Probably just uncompressing a lot of stuff and pulling data from the internet and having to keep it without any cleaning
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
472 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
59495 readers
3050 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's exactly what they're doing: the assets are going to be streamed and then probably cached in RAM, thus you need a lot of RAM.
Of course this makes me think that FS2024 is going to get live-serviced and killed at some point when they decide to stop hosting all that data and welp so much for your game you bought, too bad.
My understanding is that much of the map data is also used by bing maps and other satelite services. So those are unlikely to go away in the short term.
But also? The same is true for 2020. Yes, it will probably stop working at some point down the line. But it is a really good game for the time being and people have already gotten 4 years of awesome support for probably the best general purpose flight sim out there.
Also.. this is the kind of game that kind of requires a "live service" element. Because having people download static map data for the entire planet just to play a game is untenable. Let alone providing semi-regular updates and supporting the questionably tasteful minigame of racing to go fly through the latest natural disaster.
Leveraging something they already run makes a lot more sense than building a bespoke thing for streaming the data for just MSFS. (In my defense, it is a game and game devs have done much sillier things than doing something like that.)
I just have begun to accept that I'm not the market for games anymore, because I'm unwilling to buy something that is most probably going to end up broken some point in the future once there's no more money to be squeezed out of it.
I'm just very opposed to renting entertainment because everything is temporary.
(Thankfully there's ~30 years of games to play that don't suffer from any of this live-service-ness so I'm not exactly short of things to spend time on.)
You must really hate going to the movies. If I spend $60-70 on a game and get 50-100+ hours of entertainment from that money spent that's a dub in my book.
If someone enjoys flight simming it's not really a question, they will buy this game because it's one of the best all-around sims.
Rant but mostly venting to the void - reply to both you and parent comment, my thoughts:
I have games that are 20+ years old that I'm still clocking gametime in. Games with dedicated communities, still-going multi-player, mods, game improvements...
If a game becomes intentionally unavailable, I - and everyone else - should get a full refund. Full stop, no exceptions, no bullshit store credit. Money back in my account. You don't expect someone to repo your phone, car, or house after 3 years of "ownership", why is literally anything any different?
In current times, I'm super pissed at The Crew getting axed, and I plan to only yarr content published by ubi now. They can't be trusted, so it's not my fault, but theirs.
I have unannounced/anticipated games on my radar that I'm already planning on 'wait, see' or 'only the base game' because I see the shift to 'lease ownership' and 'everything is a bundle of parts'. Current games that I have thousands of hours in, but due to bugs, cheating (with no response from devs), added after-purchase 'packs' when I bought the fancy bullshit version to have the "whole game", etc that I now value at 1/5th of the full asking price I paid - I'm tired of this garbage. Being a "beta" (alpha, in some cases) early access guinea pig is not a fucking perk. Promises of content later is not a fucking perk. Always online is not a fucking perk.
Game time isn't the only metric; for me, at the bare minimum, the game has to be good - I shouldn't fight a game every step of the way to draw enjoyment from it (related: stop trying to use players' in-game creations to prop up the game itself and it's core content) - and it has to remain mine, forever. Maybe I'm getting old, but at least I'm not a fool. A purchase is a purchase, not a temporary allotment.
And (because why not) I fucking despise going to the theater. Other people are annoying, can't pause the film to take a piss, sticky/cum-soaked floors adhering fuck-knows-what to your shoes, noisy phones going off, $12 for a midday showing + a snack and drink is another $9. If you go to a fancy theater, you can order a microwaved burger and fries right from your seat for only $31. They cannot go away fast enough.
Games used to be $20, you got the full game, forever, sometimes with multi-player that you can host yourself, forever, sometimes with free DLC, forever. Now they want $80 and are trying to say that they have the right to take it back and still keep the money. Fuck em all. Except indie devs. But I'm watching you.
