this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
106 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30550 readers
132 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not weather, it's terrain and textures. It's a high resolution stream of where you are flying over so you don't need to keep the earth on your PC. The base install is supposed to be only ~30GB data, that's not enough to see your house.
How are you going to fit two petabytes of data into a 500 gigabyte install?
That's how big this game world is.
It's mentioned here: https://www.flightsimulator.com/msfs2024-preorder-now-available/
FS 2020 had an offline mode. I don't see why this one wouldn't have one as well. It's either using procedurally generated or cached data.
You can not get the same visual fidelity and low latency with game streaming. I've tried nearly every service there is (going as far back as OnLive - remember that one?) and they are all extremely subpar, including Microsoft's own game streaming service.
FS 2020 is available for streaming, by the way, and FS 2024 is likely going to be as well. You're only getting the console version though. Officially, the resolution is "up to" 1080p, but due to extremely heavy compression, it looks far worse than that. It's comparable to 720p at best, which means that nearly all fine detail is lost behind huge compression artifacts. On anything larger than a smartphone screen, it looks horrible. That's on top of connection issues and waiting times that are still plaguing this service.
No. Map and weather data is being streamed, cached on your SSD and then the game engine loads it from there into RAM and uses it in combination with other locally stored data and locally performed physics calculation to render the game on your machine. You get an uncompressed, high quality image and low-latency input, freshly baked by your graphics card for your eyes only. At 1080p and 60 fps, that's already 2.98 Gbit/s per second generated by your GPU and sent to the screen as is. At 1440p, we are at 5.31 Gbit/s and at 4K, 11.94 Gbit/s. DisplayPort can handle up to 20 Gbit/s per lane and use up to four lanes, by the way.
Xbox Cloud Streaming only uses up to 20 Mbit/s (and that's very optimistic). At the advertised 1080p, this means that only 6.7% as much data as generated on the server is reaching your screen.
The problem with game streaming is that in order to limit latency, they have to compress the image and send it very quickly, 60 times per second, which means they have just 16.7 milliseconds for each frame - and do this for potentially millions of users at the same time. This cannot physically be done at any decent level of quality. It is far easier to send much larger amounts of map data that is not time critical: It doesn't matter if it's even a few seconds late on your machine, since the game engine will render something with the data it already has. At worst, you get some building or terrain pop-in, whereas if even a single of the 60 frames required for direct game streaming is being dropped, you'll immediately notice it as stuttering.
If you don't have the hardware to play this game locally, then I would not recommend it. If you have - and a base Xbox Series S is enough for a reasonable experience, which costs just 300 bucks new or about half as much used - then there is no reason for using the streaming service, unless you absolutely have to play it on your phone at work.
I don't think requiring online functionality is the death knell of a game in the year 2024. Personally, I'm excited. Their servers were so damn slow to download on initial install and I hated MSFS2020 taking up a quarter of my game drive.
Only the installs were slow. Terrain streaming worked just fine right from the start (I played it from day one) - and once it's cached on your machine, they can shut down the servers all they want, it's still on your machine.
More than that, actually. I measured well over 250 over large cities. Others have reported more than 300.
In this case, it does. The cache for this simulator is a disk cache - and it's completely configurable. You can manually designate its size and which parts of the world it'll permanently contain. There's also a default rolling cache (also on SSD - this program doesn't even support hard drives), which does get overwritten over time.
The CDN to download the initial files were slow, the in game streaming was fine.
Yes, ownership sucks these days, but I don't know how they'd technically pull this off as well without using a remote server. As a philosophy, if we're purchasing games the only real choice is GoG, anything else ends up with us locked into some server-based licensing system.