bugdozer

The title of the thread is "Will adding RAM help MSFS2020 much", to which the short answer is yes.

Or no, depending on whether your post is correct or the one above it. The ACTUAL answer is "it's impossible to know because people are not getting consistent results from adding more memory."

Post it at Zendesk (that's their bug tracking portal).

Lots of people have reported Zendesk works intermittently at best. The whole process is designed to make it a total chore to use in order to put off all but the most determined bug reporters.

Moving from 16GB to 32GB makes a lot of difference, especially in large detailed areas (major cities for example).

Tom's Hardware study of hardware requirements for MSFS 2020, found that increasing memory from 16 GB to 32 GB did little to improve framerates, but increasing the memory speed did have a substantial effect.

Ladies and gentlemen, a perfect example of how this question cannot be given a definitive answer.

Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd.

 

That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding).

I think I win in the primitive Flight Sim stakes. Sinclair Spectrum, 48k, flying the Melbourne House flight simulator. Still got higher frame rates than some people are reporting for FS2020.

My son just pointed out that this is probably 16Gb. Sorry. I am new to such capacities, when I first got my Commodore 64 it had 2 Mb of RAM. And that was more than the combined capacity of my local council at the time.

The Commodore 64 had 64k (that's kilobytes) of RAM, which is why it was called the Commodore 64 and not the Commodore 2000, which is what it would have been if it it had 2Mb. I think you are mistaken.

I just installed this from disk, it then downloaded 16gb of updates, then took me through control set up with my joystick, preliminary graphics settings, then a loading screen with a blue bar increasing underneath. Halfway along this bar's progress, it crashes to desktop. I have tried restarting, and it always does the same thing (except without giving me the initial set up options). I don't even get as far as the screen to select an aircraft or location etc.

Any help?

I have actually found a video now that does some comparison with different settings on lower end specs.

Thank you Plainsman for your link.

Kapitan, I wasn't asking what would be the main priority in terms of performance affect. I was curious to see what the whole combined low spec definition from Microsoft looked like. However, as others have indicated, it's a self selecting sample at the moment with the only flyers generally being those with nuclear powered gaming rigs.

And I can't stay with FSX because I'm one of those Windows 10 users who can't make it function. So for me at the moment, even FS2020 on its lowest settings with a poor frame rate is likely to be an improvement.

MSFS uses Bing, not Google for scenery, & it is going to be interesting to see.

 

If I may, sorry to ask, but why do you call the new sim FS2020?

I thought it is called Microsoft Flight Simulator, (MSFS), 3 versions, Standard, Deluxe & Premier.

 

Can I quote what Mathijs Kok, from Aerosoft, who will be distributing the DVD package has to say..

 

"Let me explain what the boxed version actually contains. Microsoft Flight SImulator (that's the name, not FS2020) contains four major parts (Note the sizes are estimates from what we know at this moment.)

 

The simulator code itself (the 'sim') that is pretty small in size, this is a mandatory part of the sim.

The world and aircraft delivered by Microsoft, (that content depends on the version (the 'content') that is around 90 GB, this is a mandatory part of the sim.

Optional online streamed content (this is an optional part of the sim)

3rd party files (clearly fully optional)

Our DVD's contains 'all' of part 2, apart from the updates Microsoft and Asobo do between the moment the the DVD's are pressed and release. When you install, the sim will updates all files immediately form the servers and you will get the very latest code for the simulator itself and all content is updated. This is very much a simulator that depends on the cloud if you want to use it to its full potential. So the boxed version makes it possible for people on a slower internet connection to get the sim installed without downloading the 'content'. So the simulator is in every way, 100% the same. The boxed retail version just gets you a nice box, printed manual and about 90 Gb you do not have to download. There is no difference between boxed retail and the version MS sells directly. "

 

Maybe use the name that the developers & distributors, as well as MS are using? Avoids confusion that way..

I do hope you objected this vehemently to people referring to "FS9" then, which isn't called that either...

I think the problem in assessing your situation, is that there are so many variables in determining satisfactory performance. For example, you could have a processor and video card that would run the program successfully, but not have sufficient memory or lack a good internet speed?? If you are slightly above the minimum specs, you will need to try it with what you have, then decide if you are needing to upgrade right away.

I understand that. I'm talking about the minimum specs as referred to by Microsoft, which covers things like processor power, system RAM, graphics memory etc. Get a computer that at least approximates those specs to do a test on, and put a video up showing what it's like. I'm aware that the separate components cannot be entirely separated in terms of contribution to performance, but it would be helpful for someone whose specs are close to what's given. For example, someone with a computer with close to the minimum specs but with a much more powerful CPU could reasonably guess that they'd see better than minimum performance. Nobody is asking for an exact framerate count to be predicted or anything, just ballpark.

Or does nobody have ANY curiosity for how FS2020 will run on anything less than a top-whack machine?

You haven't stated what rig you have, so perhaps the minimum specs listed here would help:

 

https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013463459-Minimum-Recommended-and-Ideal-PC-Specifications-for-Microsoft-Flight-Simulator

 

Perhaps the most challenging bit for many will be the bandwidth requirement, though it will also run with reduced textures with poor internet access.

Did you read my post?

Every video I've seen of FS2020 so far has clearly been conducted on a hugely powerful, top-spec PC, which is great for showing what the game is ultimately capable of.

However... lots of us are going to be running it on more mediocre machines, nearer to the minimum specifications. What would be really great would be a demo of how well the game runs on a weak machine with the minimum specs, showing its performance at the most basic graphics settings and then what happens as you gradually ramp them up.

This would be very useful from the perspective of those of us who are considering upgrading our hardware, but don't know if it's worth buying the game anyway before doing that - or whether the performance is so bad even on minimum settings that it's sensible to wait for better hardware before buying the game.

Has anyone conducted this kind of test?