4 points

I don’t see why it matters though? You’re not gonna be playing the game on your phone with limited data

permalink
report
reply
2 points

My Starlink plan is 50gb per month!

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Because my ISP charges $50/mo extra for the “privilege” of having unlimited data.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

My biggest pet peeve is that they sell you a service, at a certain speed, that you can only use for like 50 hours a month…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s insane!

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

That’s more than I pay for unlimited gigabit here wtf 😭

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I love where I live, but my biggest miss on moving was leaving my fiber network behind and moving to Cox monopoly territory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

‘Land of the free’, init.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Mine too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Buddy, today you’re going to learn about data caps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

this isnt a thing on most countries on earth for “landline” internet.

monopolies in capitalism are brutal, and you guys shouldnt be allowing it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I agree with you. They’ve even become a level of corporate governance with the whole copyright issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I reckon it’s been a good ten years since I had a data cap on my home internet. These days I pay £30 a month for unlimited 900mbps fibre and it’s wonderful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

They still a thing? Not sure they’re that common in the UK at least 🤷🏻‍♂️

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Thank your regulators then. There are very much still a thing. Not because they need to be. But because they allow ISPs to make more money by setting arbitrary limits.

permalink
report
parent
reply
233 points

Okay so after reading the article, that 150MB/s statement is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.

So first off, that was the fastest they recorded. So they just took that times an hour and said “Whoa if it stayed that sustained for the whole hour it’d be 81GB!!”. Bam, clickbait title achieved. Ad revenue pleeeease

Now, for actual data, it looks like in rural areas it’s about 10mbps and in cities about 100. I’ll just throw it out there, why wpukdnt you want it to stream back as fast as possible?

This is like the same stupid RAM argument. I WANT you to use as much as you can! What is the point of paying for the pipe if you don’t use everything you can?! There is no reason they shouldn’t push it through faster. It’s not more data, it’s not a constant stream of 150MB/s like the garbage title claims, it peaks at 150MB/s. So good. I’m paying for gigabit, use the full pipe. When I’m playing a game that is my number one priority, give it to me as fast as you can.

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*

What is the point of paying for the pipe if you don’t use everything you can?! There is no reason they shouldn’t push it through faster.

This is the reason why I leave the shower running in every hotel I visit. And at the buffet, I tell the waiter to fetch me a trash can so I can actually get rid of the whole thing. If I can, I usually leave both a heater and an air conditioner running in the hallway.

Edit: Wow. I had completely forgotten about this comment. I really didn’t think anyone would take it seriously. I work with networks. I know we’re not literally going to run out of internet. But everyone treats bandwidth as this freely available resource. Advertisers, consumers, creatives and Jürgen. Fuck you, Jürgen. We both know that downloading 6 fucking MB every time someone wants to queue up the database is fucking insane, as is your reliance on client-side bullshit.

Anyway, whenever a anything loads slowly, think about why. Bandwith is not free. It’s a maintained resource.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

None of these are the same comparison. There is no “wasting” Internet speed.

The comparison would be better to turning on the faucet halfway to fill your cup slower. What’s the point. You’re using the same amount of water. Just open it all the way and fill your cup.

The cup doesn’t keep overflowing with data. You’re downloading files, once those files are done downloading it’s done. It’s not like it “forgets” and accidentally downloads the whole internet. What a weird way of thinking the internet works

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Well clearly you drank the Comcast kool-aid. Bandwidth is nothing like clean water supply, food, or generated electricity. It’s more like traffic on a highway. Sure, there is a finite amount of room on the highway, but until you hit that at any one time, there is room on the highway for more traffic.

It could be a problem if everyone was playing flight simulator at the same time but they are not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Seeing how the game isn’t out yet and we don’t know what the settings are, I’m not going to agree with this non-article that it’s always streaming that much data. FS2020 had different settings that you could put in, caching levels, caps, and more. I highly doubt it’s constantly streaming that much.

As for RAM, disagree. In the case of games, it makes no sense to keep reading and writing from disk when there is ram available. Store it in RAM so it can be accessed quickly. The key is if the application releases RAM when the OS requests it to be released, or there is pressure. If I’m playing a game with 4k textures I 100% would rather have as many of them loaded into RAM when playing to make a smoother experience than constantly hitting my disk, which is on the thousands of times slower. I have 64GB just sitting there, I want them to use it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

It’s not just the bandwidth that’s the issue it’s the amount of data as many people have datacaps.