Anyway. That was cathartic. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I just have begun to accept that I'm not the market for games anymore, because I'm unwilling to buy something that is most probably going to end up broken some point in the future once there's no more money to be squeezed out of it.
Most games still aren't like this though and this is really one of the few games where it's justifiable because of the nature of the technical challenges in letting players explore the real world.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because having people download static map data for the entire planet just to play a game is untenable.
You shouldn't have to download the entire planet though.
The game 100% should support installing local specific areas you wanna fly around, that anyone could then keep a copy of.
If a user wanted to cache an entire 8 TB of the entire world on a drive, they should be able to just do that (and thus have forever support without worrying about internet services staying online)
At least, as a snapshot of what the world looked like in 2024.
I don't see why users shouldn't have the option to locally HD save the data if they want to, to avoid maxing out their internet bandwidth in one sitting.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I agree, this is a good use of the live service model to improve the gameplay experience. Previous entries in the Flight Simulator series did have people purchase and download static map data for selected regions, and it was a real pain in the butt -- and expensive, too. Even with FS2020 there is a burgeoning market for airport and scenery packs that have more detail and verisimilitude than Asobo's (admittedly still pretty good) approach of augmenting aerial and satellite imagery with AI can provide.
Bottom line, though, simulator hobbyists have a much different sense of what kind of costs are reasonable for their games. If you're already several grand deep on your sim rig, a couple hundred for more RAM or a few bucks a month for scenery updates isn't any big deal to you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
There are some 3d demoscene programs that use miniscule amounts of disk space but still need a fair bit of memory for working space.
load more comments
(1 replies)
FS2020 downloads 600GB of something ROUTINELY
Oddly? This is not odd at all.
It's been a while sincce I wrote code, but I'll try to remember. Basically disk size and ram size have no connection. Disk size is for already generated assets (maybe you need to remember how the planes look like, so you create assets for all the planes. Or you want to have textures for the scenery, or for the Lincoln monument, or whatever).
But then you need to load those resources into RAM to access them faster, because if you try to load them directly from disk, it's a lot slower. So some part of those 64GB of RAM is because you are loading some premade assets.
But aside from this, there's also dynamically generated data that you have no way of knowing about at the beginning of the program, so you can't prepare in advance and generate assets for it. Like say for example the player wants to begin flying the plane - he's gonna have some different inputs than any other player. Maybe he drives slower at the beginning, or goes a little to the right when he takes off. Or his destination will be completely different. You now need to remember his velocity, his position on the map, the direction of his flight, his altitude, his plane's weight and who knows what else, I'm not a pilot. All of this, you allocate memory dynamically, based on user changes, and this uses the RAM as well.
Not to mention - you can make a 1kb program that takes 64 GB of RAM. You just ask the operating system for that much memory. You don't even need to fully use it. It'll take you one line of code.
All this to say - nothing odd about the program being smaller than the RAM requirements. It can mean it's not optimized, but it can also mean it has a lot of dynamic calculations that it's doing and a lot of stuff it needs to remember (and in the case of a flight Sim this wouldn't surprise me).
Technically correct, but if I'd have any input into hiring a person whose background involves making a flight simulator requiring 64GB RAM, that doesn't emulate every mol in that plane for that cost (I'm exaggerating a bit), I'd ask many questions.
It requires 16GB RAM, which is perfectly acceptable. But it can use more if available, for high res textures I assume. Which are streamed from Microsoft's servers, explaining in part the difference between install size and max memory requirements.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's not really odd. It likely caches decompressed assets and such.
They've also talked about massively leveraging cloud computing and streaming, it's likely a lot of actual scenery isn't part of the offline file size unless you cache the areas for offline play (if that's even an option)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wonder if it’s going to take several hours to download all the world content before allowing you into the menu screen like MSFS2020 does.
I wonder if they’ll insist on using MS servers for the content and will be kept at MS server caps at 5MBPS, meaning that it will take 20+ hours of downloading before you can even play, pulling you outside of the 2 hour Steam return window.
