25 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

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.

I made the personal decision (with some degree of understanding) to buy a GPU (3090) years ago with 24Gb VRAM.   It served me well.

With the greatest of respect, your issue appears to be (from what you have just posted above!) that the hardware you chose to purchase 'a while back', now doesnt perform how you would *LIKE* it to in todays circumstances vis a vis an improved, more complex simulator environment.  It's not clear exactly at what settings you are trying to run MSFS, and with what addons, because you haven't specified them.

Again, IM NOT defending anyone or anything.  There will be ways performance can be further improved, I'd be gobsmacked if that wasn't the case.  SU betas should be expected to introduce performance improvements and regressions from time to time.

In this thread I'm just generalising that it's simply not realistic to expect super performance at ultra settings on lower spec hardware.  I'm happy to try to constructively help you in your individual circumstance, should you so wish - DM me.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by kevinfirth

45 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

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.

In part I agree... Asobo is a talented team, what they did with MSFS was impressive and revolutionary. What they did with FS2024, not so much. I see it more like a cash grab over a supposed improvement. There are improvements but also many regressions and promises not kept. 

I understand that they need cash to pay the employees, I raised the topic years ago questioning how the MSFS streaming and SU/WU/developing model could be sustainable over the years without a subscription. But you see... in your reply you say that you keep disabled all the things I mentioned not working, confirming that they don't work. How can you, at the same time, ask the userbase not to bash Asobo, after 8 months of bug reports and after having lied on the new features and even on the hardware requirements?

We are customers, we are here to spill out money but also to make our voice heard.

18 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

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.  

Do you realize that the declared "ideal CPU" for Asobo is the i7 14700K?

Why do you defend their shortcomings and lies like that??

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by MrFuzzy

2 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

In part I agree... Asobo is a talented team, what they did with MSFS was impressive and revolutionary. What they did with FS2024, not so much. I see it more like a cash grab over a supposed improvement. There are improvements but also many regressions and promises not kept. 

I understand that they need cash to pay the employees, I raised the topic years ago questioning how the MSFS streaming and SU/WU/developing model could be sustainable over the years without a subscription. But you see... in your reply you say that you keep disabled all the things I mentioned not working, confirming that they don't work. How can you, at the same time, ask the userbase not to bash Asobo, after 8 months of bug reports and after having lied on the new features and even on the hardware requirements?

We are customers, we are here to spill out money but also to make our voice heard.

Sure, I'm not muzzling anyone.  Just positing a different perspective that might help people make that voice more articulately.

It's just always been the same, that any simulator version has never provided all the things I want out of the box.  I've always been reconciled to the fact that weather, 'study level' aircraft, ATC and traffic (not to mention detailed accurate geographic specific scenery) will ALWAYS need to be provided by add-ons.  That's exactly the nature of the beast.

I personally don't think its realistic to expect the simulator platform to provide anything more than the absolute basics in those areas, certainly not at the moment.  It is my impression, that MS and Jorg would like to take the genre on a journey where that gap closes substantially over time.  Great, but we aren't there yet.

 

1 minute ago, MrFuzzy said:

Do you realize that the declared "ideal CPU" for Asobo is the i7 14700K?

Why do you defend their shortcomings and lies like that??

I didn't create that chart.  And I don't happen to agree with it.  My personal rule of thumb since the year dot has always been, if you want ideal performance in a flight simulator, you need to throw the kitchen sink at it in terms of whatever happens to be the best hardware that money can buy at any particular point in time. 

3 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I personally don't think its realistic to expect the simulator platform to provide anything more than the absolute basics in those areas

I expect that all the features advertised and sold, work in a reasonable way. We will never agree.

I don't think that when you buy a new car you only care about engine and wheels if the A/C, the infotainment system and other accessories don't work. 

2 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

I expect that all the features advertised and sold, work in a reasonable way. We will never agree.

I don't think that when you buy a new car you only care about engine and wheels if the A/C, the infotainment system and other accessories don't work. 

Well, IM ok with disagreement and different opinions.  I would just say though specifically from an ATC perspective that it is just SOOO complex an area that expecting it to be included at a perfectionist real life level just won't happen.  What's there works, ok enough for a casual user.  You want better, buy an add-on.  

