3 hours ago, Sethos said:

And it has been, a video has been posted with actual data yet people seem to ignore every piece of evidence posted to repeat the same line of it being some placebo thing. It's starting to become a bit intellectually disingenuous in the debate.

Agreed! You can have the debate about whether it's a worthwhile improvement, but it seems wilful to deny what others have reported, based merely on a subjective hunch about what "should happen" rather than an objective demonstration of what has "actually happened" 🙂 

11 hours ago, Sethos said:

And it has been, a video has been posted with actual data yet people seem to ignore every piece of evidence posted to repeat the same line of it being some placebo thing. 

on the official forums or on vid comment sections, it's like this:  "64 gigs?  Oh, I think I'll wait and see..."
Here at AVSIM in this thread it's -- "64 gigs?  yes"

8 hours ago, Mace said:

on the official forums or on vid comment sections, it's like this:  "64 gigs?  Oh, I think I'll wait and see..."
Here at AVSIM in this thread it's -- "64 gigs?  yes"

For sure. One can argue that both of those stances are fine. We don't have any overwhelming evidence in its favor yet there's a lot of interesting anecdotal data from respected members, including an actual benchmark video from a 'random source' that backs it up. That's at least interesting and gives grounds for exploring it further and lends more credence to 2024 might actually benefit from it as well, outside of just filling up the RAM but also avoiding what seems to be some sort of page-file swapping that causes some stutters and bad 1% lows. 

So just awaiting more data and feedback is a respectable stance as well.

Just find it weird that despite that, select few people come in and kicks it to the curb with the most dismissive argument, like that has to be in people's head with these comparisons to placebo. One wonders if that's a self-convincing act because they really don't want it to be true, because that would mean they'd probably have to shell out and do the upgrade as well.

I added two more 16GB of RAM to my computer's memory slots and I have also noticed an improvement in smoothness, not just in MSFS, but in several of my other more demanding games. But the biggest improvement is that my computer is now "happier".  This is not something that I have any hard documentation for, but I noticed right off that my computer is now running much quieter . . . as in the cooling fans are no longer revving up all the time. My computer just seems to not be working as hard as it was.  And this is certainly a good thing.

On 10/3/2024 at 7:27 PM, RNAVV19R said:

Also, it's amusing how many people are ignoring actual video evidence + a lot of anecdotal evidence from several users. 64 GB definitely helps in MSFS 2020, even if the sim uses half of your available RAM. For some reason, the sim goes to the page file even in such conditions, which causes massive hitches.

So the theory which seems to be validated by the video posted (more RAM in use by about 30% w/ 64Gb installed, plus less drops to very low frame rate) and corroborated with anecdote seems to suggest it has little to do with physical RAM and all to do w/ memory management in Windows.  The obvious begged question:  what happens with this when you disable the page file in a system where at any one time less than half of physical ram is in use? After all the top half of my 32Gb (figuratively speaking) almost never sees a moving electron since even in complex scenarios it rarely even hits 16Gb.  That may not be the case at all perhaps mem management uses the entire 32Gb as its sandbox, picking and choosing various registers as needed.  I think this is easy enough to try so after we land at KPWM in an hour or so will try a simple test in a complex scenario noting RAM in use, then disable page file and rerun to see if RAM usage goes up in the latter.

Edited October 5, 20241 yr by Noel

49 minutes ago, Noel said:

So the proof validated by the video posted (more RAM in use by about 30% w/ 64Gb installed, plus less drops to very low frame rate) and corroborated with anecdote seems to suggest it has everything to do with physical RAM and HOW memory management in Windows handles the additional physical memory. 

Fixed it for you because I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion by watching the video and what everyone who has upgraded is saying.  

18 minutes ago, psolk said:

Fixed it for you because I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion by watching the video and what everyone who has upgraded is saying.  

I'm using a scientific definition for theory/proof which will always involve lots of evidence.  I would always consider a single test bed for something like this as a very good start but to get to the level of proof more is needed.  For example, I have no idea how L3 cache affects memory management issues.  My CPU has 3x what the 7700X in the test bed has.  Also, what was the displayed resolution?  I'm only at 3440x.  I was very clear to state the one test and anecdotes support the notion that increasing physical RAM is helping some aspects of performance at some level and whether you wish to call that definitive proof for all systems is up to you.

Just jumped headfirst onto the band wagon and gone from 32 to 64 (Corsair Dominator Platinum). As has been said here and elsewhere, Ram isn't expensive at the moment and I run two 4k 32 inch monitors all day, one of them nearly always for work so even if it does nothing for MSFS, which is unlikely, it will help in general so it is worth it. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

seems to suggest it has little to do with physical RAM and all to do w/ memory management in Windows.

 

11 minutes ago, Noel said:

I was very clear to state the one test and anecdotes support the notion that increasing physical RAM is helping

Really? 

2 hours ago, Noel said:

So the theory which seems to be validated by the video posted (more RAM in use by about 30% w/ 64Gb installed, plus less drops to very low frame rate) and corroborated with anecdote seems to suggest it has little to do with physical RAM and all to do w/ memory management in Windows.  The obvious begged question:  what happens with this when you disable the page file in a system where at any one time less than half of physical ram is in use? After all the top half of my 32Gb (figuratively speaking) almost never sees a moving electron since even in complex scenarios it rarely even hits 16Gb.  That may not be the case at all perhaps mem management uses the entire 32Gb as its sandbox, picking and choosing various registers as needed.  I think this is easy enough to try so after we land at KPWM in an hour or so will try a simple test in a complex scenario noting RAM in use, then disable page file and rerun to see if RAM usage goes up in the latter.

It's an issue with the sim, not Windows. This does not happen in other games. So disabling your page file for one game is not recommended.

43 minutes ago, RNAVV19R said:

It's an issue with the sim, not Windows. This does not happen in other games. So disabling your page file for one game is not recommended.

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to let Windows handle the page file automatically. Anything else can lead to system instability. 

Btw I find HWiNFO very useful for monitoring page file usage:

1 hour ago, RNAVV19R said:

It's an issue with the sim, not Windows. This does not happen in other games. So disabling your page file for one game is not recommended.

Really, what will happen when the other game uses even far less RAM than does MSFS?

33 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to let Windows handle the page file automatically. Anything else can lead to system instability. 

Maybe--if there is always massively more available physical RAM when fully operational in MSFS or any other program perhaps there will be no system instability.  I played around with this concept decades ago when RAM was expensive and really tiny in size and as I recall no instability happened but I really don't remember the details.  It's conceivable the entire idea of a "page file" happened because of just that, and that drive space was far cheaper.  Nowadays those hardly apply.  I say conceivable because it's just a plausible guess about why page filing was started.

Pretty simple to trial which I'm just starting now.

It's a bit strange that before Asobo recommended 64gb ram for MS-2024, I haven't read any thread recommending 64gb ram as the optimal for running MS-2020, rather that it was a waste of money and that 32gb was more than enough , why has this suddenly become a revelation?

3 minutes ago, Ixoye said:

It's a bit strange that before Asobo recommended 64gb ram for MS-2024, I haven't read any thread recommending 64gb ram as the optimal for running MS-2020, rather that it was a waste of money and that 32gb was more than enough , why has this suddenly become a revelation?

Because of the video above, and anecdotes suggesting less stutters, and more RAM ends up in use as well as less frame time drops compared to 32Gb in the one test bed used.  I also read many testimonies early on that there was very little to no difference for some.  As everyone here appreciates there are myriad potential factors affecting stuttering and the like so it's entirely plausible if someone installed 64Gb and noticed no difference it could be something else leading to that person's performance, stuttering, etc.