Allot of things can be done to save space, but devs either don't have time to optimize or don't care.
Everything can be compressed in a way you save space and don't lose noticeable quality.
Let's end this placebo quality era, we need compression today!
Check out the CompactGUI results for the good games and bad ones when it comes to potential storage compression (and that's Lossless... many resources can be compressed more using psycho-visual, aka, JPG)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14CVXd6PTIYE9XlNpRsxJUGaoUzhC5titIC1rzQHI4yI/edit#gid=0
A lot of games can be losslessly compressed 40% or higher... that's just sloppy development.
More games need to do this.
Games are to big and getting bigger , SSD cost are still to high special those NVME drive and lets not talk about how small said drives are on the new consoles special the ps5 and Xbox s..
TimmyP:
Its not storage size, its download size. The storage footprint is the same. Every site is reporting this incorrectly.
NVM orignal post if true cant be bother to really look if it is or isnt
NVM orignal post if true cant be bother to really look if it is or isnt
When installing the game for the first time initial download was 170GB in size, installed with all the free content and previous patches my installation ended up at 130GB, downloading the new patch right now which is 5,75GB
EDIT: And total installation up at 132GB with that patch.
Check out the CompactGUI results for the good games and bad ones when it comes to potential storage compression (and that's Lossless... many resources can be compressed more using psycho-visual, aka, JPG)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14CVXd6PTIYE9XlNpRsxJUGaoUzhC5titIC1rzQHI4yI/edit#gid=0
A lot of games can be losslessly compressed 40% or higher... that's just sloppy development.
I've been using this for a long time. It's insane how much some things can be compressed. I've seen something that was several GB compress to 300MB.
Most games compress a good amount, and with SSD space coming at a premium I don't why everyone doesn't use this considering I've yet to see any performance impact from it.
In my case I dont´t have a problem with size, my problem is speed.... I have a 5/170Mbit up/download line limit and my ISP in fact is providing this speed (dual-stack). But at most, I get 50-60MBit/s max. download speed from MS- cloud/ Azure, MS- store?, most of the time it is about 30-40MBit/s. Right now I don´t comprehensively understand if it is limited by my ISP or MS- cloud service, MS- store...?
edit: what I hate as well with FS2020 is, that it is using a "virtual disk" file storage format which isn´t supported by any disk partitioning application. Files from MS saved on my disk, can hardly be accessed, so I can´t control what MS is doing on my disk drives. That´s the most suspicious process, which I really don´t like and never had before with any ohter software.
edit: what I hate as well with FS2020 is, that it is using a "virtual disk" file storage format which isn´t supported by any disk partitioning application. Files from MS saved on my disk, can hardly be accessed, so I can´t control what MS is doing on my disk drives. That´s the most suspicious process, which I really don´t like and never had before with any ohter software.
When is the dx12 update coming? They should focus on that and game will finally be playable.
It would change alot in CPU perfornace i think .
My example is WoW . With DX11 im getting 50/60 FPS in crowded city , with DX12 i have stable 200 FPS ( Orgrimmar ).
It would change alot in CPU perfornace i think .
My example is WoW . With DX11 im getting 50/60 FPS in crowded city , with DX12 i have stable 200 FPS ( Orgrimmar ).
I'm not sure it will help much. Most flightsims are bottlenecked by the physics simulations - which is incredibly hard to parallelize.
I'm not sure it will help much. Most flightsims are bottlenecked by the physics simulations - which is incredibly hard to parallelize.
I don´t think as well a DX12 upgrade will have an impact on graphics performance, as Denial already told, simulations heavily rely on physics calculation. If it would be possible to offload some physics processing to GPU(s) via DX12 then it may help fps performance. More important also is how software programming is done and distributing evenly amount of physics calculation among available CPU cores (e.g. one core for aircraft physics, one core for instruments, one core for weather, one or two cores for traffic, etc.) and if possible + using "GPU cores". Managing the need for processing power could be a key....
edit: not to forget cennection speed and data download size
2edit: my experiance with my system (Intel 12 cores @4,67Ghz ac,10years old gcard) is, that my CPU is running most of the time between 1,2 and 3,5 sometimes 4,7Ghz, 8 cores hardly beeing used between 30% and 50% max. At lowest graphics settings, I can get 20-30fps London city airport grounded with an A320. (R9 280x, 1080p)
More games need to do this. Games are to big and getting bigger , SSD cost are still to high special those NVME drive and lets not talk about how small said drives are on the new consoles special the ps5 and Xbox s..NVM orignal post if true cant be bother to really look if it is or isnt