game, and yes, it is more fluid at higher FPS. Otherwise they wouldn't bother implementing features such as FG to begin with. they'd just tell you to stick with 30fps, 

Edited October 6, 20232 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

In first person shooter games you constantly sweep the view left and right looking for opponents. The hobby sites look for fps over 100.  If you pan a lot in MSFS the same improvement with super high fps is there. In VR and with head tracking you normally pan a lot.