29 minutes ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Yep, it's all thin client at our end but the bandwidth requirements to make this work have clearly got enormous by comparison to 2020. Am I right?

That's the thing. No. It's the opposite. That's exactly the misunderstanding I tried to explain the article.

We will have less things to download and even the compression algorithms were reworked.

Let's assume the size of the sim is the same as in MSFS2020. It's probably not but let's assume it is. In the extreme case where someone wants to download everything, they will be downloading smaller files, since the compression is far better.

What happened before was that we downloaded a bunch of files and we wouldn't need most of them.

With 2024 we will NOT download them until they are needed. And then they will be happily living in our drives from where MSFS will read and use them.

People ear the words "streaming" and immediately make wrong assuptions about how the system will work.

3 minutes ago, SergioCosta said:

That's the thing. No. It's the opposite. That's exactly the misunderstanding I tried to explain the article.

We will have less things to download and even the compression algorithms were reworked.

Let's assume the size of the sim is the same as in MSFS2020. It's probably not but let's assume it is. In the extreme case where someone wants to download everything, they will be downloading smaller files, since the compression is far better.

What happened before was that we downloaded a bunch of files and we wouldn't need most of them.

With 2024 we will NOT download them until they are needed. And then they will be happily living in our drives from where MSFS will read and use them.

People ear the words "streaming" and immediately make wrong assuptions about how the system will work.

Ok thanks for that. But do I have it back to front?  This is what concerns me: 

"What happened before was that we downloaded a bunch of files and we wouldn't need most of them".

That's true and so initial load times were quite long but the game ran on 10Mbps because it didn't need to download anything else presumably? I mean stutters and stalls were mostly local issues with CPU/GPU/memory throughput demands, usually in heavy scenery /heavy weather scenarios. As opposed to Photogrammetry where if the MS servers were under load, PG was next to useless on 20Mbps.

With 2024 we will NOT download them until they are needed."

So this means we will load just what we need to get started so our start up will be quick but then we will need to continually download download data as the flight progresses. How will this go on 20Mbps? A lot of pausing while downloads are occuring?

 

Cheers

Terry

On 9/24/2024 at 9:06 PM, rick celik said:

s going to be subscription based, it’s going to be a game not a sim, it’s catering for the gamers, it’s going to be failure like “Flight”, flight model won’t come close to other sims …. The list goes on and here we have a really good sim with our favourites like PMDG in it and new trend setters like Fenix. We’ve never had a more realistic time in the flight sim space and it’s getting even better. 

I think a lot of people might have forgotten what it was like to be a simmer before 2020 came out. If you liked military stuff it was pretty good because DCS existed. But if you wanted to do civilian stuff, you were stuck using a creaky old sim that had released 14 years prior, or being in technical violation of a licensing agreement by upgrading to P3d, which itself was just some upgrades grafted on top of that creaky old sim.

Beyond that, God help you if your controller died because your options were cheap junk from the Best Buys of the world or ultra-high end stuff that blew up your wallet. Now we've got controllers at many price points with a wide variety of options and features.

Life's pretty good for us simmers right now, and it's 100% because of 2020.

On 9/25/2024 at 12:50 AM, Ricardo41 said:

This.

It's a video game. 

Some folks make it sound like Moses is about to reveal the "15 commandments". 

 

Yeah. It is a video game. We're all sitting at home pretending to fly drawings of airplanes.

On the other hand, it's also a hobby, and it's one that many of us have invested not-insignificant sums into. When people invest money into a hobby, they naturally are apprehensive when they find out the core realities of their hobby are about to be changed.

When I got more serious about woodworking, I bought a SawStop. Those things are incredibly nice, but they're also incredibly not cheap. If, after I'd bought it, I found out the fundamental composition and structure of wood was about to change I'd be a little nervous too. Will this multi-thousand dollar machine still work with Wood2024? Until enough clear info was out there, I'd be anxious and I might post a bunch of questions on woodworking forums about it.  That's OK and understandable. And if the new wood really wasn't compatible with saws, the end result would be the same as here. I won't starve or get fired or lose my home if either wood or MSFS change such that they're no longer usable in my hobby. Yet somehow, no one says "it's only ___" unless it's a "video game."

I'm not saying all the hysterics are appropriate, but I am saying if we object we should object to the actually objectionable bits — the parts where they're taking half sentences and inventing entire conspiracy theories out of them.  Saying "It's just a video game" is irrelevant and unhelpful.

 

 

15 minutes ago, eslader said:

I think a lot of people might have forgotten what it was like to be a simmer before 2020 came out. If you liked military stuff it was pretty good because DCS existed. But if you wanted to do civilian stuff, you were stuck using a creaky old sim that had released 14 years prior, or being in technical violation of a licensing agreement by upgrading to P3d, which itself was just some upgrades grafted on top of that creaky old sim.

I couldn't agree more. It's astonishing how far some people's expectations have skyrocketed since 2020.

1 hour ago, Lord Farringdon said:

That's true and so initial load times were quite long but the game ran on 10Mbps because it didn't need to download anything else presumably? I mean stutters and stalls were mostly local issues with CPU/GPU/memory throughput demands, usually in heavy scenery /heavy weather scenarios. As opposed to Photogrammetry where if the MS servers were under load, PG was next to useless on 20Mbps.

