News Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 sucks up to 180 Mb/s of internet bandwidth while in flight — equivalent to 81GB of data per hour

[Admin]

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is discovered to have incredibly brutal streaming bandwidth requirements: limited cap users need not apply.

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 sucks up to 180 Mb/s of internet bandwidth while in flight — equivalent to 81GB of data per hour : Read more

 

[bit_user]

Does the game cache this stuff locally? It's hard to see how this could be economically viable for MS, if it can always use that much bandwidth, whenever anyone plays.

Not to mention the fact that most of us don't have that much real-world bandwidth.

BTW, I thought fractal-based compression was supposed to be a huge win for compression of things like terrain datasets. I wonder how clever they are about that sort of thing.

Another trick would be if they could use a generative AI model for terrain compression & synthesis. Okay, it wouldn't be so great if you want picture-perfect accuracy, but if you just wanted a plausible terrain that looks similar to where you're flying, then I'll bet it'd be convincing.

 

[TheyCallMeContra]

Does the game cache this stuff locally? It's hard to see how this could be economically viable for MS, if it can always use that much bandwidth, whenever anyone plays.

Not to mention the fact that most of us don't have that much real-world bandwidth.

BTW, I thought fractal-based compression was supposed to be a huge win for compression of things like terrain datasets. I wonder how clever they are about that sort of thing.

Another trick would be if they could use a generative AI model for terrain compression & synthesis. Okay, it wouldn't be so great if you want picture-perfect accuracy, but if you just wanted a plausible terrain that looks similar to where you're flying, then I'll bet it'd be convincing.

I think they already use some gen AI in FS 2020 in the lower-bandwidth areas- the peaks are definitely for places that require photogrammetry

 

[Konomi]

Seems expected if nothing else - people complain about large install sizes, get data streamed in. Same crowd complains about that.

 

[hotaru251]

most ISP in states have data caps (usually 1.2TB)...this game would actually let you hit that cap every month and thats ignoring any other data usage..

 

[USAFRet]

Detailed modeling of the entire planet IS a lot of data.

 

[Konomi]

Detailed modeling of the entire planet IS a lot of data.

Which is why it is insane that people are complaining. Either you have a local copy of the data taking up lots of space, or that data is streamed in as needed, which'll be a burden on your internet connection. That's the trade-off. Oh and I suppose if Microsoft used even more compression on assets, there'd be more overhead with unpacking the data and then people would be complaining about how their PC lags.

 

[umeng2002_2]

Fly around certain places too much and get a visit from the FBI.

 

[OneMoreUser]

most ISP in states have data caps (usually 1.2TB)...this game would actually let you hit that cap every month and thats ignoring any other data usage..

That is bad. If there is enough demand, then surely ISP's will change their offerings.

Over here, Denmark, I never had a wired home connection with a data cap and it is not even something I have considered. Mobile data connections is different, but only those with the cheap subscription plans.

Now 1.2 TB is a good load of data, but just streaming services especially in a family setting will use a load of data - especially with services like Sony Bravia Core that uses like 120 Mb/s peak and 80 Mb/s sustained when you watch a movie.

I think it is a good think that Microsoft sets the bar high, likely the bandwidth requirements will be lower with the release version or at the very least flying with a lower data usage will be supported.

 

[husker]

Detailed modeling of the entire planet IS a lot of data.

“I have a map of the United States... Actual size. It says, 'Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile.' I spent last summer folding it. I hardly ever unroll it. People ask me where I live, and I say, 'E6.”
― Steven Wright

 

[Makaveli]

That is bad. If there is enough demand, then surely ISP's will change their offerings.

Over here, Denmark, I never had a wired home connection with a data cap and it is not even something I have considered. Mobile data connections is different, but only those with the cheap subscription plans.

Now 1.2 TB is a good load of data, but just streaming services especially in a family setting will use a load of data - especially with services like Sony Bravia Core that uses like 120 Mb/s peak and 80 Mb/s sustained when you watch a movie.

