Out of topic but hopefully a bit relevant. If downgrading from 4060 (non ti) to 3060 simply because aiming for 12gb Vram instead of 8, will this be a sensible approach? This Vram behaviour's quite frustrating. The goal is to have 30fps with 2x upscale, that's all! Thanks

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by History

13 minutes ago, History said:

Out of topic but hopefully a bit relevant. If downgrading from 4060 (non ti) to 3060 simply because aiming for 12gb Vram instead of 8, will this be a sensible approach? This Vram behaviour's quite frustrating. The goal is to have 30fps with 2x upscale, that's all! Thanks

I'd say pay the extra and go up. Maybe a 5070? I think they're about $400 apart.

5 hours ago, History said:

If downgrading from 4060 (non ti) to 3060 simply because aiming for 12gb Vram instead of 8, will this be a sensible approach?

I’m surprise with this strategy. VRAM extra consumption is a bug. A bug that should be fixed (and I’m starting loosing faith in MS/Asobo capabilities, but it’s another topic). It’s an endless game thinking adding more vram will fix the sim filling all the VRAM he found without release it. In these days, software will benefit from more VRAM but it should have a limit. Next will be GPU with empty slot for VRAM expansion?!?

Furthermore, downgrading from a 4000 série is to a 3000 make you loose native Frame Generation feature. I would suggest maybe more VRAM from your next GPU but not a downgraded generation and adjusting your graphics settings accordingly.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by vbazillio

I wish people would realise that in today's technological landscape, VRAM is NOT in itself a bug, you just need more of it to accommodate all the additional detail Devs are facilitating.  Yes, there may well be memory leaks here and there that do need to be fixed, but this isn't the same.  Flight sim is and has always been extremely demanding on hardware, and thinking you should be able to run ultra settings on low or medium spec GPUs is bordering on deranged.  

Now I understand premium GPU prices are not exactly affordable, we all know that.  But AI isnt going away, and manufacturers aren't going to reduce prices out of charity, so we are left in a position where you either pony up a lot of dosh or make do, because moaning about GPU prices isn't going to change anything.

Just don't rush to bash the devs because your non premium hardware isn't capable of delivering the performance you really want.

34 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Just don't rush to bash the devs because your non premium hardware isn't capable of delivering the performance you really want.

It was the Devs who told us to "upgrade your GPU" at the start until they got bombarded by users with 4090 GPUs saying they still had VRAM issues, this is 100% on Asobo to make better and they're still struggling with it. 

34 minutes ago, MarcG said:

It was the Devs who told us to "upgrade your GPU" at the start until they got bombarded by users with 4090 GPUs saying they still had VRAM issues, this is 100% on Asobo to make better and they're still struggling with it. 

Yep, that was months ago, and they backtracked on that afterwards.  Improvements have been made.

I've run a 3090 for several years prior to my 5090 and never had any VRAM issues personally.  I can adjust settings to use anywhere between 14 and 30Gb VRAM running in 4k.

None of this is however applicable to people with 8/12 Gb VRAM cards who in some cases have the expectation that MSFS should run maxed out for them because *some* other game does.

Flight sims have always been built to take advantage of today's and tomorrow's cutting edge hardware - its sim evolution.  It's unfortunate for some users that the necessary hardware to do that involves greater quantities of VRAM than they are able/willing to pay for, because its a commodity which GPS manufacturers are restricting in quantity to premium price cards.

1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

Just don't rush to bash the devs because your non premium hardware isn't capable of delivering the performance you really want.

Asobo's "ideal specs" are a 4070 and 12 GB of VRAM. And it's funny that, as per your signature, with your top premium hardware you have to recur to AutoFPS, an external tool which is not supported by MS and blacklisted from their forums 😄 You get stutters on the ground, eh?

Moreover, with your top premium hardware you still have the same buggy experience as others have, including missing contrails and aircraft lights, taxiway signs and other stuff that disappear past few meters, buggy career mode, "real" traffic with 90% of generic white liveries and taking off / not climbing / landing on wrong runways or in the grass, buggy ATC, etc.

So what about you stop putting the blame on users and realizing that you too are a customer with the right to ask something better from Asobo? It's OK to see the glass half full, it's not OK to worship.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by MrFuzzy

17 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Yep, that was months ago, and they backtracked on that afterwards.  Improvements have been made.

But still nowhere near enough, but as you seem intent on not understanding the issues fully I'll end this here.

1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

I wish people would realise that in today's technological landscape, VRAM is NOT in itself a bug, you just need more of it to accommodate all the additional detail Devs are facilitating.  Yes, there may well be memory leaks here and there that do need to be fixed, but this isn't the same.  Flight sim is and has always been extremely demanding on hardware, and thinking you should be able to run ultra settings on low or medium spec GPUs is bordering on deranged.  