The article says:

official Microsoft bandwidth recommendation for that game was 50 Mb/s.

which comes out to 23GB/hr. That can add up quick. 10 hours in a month equates to 20% of my cap with Comcast.

This also neglects people who live in rural areas that might not even have 50Mbps available and can’t play because MS streams half the game to you rather than include it in the install files.

Also *Mb/s not MB/s

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

Many countries don’t have data caps on broadband.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Wasn’t even aware it was still a thing, apart from on mobile (where it somewhat makes sense-ish)

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

*Most

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sounds civilized and competitive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

Just to be clear. Comcast which is a major ISP for the United States has data caps?

I will never understand why the United States insists on living about 30 years behind the rest of the planet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I will never understand why the United States insists on living about 30 years behind the rest of the planet.

Just because one shitty company has it doesn’t mean they all do. I have Quantum fiber which is 8/8 gbps at my house with no cap. Only costs me 165$ a month.

My cousin in a rural as shit location has fiber as well… 10/10 available for 240$. He currently does 1/1gbps and pays something like 65$

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Depends on where you live, most places Comcast just has soft caps.

The US is actually moving further back. Data caps are a newer thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Capitalism, an oligarchy that controls major players, and legislation to keep public players out of the game in a lot of places. Even aside from the fact that private companies are able to prevent municipalities from making their own networks, Congress passed taxes to build out a fiber network and let the ISPs do fuck all, to the point that we had been taxed to the tune of $400 BILLION dollars A FUCKING DECADE AGO.

It constantly amazes me the shit our government lets corporations get away with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I have a gigabit internet plan with Comcast , cost me $80 a month. And yes there is a 1.2tb data cap each month. Every 50gb that you go over, you are automatically charged an additional $10. Oh I’ll just choose another ISP…nope Comcast is the only option in my town. Not unless I want 5G cell Internet or satellite which is not super reliable or fast.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Insane isnt it, my cousin got a roaming charge driving across his own country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Sure, you can turn off data streaming too. It also allows you to cache the data, just like fs2020. My point is that the article makes it about the speed and makes some arbitrary data points. Your data examples are more accurate than theirs. They only presented a worst case scenario, not what will actually happen

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You can force a download of it, just be prepared for the massive install size, which also won’t help the people with data caps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

You can pause large game downloads and pick them up again later.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Why is it using the Internet anyways? Storage is cheap. They’re selling 12 TB hard drives. What do I care if FS2024 is an entire TB?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s the entire planet, in higher than high def. Every tree, every polygon. We’re not talking on the TB scale, this is on the PB scale. Everything from Azure maps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

In higher than high def? While you’re at 30k feet?

Ever look out a plane window?

What the fuck are they rendering?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Because it is accessing petabytes of world data. In the old days, you’d store the world on your PC and they had relatively insane storage requirement. Now it’s just too much. The current MSFS has 300GB of content, but you can download areas of world data on your hard drive to cut down on streaming data in areas you go to often. So a lot people have a 500GB+ drive just for MSFS. This new one is supposed to require much less space.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

And with 12 terabytes on a 250 dollar hard drive, why do I care about 500 gigabytes?

If they’re using petabytes of data for flyover territory then they’ve already lost their goddamn minds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

My ISP will automatically throttle my house if I was slurping up that much bandwidth. It simply isn’t feasible for most people as ISPs usually throttle speeds when they detect sustained high bandwidth activity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What ISP? That seems awful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Bell Canada. One of 2 of the only options for ISPs in Canada.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Every ISP I’ve ever had in America.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sounds like they need to throttle their payments

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

150Mb/s, way different than 150MB/s…

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This is why I prefer MB/s and Mbit/s it’s less ambiguous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Or use octals -> 1Mo/s = 1MB/s = 8Mb/s

No risk of confusion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You are mixing up the different values.

“Meanwhile, scattered reports of **MS Flight Sim 2020’**s bandwidth consumption point toward a more conservative ~100 Mb/s in densely populated photogrammetry areas, such as major cities. Usage in lighter areas could dip as low as 10 Mb/s, though the official Microsoft bandwidth recommendation for that game was 50 Mb/s.”