I think it is a good think that Microsoft sets the bar high, likely the bandwidth requirements will be lower with the release version or at the very least flying with a lower data usage will be supported.

ISP's in the US won't change a thing but charge you $30 more a month for an extra 1 TB of data while still capped.

We mostly have uncapped connections here in canada also I can't really see anyone playing this on a data capped connection.

 

[abufrejoval]

My problems started the minute M$ tried to imply that you'd be able to explore the world with FS, not just flying.

Because that was a lie for many releases, very eggregiously for 2020 and there is zero chance it will change for the 2024 variant.

Because Microsoft simply doesn't have the data.

Modern computers might finally have the power to render a rather good digital twin of the outside real world from inside a virtual cockpit, but again, Microsoft doesn't have the data.

I finally have enough computing horse power to have a plane take off from one of Europe's biggest airport far too few kilometers from my home and fly it over my house. I have a dual 2k VR headset rendering at maximum settings with 90FPS on an RTX 4090 driven by a 7950X3D, but what I see is garbage!

Really, really bad garbage rendered at high quality in smooth motion.

Because M$ doesn't have the data, it invents it. But it does so very, very badly, generating buildings from coarse and outdated bitmaps which have nothing to do with how things really look.

It has some pre-conceptions about how buildings should look and they are extremely generic, not even primary school grade, more like Kindergarten but with straight lines.

And then they run traffic along roads, again a completely generic mix of vehicles, with trucks obviously pasted from the US: did nobody ever tell them that 99.99% of trucks in Europe mount their engines below the cab? Or that not every house looks like an Hamburg harbor storage building from the end of the 19th century?

And they have them look the same in Germany, France and Southern Spain, when very clearly building styles differ dramatically and for good reasons: the weather is vastly different (or at least it used to be).

And then some of those roads are actually rivers or blind alleys you shouldn't try to drive into. Traffic follows logical patterns, but clearly the generator is just randomizing.

Inventing bad fiction when you have no data kills realism very, very quickly and knowing how badly it represents home, it can't do much better anywhere else, can it?

So what's the purpose of "going everywhere", when it's just the same lies repeated everywhere?

I've tested various places around the world where I've spent time and over which I've flown and it doesn't get better in places where I've lived even in the US, an area M$ should know better.

And again, the simple reason is that M$ doesn't have good data.

In Lyon I was astonished to see how the city looked 30 years ago, when I was flying closer, Whole quarters transformed from elegant new buildings back to deteriorated industrial and back as I went further away: closeup material is evidently decades older and you see the same on Bing maps.

So if now they claim that things will look so much better because they source the data right from the Internet, please have a look at Bing Maps before you're tempted to buy: if that looks anywhere close to what you want to see from your cockpit window, go ahead.

If it's the garbage that I'm seeing, be ready to have fake precsion garbage put on top.

Google maps does a much better job because they evidently have the much better data. It's renderings are rough and you won't easily mistake them for the real thing.

But ground truth is actually recognizeable on Google 3D, it's not a precision rendered lie without correlation.

Just compare the two in any area you know well and see the difference.

Caveat emptor!


P.S. I also have a gigabit fiber link for data and gave it 32GB for map storage.

It's fully used, but it makes zero difference in quality: garbage in, garbage out!

 

[JamesJones44]

I'm a little surprised they don't offer an option to pre-download areas of interest and just do a time based lease of when the local data expires and needs to be re-downloaded, much like map applications do with offline maps.

I think a 3 or 6 month lease on the downloaded data would likely be fine for the majority of the people who would pre-download regional data. I doubt the data changes that frequently or that the average user is going to care about a 3 or 6 month gap in the data flying around a commonly traversed region.

 

[bit_user]

Fly around certain places too much and get a visit from the FBI.

Crash into a nuclear reactor and a warning message pops up on screen, informing you the authorities have been contacted.
: D

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

I think a bigger problem would be the streaming server(s) it/themselves. If everything is streamed from the cloud, what's going to happen if the cloud goes down or just can't keep up with the demand of streaming upwards of the equivalent of 10-4K streams worth of data per hour per user?