Now I understand premium GPU prices are not exactly affordable, we all know that.  But AI isnt going away, and manufacturers aren't going to reduce prices out of charity, so we are left in a position where you either pony up a lot of dosh or make do, because moaning about GPU prices isn't going to change anything.

Just don't rush to bash the devs because your non premium hardware isn't capable of delivering the performance you really want.

Sorry Kevin, but this comment is not it. Putting the onus on customer's rather than developer to create optimised games is a wild take. The whole MSFS platform is an unoptimised mess, it is not demanding, it is primarily inefficiently making use of one's hardware.

We have seen a multitude of games that minimise VRAM usage while still looking spectacular, just as equally we've seen game that look horrendous that border on pagefiling. We have seen developer's posted reccomended spec sheets that include the usage of upscaling and frame generation, this speaks volumes to the ability of a developer to not only make a good game but a well running game.

GPU raster performance is more powerful than ever but what really takes up development time is bugfixing and optimisation, and quite frankly C-Suites don't want to budget for that before the release of games. Trying to convince us that it's the fault of our own equipment rather than the poorly formulated games we play is a misconstrued take that buys into the fallacy and upscaling and frame generation is what makes good games, it's the developers not the technology.

48 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

Asobo's "ideal specs" are a 4070 and 12 GB of VRAM. And it's funny that, as per your signature, with your top premium hardware you have to recur to AutoFPS, an external tool which is not supported by MS and blacklisted from their forums 😄 You get stutters on the ground, eh?

Moreover, with your top premium hardware you still have the same buggy experience as others have, including missing contrails and aircraft lights, taxiway signs and other stuff that disappear past few meters, buggy career mode, "real" traffic with 90% of generic white liveries and taking off / not climbing / landing on wrong runways or in the grass, buggy ATC, etc.

So what about you stop putting the blame on users and realizing that you too are a customer with the right to ask something better from Asobo? It's OK to see the glass half full, it's not OK to worship.

Im not responsible for Asobo's quoted specs.

I use AutoFPS because I want to, not necessarily that I need to.  It helps reduce overhead on my PC when its not required so as to extend its longevity.  I find at the moment it optimises resource useage best and I just limit my fps according to the type of flight I'm making.

I never said I have any buggy experience.  You list the following issues:

1. contrails and lights - no issue for me

2. taxiway signs - no real issue for me

3. career mode - dont really use it

4. real traffic - no issue for me, I've always used AIG traffic, and I find MSFS2024 happily picks these aircraft and liveries up and uses them.  But I dont really use real traffic either because default ATC is rubbish

5. ATC - no issue for me I use VoxATC (beta).  ATC isnt bugged, its just not very good.

I'm not worshipping anyone or anything.  I am recognising that developing something as complicated as MSFS is tough, and that decisions have to be made to accommodate a range of very different users, and that IMHO how Asobo have done this is pretty impressive.  They are making it better, SU3 is nearly here, and stuff is getting addressed.

Is it perfect? No.  Will it ever be perfect? Probably not.  Being in a fortunate position of having great hardware and selected good addons, am I having an absolute blast with it? Yes

44 minutes ago, MarcG said:

But still nowhere near enough, but as you seem intent on not understanding the issues fully I'll end this here.

Improved quote: Nowhere near enough *FOR YOU, IN YOUR OPINION*

I do understand the ussies some users are experiencing.  As I've just stated above, things are improving, not as swiftly perhaps as we'd all like, but this is a hard gig to pull off.  

I'm just trying to offer a different perspective that:

a) we've hit an evolutionary point in the sim platform where hardware limitations are becoming a genuine pinch point for some use cases; and

b) expecting/demanding Asobo remove this limitation by fixing 'bugs' is delusional 

Reply/dont reply, I dont really care.  Perhaps though, one might reflect that you may not be the one fully understanding the issues in part, and go read the SDK about LOD use?

48 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Sorry Kevin, but this comment is not it. Putting the onus on customer's rather than developer to create optimised games is a wild take. The whole MSFS platform is an unoptimised mess, it is not demanding, it is primarily inefficiently making use of one's hardware.

We have seen a multitude of games that minimise VRAM usage while still looking spectacular, just as equally we've seen game that look horrendous that border on pagefiling. We have seen developer's posted reccomended spec sheets that include the usage of upscaling and frame generation, this speaks volumes to the ability of a developer to not only make a good game but a well running game.

