Wow, that's hella expensive. Here in Poland for 1 GB fiber we pay at most ~25 USD/month

Edited November 13, 20232 yr by ark4diusz
Typo

I wonder why a lot of people are going for expensive 1GB connections when 150MBs should be enough for everything.

You could say "reinstalling MSFS quickly", but even with my 50MBs connection the other night, I was maxing out at about 16MBs from MS / Asobo while downloading the world update and afterwards the new Saab 17.  Maybe it was a special case as the servers were getting hammered, but even so, 1GB connections at the prices they are charging seem to be a waste of money.

Even at my speeds a complete reinstall would be about a 6 hour download.   I would just download it overnight.
Of course, if you are filthy rich and drive a Ferrari, then no problem I suppose. 

Edited November 13, 20232 yr by bobcat999

3 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I wonder why a lot of people are going for expensive 1GB connections when 150MBs should be enough for everything.

You could say "reinstalling MSFS quickly", but even with my 50MBs connection the other night, I was maxing out at about 16MBs from MS / Asobo while downloading the world update and afterwards the new Saab 17.  Maybe it was a special case as the servers were getting hammered, but even so, 1GB connections at the prices they are charging seem to be a waste of money.

Even at my speeds a complete reinstall would be about a 6 hour download.   I would just download it overnight.
Of course, if you are filthy rich and drive a Ferrari, then no problem I suppose. 

Because people do more with their PC than play MSFS and maybe they'd like more bandwidth for whatever else they do? 

My work PC is on my home network (via a VPN) and I'd really like 1 Gbit upload speed just for clearing the whole CI/CD pipeline faster or easing remote connections for development. 

Edited November 13, 20232 yr by psychedelic_tortilla

On 11/12/2023 at 12:58 PM, psychedelic_tortilla said:

I was referring more to ping and/or packet loss than to bandwidth with that remark. In interactive/reactive applications like FPS or racing games, bandwidth isn't the problem (the amount of data iRacing multiplayer is sending is most likely negligible for modern connections), but rather latency/reliability is more critical. Those are also the two metrics that suffer most when trading a rock-solid wired Ethernet connection for a WiFi signal that has to traverse multiple walls. 

Starlink averages about 20ms and is very stable. Never had an issue with online gaming.

4 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

You could say "reinstalling MSFS quickly", but even with my 50MBs connection the other night, I was maxing out at about 16MBs from MS / Asobo

My Starlink connection often sees 90MBs downloading MSFS/updates. Surely we all prefer faster downloads? 🙂

1 hour ago, psychedelic_tortilla said:

My work PC is on my home network (via a VPN) and I'd really like 1 Gbit upload speed just for clearing the whole CI/CD pipeline faster or easing remote connections for development. 

Well there's one answer  but based on me not being able to understand what that means , I would say you are not what I would call, a mainstream user.  That sounds quite technical.

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

My Starlink connection often sees 90MBs downloading MSFS/updates. Surely we all prefer faster downloads? 🙂

Yes of course - Instant would be great!    But I am talking about the cost / performance benefit.  I suppose it depends how much disposable income you have.

PS.  I notice the hardware cost of Starlink is now £449 today!   Eye-watering!   Looks like I missed out.  It was £250 on a deal at one stage.  They must have had a large uptake recently.

42 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Yes of course - Instant would be great!    But I am talking about the cost / performance benefit.  I suppose it depends how much disposable income you have.

PS.  I notice the hardware cost of Starlink is now £449 today!   Eye-watering!   Looks like I missed out.  It was £250 on a deal at one stage.  They must have had a large uptake recently.

Well, satellite has always been the type of connection for those who do not have other choice... 

7 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I wonder why a lot of people are going for expensive 1GB connections when 150MBs should be enough for everything.

You could say "reinstalling MSFS quickly", but even with my 50MBs connection the other night, I was maxing out at about 16MBs from MS / Asobo while downloading the world update and afterwards the new Saab 17.  Maybe it was a special case as the servers were getting hammered, but even so, 1GB connections at the prices they are charging seem to be a waste of money.

Even at my speeds a complete reinstall would be about a 6 hour download.   I would just download it overnight.
Of course, if you are filthy rich and drive a Ferrari, then no problem I suppose. 

Well, first of all I am hardly filthy rich nor do I drive a Ferrari. I am retired military, enlisted at that, so that should give you an idea of my income. Why do I enjoy having 1Gb access? Well, there are two adult users in my home that use thier PC's for streaming different shows or movies at the same time as gaming. Also, my live in girlfriend works from home and requires a consistent, efficient internet connection. Further, when we have visitors and they want to stream stuff on thier phones or laptops, it does not affect our bandwidth that much.

In summary, there are many reasons, many of which are not just because someone is filthy rich. I have managed my finances well as an adult even though my career was not a high-income career, and now I have enough funds to enjoy my hobbies in retirement. So, for me, it is hardly a 'waste of money'.  🙂 

100/10 here and don't have any issues even when my wife is streaming a movie and me flying.

Edited November 13, 20232 yr by CarlosF

I think a 1GB connection is indeed overkill for a single user. But when several family members are online at once, a wider bandwidth is very useful.

1gb for me was the same price as half a gig. £44 a month. Whereas 50 meg is £39 a month. So, might as well pay the extra £5. 

9 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

Well, satellite has always been the type of connection for those who do not have other choice... 

High altitude satelite maybe, but Starlink satelites are low altitude meaning low latency. I could go 4G/5G using mobile technology, but a dish on the narrowboat makes complete sense - all I need is a view of the sky, so no need to be within range of a transmitter.

On 11/12/2023 at 3:18 AM, MrBitstFlyer said:

I have Starlink satellite internet. Speeds are up to 350MBs with low latency for satellite internet - around 20ms.  I've had the service for over two years, with excellent reliability  I live miles from the nearest town so I'm very pleased with the service.

I online game without any issues.

I love to read this! I live currently at an island in Norway, with no fiber or anything and normal satelite network just sucks... Im getting Starlink soon, so seeing that others use it for exactly what Im going to use it for is excellent! 

I was in range of a 4G transmitter, but that also was bad, going for 50mpbs at some points, but mostly less than 5mpbs during peak times, and some struggle due to terrain between the antenna and the transmitter...

Edited December 29, 20232 yr by Busmar

You'll still have the servers that struggle when there's high traffic in the kids holidays and at weekends anyway