It's all changed and all the same. Confusing, I know.

So the sim itself is a lot leaner. So once it's installed, it will load a lot faster.

Once you select an aircraft to fly, you'll download that aircraft if you don't have it yet. But that aircraft will have a smaller size because of the new compression algorithm. You should only have to wait a minute or two. Perhaps a bit more. But it's the same if you buy a new aircraft, right? Once it's installed, it's installed. You don't fly the 787? No worries. It will not install itself. I don't fly fixed wing. So no fixed wing stuff for me.

Then you say that you want to fly at a certain location. The sim will download exactly what it downloads now. All the data and textures. Again, with a better compression algorithm.

As you fly, you will eventually "stream" the data and textures you need, exactly like now. But, again, using less bandwidth since the compression algorithm is better.

Here's what I think is happening: with the word "stream" and the fact that the requirements now mention high speed internet connections (which I think it's just a way for MS to cover themselves by exaggerating on what is needed), people got confused.

Now, full disclaimer: I can be completely wrong here, OK? I am not saying this is it for sure. What I'm telling you is what I understood from what Sebastian Wloch told me during, before and after the interview. It's kind of normal for us to geek out with this stuff off-the-record (but we never talk about stuff we shouldn't) since Sebastian knows I have a technical background.

But this is my understanding, from the conversations we had and as a technical person.

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by SergioCosta

28 minutes ago, SergioCosta said:

Here's what I think is happening: with the word "stream" and the fact that the requirements now mention high speed internet connections (which I think it's just a way for MS to cover themselves by exaggerating on what is needed), people got confused.
 

Thanks for that Sergio. I don't think we are too concerned about reduction in front end loading although clearly a faster start is better, and reduced drive space would be helpful too, but that doesn't really affect immersion because you aren't in game yet.  But I do hope you are right and if you are,  then effectively what you are saying is that the data that will need downloading during the in game activity, might be more than what was required in 2020 (perhaps due to visual and/or other physics improvements) but with better algorithms and compression technologies, downloading bandwidth requirements will be similar to, or at least not ask much more of, internet speeds than 2020. So yes, some may be thinking as I was, that the whole game is effectively being 'streamed' from an MS server and that would come at considerable internet expense and that this thinking seemed to be confirmed by MS's recommended and ideal performance specs. 

Well, I guess we wont know for sure until we get hold of it but in the meantime you give me and others like me, some hope  that 2024 might still be a playable option.  

 

Cheers

Terry

17 minutes ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Well, I guess we wont know for sure until we get hold of it but in the meantime you give me and others like me, some hope  that 2024 might still be a playable option.

You're welcome. Those are my thoughts based on the information I got. I actually think the bandwidth use will be less for everyone. If we consider the initial installation alone, there are huge savings there. On the day-to-day usage, it will probably be the same and I dare to say less than the usage we have right now.

If you think from a commercial standpoint as well, less bandwith also means less expenses for Microsoft. Having so much data being downloaded is not exactly brilliant for them.

4 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

So the issue of streaming. Yep, it's all thin client at our end but the bandwidth requirements to make this work have clearly got enormous by comparison to 2020. Am I right?  OK, I know, most people don't have a concern with 50Mbps or even 100Mbps. In fact many are on 1000Mbps. But for some of us on rural wireless we are lucky to get 20Mbps and would need to double our monthly internet payment just to get 50 Mbps. Not something that is practically affordable in retirement.  It is what it is, but it seems the 2024 version with all it has to offer, is starting to get a little out of reach for some of us by virtue of technology improvements. 

So it might just be that for a very few of us MSFS 2020 will remain our go to sim for sometime to come.  Que Sear, Sera.  

But, I would certainly like to hear any opinions on what bandwidth requirements early users have actually experienced.  

 

Cheers

Terry

The purpose of the new streaming architecture is to lessen the amount of info downloaded overall. This benefits both you and them.

And according to yesterday's live stream, you'll still be able to pre-download content like world updates and such, and they have apparently worked on improving the rolling cache functionality, etc.

25 minutes ago, SergioCosta said:

You're welcome. Those are my thoughts based on the information I got. I actually think the bandwidth use will be less for everyone. If we consider the initial installation alone, there are huge savings there. On the day-to-day usage, it will probably be the same and I dare to say less than the usage we have right now.

If you think from a commercial standpoint as well, less bandwith also means less expenses for Microsoft. Having so much data being downloaded is not exactly brilliant for them.

Bandwidth is a technical term that refers to the *rate* at which data is transferred, not the *amount* of data transferred.

From the system requirements published by MS themselves, Son of Simzilla will require twice the bandwidth of it's predecessor--meaning you will need the ability to move data twice as fast as before to ensure smooth sim performance.  The quantity of certain types of data being transferred during flight may be smaller due to better compression, but then again, you're also adding in the data that would have been coming off your local storage every time you fly.  So some of that 100GB you saved downloading during the initial install now has to come down along with the scenery, so more information has to be transferred in real time than before.  Better compression should reduce the total amount of data transferred, but to be clear, MS is saying you will need to move that data twice as fast as the previous iteration.  I cannot imagine why they would spec a much faster internet connection speed as a requirement if there's actually a lower minimum threshold than before.  Now they could be transferring less data, but using burst transmissions--that would reduce the amount of data transferred, but would not relieve the user from need of a much faster connection to keep mean transfer rates up.