 

[bit_user]

I think a bigger problem would be the streaming server(s) it/themselves. If everything is streamed from the cloud, what's going to happen if the cloud goes down or just can't keep up with the demand of streaming upwards of the equivalent of 10-4K streams worth of data per hour per user?

They might use content distribution networks, which maintain distributed servers closer to most endpoints. However, the problem with that would be the economics of it, since large chunks of your dataset now have to be duplicated across all of those servers. I'd imagine there are some algorithms pulling it in a demand-driven/predictive fashion, but I think it would still add up.

 

[TeamRed2024]

If only I could install the game data on the 16TB of Samsung 990 Pro space I have... I have unlimited Xfinity internet too... but would rather not stream all this crap.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Thanks for the heads up with this article. I have Game Pass so I will try it and see how much data it uses. I have Xfinity and my data cap is 1.2TB and I stream a lot of shows so this game could present a problem. Although I thought I read that the game will install cache files of frequently flown areas?

 

[Lewinator56]

Well, I was interested in MSFS 2024, my system absolutely meets the specs, but it's impossible, without me spending £5-10k, to have fast enough internet because BT can't be bothered to install FTTP here... In a city, with a data centre in it with a direct fibre link. I'll just have to stick with my 3.5MB/s download average.

 

[bigdragon]

ISP's in the US won't change a thing but charge you $30 more a month for an extra 1 TB of data while still capped.

We mostly have uncapped connections here in canada also I can't really see anyone playing this on a data capped connection.

Remember that ISPs are greedy and evil. They'll sell you a plan that's $30 more and adds another 1 TB of data, but they'll advertise it as an unlimited tier. There are plenty of stories of people with unlimited internet who got hassled by their ISP for going over the hidden limit!

 

[YSCCC]

I think a bigger problem would be the streaming server(s) it/themselves. If everything is streamed from the cloud, what's going to happen if the cloud goes down or just can't keep up with the demand of streaming upwards of the equivalent of 10-4K streams worth of data per hour per user?

Actually they already streaming a lot in the 2020, albeit with a much higher local installation.

When server breaks or my local traffic is lagging they will fall to a basic rendering, I.e. topography with low res textures pasted on top, buildings and trees are non existent, and the very convincing AI traffic control voice will fall to the 90s digital sound of the robots. So realism took a bit hit but your plane still flies well.

My problems started the minute M$ tried to imply that you'd be able to explore the world with FS, not just flying.

Because that was a lie for many releases, very eggregiously for 2020 and there is zero chance it will change for the 2024 variant.

Because Microsoft simply doesn't have the data.

Modern computers might finally have the power to render a rather good digital twin of the outside real world from inside a virtual cockpit, but again, Microsoft doesn't have the data.

I finally have enough computing horse power to have a plane take off from one of Europe's biggest airport far too few kilometers from my home and fly it over my house. I have a dual 2k VR headset rendering at maximum settings with 90FPS on an RTX 4090 driven by a 7950X3D, but what I see is garbage!

Really, really bad garbage rendered at high quality in smooth motion.

Because M$ doesn't have the data, it invents it. But it does so very, very badly, generating buildings from coarse and outdated bitmaps which have nothing to do with how things really look.

It has some pre-coneptions about how buildings should look and they are extremely generic, not even primary school, more like Kindergarten but with straight lines. And then they run traffic along roads, again a completely generic mix of vehicles, with trucks obviously pasted from the US: did nobody ever tell them that 99.99% of trucks in Europe mount their engines below the cab? Or that not every house looks like an Hamburg harbor storage building from the end of the 19th century?

And they have them look the same in Germany, France and Southern Spain, when very clearly styles differ dramatically and for good reasons.

And then some of those roads are actually rivers or blind alleys you shouldn't try to drive into. Traffic follows logical patterns, but clearly the generator is just randomizing.