Afaik Steam does refund games if you tell support that you spent time troubleshooting or waited for the launcher to download the actual files.
Though I only think to have read about it. No concrete proof.
Hell, they’ve been refunding Linux users for GTAV this week because of the change to BattleEye.
Yeah the Steam refund 2 hour thing is just the no questions asked guaranteed refund window. You can absolutely request a refund outside of that window and they'll be quite reasonable in most cases.
Years ago, I tried cities skylines on a sort of shitty PC… spent at least 8 hours trying to get it to work, then just gave up.
Requested a refund and it was granted almost immediately.
I bought a better PC and repurchased, and not it runs fine but the game itself is pretty mod dependent and I have spent more time installing and uninstalling mods than actually playing the game.
So yes, ask for a refund and you will probably get it even outside the 2hour window.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And .kkrieger is 96 kilobytes and uses around 200MB of RAM iirc.
JavaScript developers hate this one weird trick!
The demo scene was always technically amazing
This game feels like the perfect candidate for streaming from XCloud/GeForce Now since all those data doesn’t really need to be transferred all the time. And the game’s design can tolerate a bit input latency.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oddly? The game needs ram to store data like variables that the game generates, like physics simulations, among other game systems. The game's asset size alone doesn't really matter.
I know. That statement was weird. In just a few lines of code I can chew up all available ram on a machine.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
30GB plus unlimited data streaming while using it…
That said, I suppose one plus is that this hopefully wont need as many 10+GiB updates literally right when I finally have an hour free and want to play it.
30GB to install then 100+ after you open the game and it downloads updates and scenery. Same deal as 2020.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It probably streams the content during play.
It definitely does, it pulls satellite data of the whole world
I don’t want to pretend-pilot a hot air balloon that much
Just to provide some context as someone who played the hell out of 2020 (on gamepass) and is looking forward to buying 2024 minute 1 and then figuring out how to keep a cat from fucking up a HOTAS sled for minutes 2-900:
The install is small because that is just the core game. Theoretically, that is all you need and it contains the meshes/logic for meshes and plane textures and so forth. You will then stream map data as you play and cache that. So the first time you take off at Pyongyang International it will take a bit of time to load but subsequent trips will be super fast.
That said... you will almost assuredly download the world packs. This is the much more hand crafted cities and airports so you can genuinely feel like you are flying over Paris or escaping from London Heathrow's international terminal and so forth. Or just to fix some weirdness because of a building layout near a river. And those world packs get big.
Before I switched over to linux for full time gaming? My PC install of MSFS 2020 was probably 100-200 GB on its own just from all the updates?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Great. Now I'll have to buy this to justify overspending on 96gb of ddr5.
I'm glad they're moving the world update and other massive downloads to something in the cloud and on-demand. Anything between 10-40% of my "play time" on steam was actually downloading stuff.
lol i remember when you'd get called an idiot for installing 16 gb ram
I remember being asked what I needed 64 MB of RAM for. My answer, of course, being "because I can."
My server has around 156GB RAM.
Do I use most of it? Nah.
Why then?
Cuz it was free from work and I wanted to hit the amount from Weird Al’s “it’s all about the Pentiums”
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Rememeber how "no one will ever need more than 8gb of ram"? Up until fairly recently (a few years ago) you could not talk about anything having to do with ram online without someone coming along and being like "ACKTCHUALLY no one needs more than 8gb of ram for anything even gaming".
load more comments
(1 replies)
Quick! Name one thing that has nothing to do with the other and make that your headline!
_
Memory leaks goes brrrr
I read the download size is like 150GB. That’s why I didn’t buy it on sale.
The hardware and bandwidth demands of the first game were why I stopped playing it. I had a machine that could run it (and an even better one now) and internet that could handle it, but it still just wasn't a smooth experience. I don't have a cap on my internet data but my speed isn't particularly high, which meant the 80-150gb per week of data the game consumed was certainly felt.
view more: next ›