Just now, kevinfirth said:

Well, IM ok with disagreement and different opinions.  I would just say though specifically from an ATC perspective that it is just SOOO complex an area that expecting it to be included at a perfectionist real life level just won't happen.  What's there works, ok enough for a casual user.  You want better, buy an add-on.  

I would add that the AI planes really should be animated better (both when moving on the sloped ground, and also during take offs and landings). Oh, and also have undercarriage that can be seen from distances greater than 100 metres 

1 minute ago, Christopher Low said:

I would add that the AI planes really should be animated better (both when moving on the sloped ground, and also during take offs and landings). Oh, and also have undercarriage that can be seen from distances greater than 100 metres 

I'd be happy if only they didn't take off in front of me when I'm taking off from the opposite direction (directed by the ATC, the FP and in accordance with the wind).

2 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

ndercarriage that can be seen from distances greater than 100 metres 

LOD issue.  Mainly due to improperly optimised models within the sim.  Default aircraft = MS/Asobo's responsibility to address.  3PD aircraft, ask the developer to change it so model parts are visible for greater distances under the existing LOD system rules.

6 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

I'd be happy if only they didn't take off in front of me when I'm taking off from the opposite direction (directed by the ATC, the FP and in accordance with the wind).

Good point. I forgot about that one!

In my case, I've found that as long as you can tolerate using high or medium texture settings at 1440p, you can keep vram within tolerances with a 12gb card, and having having resizable bar and above 4g encoding active seems to help a bit with the new texture loading while panning issue, at least on my machine. YMMV!

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by HiFlyer

41 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

In my case, I've found that as long as you can tolerate using high or medium texture settings at 1440p, you can keep vram within tolerances with a 12gb card, and having having resizable bar and above 4g encoding active seems to help a bit with the new texture loading while panning issue, at least on my machine. YMMV!

I keep textures on high and a mix of high-medium settings, I only keep clouds on ultra. Despite that, landing and taxiing at large airports is affected by bad stuttering, even if my VRAM is never more than 80-82% used. My system is well above their "ideal settings", considering that I play at 1440p with FG.

Evidently there's something wrong that Asobo needs to fix, VRAM related but not only, also main thread related.

20 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

Evidently there's something wrong that Asobo needs to fix, VRAM related but not only, also main thread related.

I'm pretty much of two minds on this. Default bespoke airports are often half to a quarter of the size of 3rd party airports with all the bells and whistles, not to mention all the other addons that simmers like to throw into the pot.

I always wonder, as I watch the ram usage at such and such an airport, whether there would be an issue if I was using the more modest default, rather that the $40 dollar extreme-ware version of the facility.

Or if I was using the default planes instead of the shiny but computationally heavier Fenix, or if I was not also running multiple background ATC enhancements or.......

Just wondering idly how much is Asobo, and how much is us, and how much responsibility they should take for 3rd party stuff working efficiently.

I wonder how they feel about it.

EDIT: There are a number of addons/utilities I have left on the table because of concerns of overloading the sim.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by HiFlyer

3 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

I made the personal decision (with some degree of understanding) to buy a GPU (3090) years ago with 24Gb VRAM.   It served me well.

I'm still happily running with my 3090ti. Not sure how long I've had it now - five, six years? Running 2024 SU2 (I don't do betas these days) and never had a VRAM problem, so I guess 24gb sounds like the actual optimal amount, regardless of the "official" recommendations. No fancy tricks or auto-anything addons, running 4k at mostly ultra and with TLOD=400, OLOD=300, using FSR3 or whatever it's called (the AMD frame gen thing built in now) and getting a mostly smooth 30 doubled to 60 frames, which is good enough for me.

Not posting this in any sort of "smug mode", just to say that it does seem like a fairly high VRAM capacity is needed for things to run ok. I don't bother with monitors and suchlike, but on the couple of occasions I've looked I've seen max VRAM use heading up around 22-23Gb, but then I assume that's because the system is using it to the best benefit. Most I ever saw before MSFS was about 21Gb in a heavily loaded XP11 environment (lots and lots of visual addons).