GPU raster performance is more powerful than ever but what really takes up development time is bugfixing and optimisation, and quite frankly C-Suites don't want to budget for that before the release of games. Trying to convince us that it's the fault of our own equipment rather than the poorly formulated games we play is a misconstrued take that buys into the fallacy and upscaling and frame generation is what makes good games, it's the developers not the technology.

This made me laugh. Out loud.

I'd suggest you go offer your clearly god-like software development skills to Asobo, who, since you are so clearly convinced have provided an 'unoptimised mess', will be instantaneously compelled to recruit you (at a king's ransom no doubt) to fix it for the rest of us.

That you say flight simulation is not demanding as a software genre, serves to demonstrate how little you do actually understand factually.  Likewise, comparing sims to *other games* demonstrates lamentably poor analytical skills.

I'll leave it there, I'm still creased up over this ROFLOL........

15 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I'd suggest you go offer your clearly god-like software development skills to Asobo, who, since you are so clearly convinced have provided an 'unoptimised mess', will be instantaneously compelled to recruit you (at a king's ransom no doubt) to fix it for the rest of us.

Unecessary sarcasm aside, I never made any mention of me doing better or having god-like software skills. Asobo are clearly more than capable of providing us with a product that makes better use of raster performance as we've seen with multiple SUs but tech debt sadly does not get the budget it rightfully deserves. Both FS20 and FS24 launches were a mess when they didn't have to be and I put that on C-Suites and PMs, not the actual skillset of Asobo's development team.

 

15 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

That you say flight simulation is not demanding as a software genre, serves to demonstrate how little you do actually understand factually.  Likewise, comparing sims to *other games* demonstrates lamentably poor analytical skills.

Alrighty then, I'm not really sure what to add here. I guess I'll head back to the drawing board and brush up on my analytical skills.

 

15 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I'll leave it there, I'm still creased up over this ROFLOL........

You know, I really am happy for you that you're in a financially fortunate position where you can just brute force your way through poorly performing content whilst simultaneously chastising those with lesser than components. Telling us we're deranged for thinking our £500 GPUs can't run 1440p or 1080p on Ultra is a ludricrous statement but I digress. It is also ludicrous that a 5090 and equally 4090 more than struggle to maintain 60fps at 4k in MSFS on pure raster. According to you flight sim is an enigma and it performing the way it isis  uniquely to flight sim, never mind the technical capabilities of other games.

I guess we should be subservient with our £1.5k-£4k rigs performing less than adequately because how dare we pay top dollar and expect top dollar performance right?

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by Lucky38i

4 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I'll leave it there, I'm still creased up over this ROFLOL........

As a fellow Midlander, I'm glad your leaving it there Kevin, as your comments are becoming more offensive and nonsensical with each one. 

I paid £1400 for a 4080 a while back (16GB VRAM), and I suffer with the out of VRAM message all of the time now (in places where I never had it before) - it seems to have been triggered by the .21 update for me, so something has gotten worse. 
This issue is totally in the hands of the developer, and how you can defend them on this I really don't understand, even after reading your posts.

We all know this situation has to change, including Asobo, who have admitted they need to address it, so there is no argument really.

14 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

You know, I really am happy for you that you're in a financially fortunate position where you can just brute force your way through poorly performing content whilst simultaneously chastising those with lesser than components. Telling us we're deranged for thinking our £500 GPUs can't run 1440p or 1080p on Ultra is a ludricrous statement but I digress. It is also ludicrous that a 5090 and equally 4090 more than struggle to maintain 60fps at 4k in MSFS on pure raster. According to you flight sim is an enigma and it performing the way it isis  uniquely to flight sim, never mind the technical capabilities of other games.

I guess we should be subservient with our £1.5k-£4k rigs performing less than adequately because how dare we pay top dollar and expect top dollar performance right?

You are absolutely correct I'm in a fortunate position and I look at things from that standpoint.  I have however lived 51 years NOT in that position so I do have a decent enough understanding of what its like on the other side of the fence!  MSFS2024 has a LOT of demanding features.  In reality my GPU (whilst great) isnt the problem in limited framerate, its still the CPU.  The 9800X3D is top tier for sure, but that's still the crunch point (for me).

What this illustrates though, is that with decent hardware, it is absolutely possible to have a super experience.   But you simply can't expect to have all the good new features and visual goodies in todays simulator on older kit and especially for GPUs, on larger displays.  

Again, flight simulators are not an enigma, their underlying tech is absolutely able to be understood by anyone who cares to read up about things in the SDK.  They DO operate quite differently to other games though, in their architecture and consequently their resource useage/demands.  Understanding that explains why *other games* may *seem* to perform differently.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by kevinfirth