Flight Sim 2020 had a higher install size and lower bandwidth. Flight Sim 2024 has a lower install size and higher bandwidth requirement. Even if the sustained load isn’t using the maximum bandwidth, it still means that 2024 will use a significant amount of bandwidth such that it may affect customers with data caps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Are they streaming it to you??

Wait that would actually take FAR LESS DATA

permalink
report
reply
18 points

I don’t get it; what do you think they’re doing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-35 points

My gut feeling? Probably something nafarious.

My proof? Decades of feeling like people were up to shady shit. Being told I have no proof, and to shut up, and then they later prove it was shady shit.

But hey, that 2003 Iraqi invasion TOTALLY saved the world from a nuclear blast, right? It couldn’t have just been a series of government lies. The government wouldn’t start a war, and kill young 18 year old men without a clear and proven threat, and have a solid plan in place to end that threat.

I’m 41 years old. I was two weeks away from turning 18 when 9/11 happened. By 2002 I smelled something fishy. I told my friends not to sign up to serve. I told them something was up. I was called a coward, and that George Bush was the president of the USA. He wouldn’t lie to the nation about something so serious.

And now, 20+ years later, I’d just like to tell you how we still find the time to get together a few times a year, share some beers, and laugh about how wrong they were. How foolish they felt when Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and how during the Obama years it was leaked that the Bush administration even knew it was bullshit at the time they said it.

I’d LIKE to tell you we do that…but they’re all dead. Some killed in action, others came back with PTSD and killed themself. The end result is the same. I grew up from kindergarten through high school with boys that became men, and always were my brothers. Now I have half a dozen anniversary dates that I visit gravestones.

Ok, granted I got off track and forgot what the topic was. This game isn’t that serious. But I still smell something up. It’s probably running a crypto mine rig on your CPU in the background or some data harvesting farm, or something.

Again, no proof, but I smell bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I smell copypasta.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Eh, not much nefarious you can do by pushing data around. Taking a lot of CPU/GPU usage? Certainly, you can do a lot of evil with distributed computing. But bandwidth?

Costs a lot to host all that data to push to people, and to handle streaming it to so many as well, all for them to just… throw it out? Users certainly don’t keep enough storage to even store a constant 100Mb/s of sneaky evil data, let alone do any compute with it, because the game’s CPU/GPU usage isn’t particularly out of the ordinary.

So not much you could do here. Ockham’s razor here just says… planes are fast, MSFS is a high fidelity game, they’ve gotta load a lot of high accuracy data very quickly and probably can’t spare the CPU for terribly complicated decompression.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Dude. What?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Well, I can’t conceive anything other than streaming 4K satellite terrain data that could take up that much data and be nefarious. This is download activity, not upload, so I don’t see it being like a botnet or something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

GeForce now streams the entire game to you, it takes a few mb/s, barely more than YouTube.

Microsoft could stream an entire game screen to you for far less bandwidth, so what are they actually sending to your machine?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

GeForce now does not stream the entire game to you. That’s the whole point of GeForce now, it just streams you the final render. Which is just 1 image, though at 60 per second. Which is way less than all the terrain data, textures, meshes, etc in multiple square kms of map data. Ever wonder why modern AAA games are 90+gb big? Thats all the assets that Microsoft streams to you in their flight sim. The actual code is only a few 10’s/100’s mb. Now imagine an AAA game that covers the whole earth and how much space those assets would take up. Hence why they have to stream it to you to make you even capable of playing this game.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Why is that surprising? A compressed video stream is obviously smaller than actual textures and mesh data of the entire planet. You can’t compare the two.

Also NVidia doesn’t produce the stream out of thin air. They are running the game on their own servers then compress the final image and send it to you over the net. While MS sends you the actual game data like meshes and textures and you compute the screen image on your own machine. It’s not the same. What Nvidia is doing is expensive since for every client that connects they need a graphics card, a cpu and a SSD running in a server farm. If MS would do it that way you have to pay a subscription fee to play Flight Simulator. What MS does is just sending files. Since bandwidth is obviously exponentially cheaper than spinning up an instance of the game on a server for every customer they’ve decided to do it this way. So you only have to pay once.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
2 points

Like game streaming, vs streaming cloud data, because the data is already based in azure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

They don’t stream a video feed to you, they stream the terrain to you

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Why does the terrain take more (much more) bandwidth than a video stream?