So I think there's some confusion in these discussions between how much data needs transferred versus how fast it needs to come down.  Also, you suggested up-thread that the data that does come down will be stored for later use--that seems to fly in the face of the idea that the program will be far less disk-intensive e.g. it only requires 30GB of disk space--if it's going to be permenantly storing terrain and photogrammetry data as I transit the world, it would seem that the disk storage requirement would explode over time for frequent fliers.  I suspect that the additional RAM requirements (also double that of MSFS2020) are related to needing volatile, temporary storage for that data during a session in lieu of building an ever-expanding local scenery database.

It should be an interesting evolution.  Now just to wait for proof of the pudding.

50 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

Bandwidth is a technical term that refers to the *rate* at which data is transferred, not the *amount* of data transferred.

From the system requirements published by MS themselves, Son of Simzilla will require twice the bandwidth of it's predecessor--meaning you will need the ability to move data twice as fast as before to ensure smooth sim performance.  The quantity of certain types of data being transferred during flight may be smaller due to better compression, but then again, you're also adding in the data that would have been coming off your local storage every time you fly.  So some of that 100GB you saved downloading during the initial install now has to come down along with the scenery, so more information has to be transferred in real time than before.  Better compression should reduce the total amount of data transferred, but to be clear, MS is saying you will need to move that data twice as fast as the previous iteration.  I cannot imagine why they would spec a much faster internet connection speed as a requirement if there's actually a lower minimum threshold than before.  Now they could be transferring less data, but using burst transmissions--that would reduce the amount of data transferred, but would not relieve the user from need of a much faster connection to keep mean transfer rates up.

So I think there's some confusion in these discussions between how much data needs transferred versus how fast it needs to come down.  Also, you suggested up-thread that the data that does come down will be stored for later use--that seems to fly in the face of the idea that the program will be far less disk-intensive e.g. it only requires 30GB of disk space--if it's going to be permenantly storing terrain and photogrammetry data as I transit the world, it would seem that the disk storage requirement would explode over time for frequent fliers.  I suspect that the additional RAM requirements (also double that of MSFS2020) are related to needing volatile, temporary storage for that data during a session in lieu of building an ever-expanding local scenery database.

It should be an interesting evolution.  Now just to wait for proof of the pudding.

Good and accurate post, but not sure I agree with all of it.

From observing various posts over the years, I believe some of these minimum specs are artificially inflated for various non-technical reasons.

The majority of which would be people who mistakenly believe that their old/low-spec computer should give them the same results they see on YouTube showcase videos. And in 4K!

These are the same people who wonder why their car doesn't run smoothly when they put low test gas in the tank...

Also, real world "bandwidth" is a tremendously variable thing, even on computers on the same network. E.g., a 1G fiber internet connection can be utterly hobbled by a bad router/firewall, cluttered WiFi environment (as in all multi-family housing), etc., etc.

And I don't really know the overall specs in household distribution, but again, there is a huge difference in RW speed between a fiber and cable modem internet connection.

All to say that I believe MS Asobo might be adding a "safety layer" to the specs to be able to deflect the more unreasonable complainants among us.

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

Ultimately, users will be able to force download the content that is important to them. If they want to trade storage space and initial download time for bandwidth while flying, they can. 

The "thin client" adds flexibility for those who have good bandwidth. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who don't are cut out.  

Is this the solution to people with lots of hard drive space and poor internet?

 

52 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

Also, you suggested up-thread that the data that does come down will be stored for later use--that seems to fly in the face of the idea that the program will be far less disk-intensive e.g. it only requires 30GB of disk space--if it's going to be permenantly storing terrain and photogrammetry data as I transit the world, it would seem that the disk storage requirement would explode over time for frequent fliers.

I think Sergio is talking about the rolling cache here probably?, so whatever is stored on disk is based on the rolling cache size. That is separate from the user explicitly choosing to install aircraft/scenery locally rather than streaming them. Based on yesterday's livestream per what Seb was saying it seemed the bulk of the changes in terms of online content streaming in 2020 vs 2024 is that 2024 also allows default/marketplace aircraft and scenery to be streamed. If those are installed locally per user's choice then the situation is not different from 2020.
 

7 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

 If those are installed locally per user's choice then the situation is not different from 2020.
 

exactly. And they are.

The "thin client" is thin only if you want it to be. Having options is great.

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by Abriael

Thanks for that positive feedback guys and your advice is much appreciated.  If users can get away with simply adding a bit more drive space to store content in order to skirt around too much in game content streaming then that seems like a very acceptable solution for those of us with limited (near tragic) internet speeds.  Perhaps in a serendipity sort of way, we may also be able to continue to play offline during outages....to some limited extent. 

 

Cheers

Terry