Inventing bad fiction when you have no data kills realism very, very quickly and knowing how badly it represents home, it can't do much better anywhere else, can it?

So what's the purpose of "going everywhere", when it's just the same lies repeated everywhere?

I've tested various places around the world where I've spent time and over which I've flown and it doesn't get better.

And again, the simple reason is that M$ doesn't have good data.

In Lyon I was astonished to see how the city looked 30 years ago, when I was flying closer, Whole quarters transformed from elegant new buildings back to deteriorated industrial and back as I went further away: closeup material is evidently decades older and you see the same on Bing maps.

So if now they claim that things will look so much better because they source the data right from the Internet, please have a look at Bing Maps before you're tempted to buy: if that looks anywhere close to what you want to see from your cockpit window, go ahead.

If it's the garbage that I'm seeing, be ready to have fake precsion garbage put on top.

Google maps does a much better job because they evidently have the much better data. It's renderings are rough and you won't easily mistake them for the real thing.

But ground truth is actually visible inside that, not a precision rendered lie.

Caveat emptor!


P.S. I also have a gigabit fiber link for data and gave it 32GB for map storage.

Zero difference in quality: garbage in, garbage out!

for realism I was similarly disappointed at launch of 2020, but that’s similar to all sim engines it can’t even try to install that detailed a world as it will cause you stupid file size in places where you don’t fly, up till now after I forgot 10/11 world update where big cities in EU and USA, Japan alike are replaced with detailed 3D models they’ve done throughout the years (for free) I recall my game have bumped up more than 200Gb in local installation, and more in the non generic airports I installed and those gave a lot more realism.

But that is a huge hardware sucker, in a detailed city, say New York, using a detailed Fenix a320 and fsltl traffic and in 1080P, ultra quality, my 3070ti+14900k system will goes to 26-40fps with CPU being the bottleneck, going to more remote, low res general areas like among the himilayas with same setting gets me 80fps.

Generally msfs is good for higher up “exploring” of natural scenery but not close up inspections. And I appreciated how much better they got in live weather and general world appearance compared to the second best sim.

 

[emike09]

Does the game cache this stuff locally? It's hard to see how this could be economically viable for MS, if it can always use that much bandwidth, whenever anyone plays.

Yes, it's still using cache called Rolling Cache. You define how large of a cache you're willing to dedicate. I believe it actually reserves this space on your SSD as it takes a minute or two to apply on large caches.

 

[usertests]

Nevar Forget

Does the game cache this stuff locally? It's hard to see how this could be economically viable for MS, if it can always use that much bandwidth, whenever anyone plays.

The cost of bandwidth falls over time with some regularity. Maybe it's not such a big deal for Microsoft after all. Also, 180 Mb/s is a peak figure, and should not be the average for players.

I guess a counterargument is that it can be wasteful from an energy perspective to do so much data streaming of assets that could have been stored locally. And the experience is degraded if there is an interruption.

There won't be much progress (in speeds, caps, etc.) without more demand. I know the industry is pitching applications like "digital twins" i.e. extended virtual reality-based telepresence for 6G. Woohoo.

 

[emike09]

It's obvious you have to stream the data in. FS2020 accessed over 2 petabytes of world data, 2024 has even higher resolution maps and newer data. Whether they just allow streaming at a higher-res from the same dataset compared to 2020 hasn't been defined.

As an avid flight simmer since the early 90s, I've always made sure my computer has the resources it needs for each new version. My FS2020 install, with cache, addons, etc, sits around 1.5TB. I've got several TB available on NVMe that could be dedicated when I switch over to 2024. I like the option of being able to pre-download areas and never have to stream that data back in again.

Also, Google Fiber and other uncapped fiber ISPs FTW. I cannot fathom a world of being back under datacaps again. It's almost like the days when you could buy 400 or 1000 texts for the month, and if you go over, big overage charges.

 

[Dr3ams]

Never played/used Microsoft Flight Simulator. Why isn't this installed on the PC instead of streaming it?