And what the heck do you mean they’re “streaming the terrain” surely it would be a one and done date transfer, much smaller than a live video packet stream, that amount of bandwidth is insane, you could do multiple 4k streams.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Because it is more data I guess ? Also probably has to use lossless compression, if it can be compressed at all. Whereas video compression algorithms are usually pretty damn lossy

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The current Microsoft Flight Sim is gigantic. My install folder is upwards of 300 GB and I’m missing a few terrain updates

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

It is detailed terrain for an entire planet, and figures are at around 10Mbps for just terrain without buildings.

Assuming you’re flying at 800kmh in something like an airbus A380, you’re flying 13.3km each minute, uncovering a large part of a new circle/sphere of terrain with a radius of 13km (half of it overlaps with old already-downloaded terrain). That’s half of 555km squared of terrain. That’s a lot of terrain. If you want that terrain to be fairly accurate, you’ll want to see at least meter accuracy near the plane (if you’re near the ground you’ll want to see one datapoint of terrain per meter or more), with lower levels of detail as you get further away. Add onto that things like the placement of trees, bushes, rocks, and all the texture data of the terrain (probably an index into existing possibly procedural textures), and you’ve got a lot of data that needs to be transferred.

10Mbps seems pretty fair for all of that.

Also terrain data is updated regularly, and you might not want to keep around old terrain in the first place. There are reasons like players only flying some routes once and never again, and if you save all of mozambique for someone who actually only flies around in the US that’s bad too.

EDIT: Buildings of course cost extra. Airports take up a bit of bandwidth each time you take off or land, as they are probably custom modeled. Cities like NY or LA though will have a ton of custom modeled buildings and textures, and those cost a lot of bandwidth.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

because 1) the figure in the headline is only the most extreme value they found. 2) the image generated by your GPU is only one perspective of the entire 3D environment. maybe in order to download the area you’re also downloading objects that don’t need to be displayed on your screen yet. And 3) cloud streaming videos are also heavily compressed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They’re streaming in the 3d world detail, but the rendering engine is installed locally.

Playing on xCloud will just stream in the visuals that are rendered remotely, so a lot less bandwidth, but then you have the lag, and need a subscription.

permalink
report
parent
reply
154 points

Obviously the flight simulator runs in the cloud.

permalink
report
reply
32 points

People downvoting you didn’t get the joke.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Nah planes go wooosh over their heads

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Oh they got it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Their head is up their ass, instead of in the clouds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

A lot of isps are rolling out gigabit and even faster internet. Finally having a killer app for it will increase demand for it and shame slower isps to upgrade their old coaxial and copper cables with fiber.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

I won’t be upgrading my 50mbit download/10mbit upload 😂

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I get Gigabit over coax tho

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

DOCSIS 3.1 is pretty awesome. I heard 4.0 is in testing. Fiber (FttH) is similar to coax in that many subscribers are attached to one head end device. Subscriber throughput is determined by the number of subscribers and the speeds they ordered on the shared resource. Although fiber is leading in total capacity per OLT/PON, it’s not like coax can’t achieve excellence subscriber speeds by just deploying more head end devices with fewer subscribers on each.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

upload too? cause coax upload sucks ass

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Nope, upload fucking sucks. 50 MB/s. It got worse this spring, like 30 Mb/s, so I opened a ticket and a technician came over to calibrate our house connector (?).

Edit: This is due to the provider tho, not the medium. Vodafone (in Germany) is ass but I did not get a successful connection over DSL (the other option, sadly no fiber yet), so I went with them instead.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Best I can get is 1000/300 which is far from symmetrical but also far from sucking ass.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I think the thing to note here is that ISPs roll those things out fully aware that hardly anyone who pays for that will actually USE that amount of data. They don’t want a killer app for it, they just want you to think you need that much data, and then never actually use it. In fact there are some places where regardless of your bandwidth, you have a monthly data allotment. This game represents a shift into super high bandwidth usage for the general non-technical population. If everyone and their mom starts actually using all the bandwidth they pay for, can the ISP deal with that? If you don’t have a monthly data limit, do they start to roll those out to you and your area?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

They’ll still cap you at 250 Gb a month.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

idk, I upload almost 1TB per day. never gotten notices or anything. fios.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

ISPs are unshamable and a flight sim is a niche application.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Who cares about shame when you have no competition? In your dreams.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Games

!games@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

Community stats

  • 9K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.4K

    Posts

  • 35K

    Comments