Obviously the flight simulator runs in the cloud.
People downvoting you didn’t get the joke.
Nah planes go wooosh over their heads
Their head is up their ass, instead of in the clouds.
Oh they got it.
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.
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
Many countries don’t have data caps on broadband.
Wasn’t even aware it was still a thing, apart from on mobile (where it somewhat makes sense-ish)
My friend says they don’t have data caps on mobile in Finland.
Almost every plan is uncapped, but a few (at least one I know of) does, name the cheapest offering from Moi. But that’s the rare exception and it’s a plan specifically known and tailored to be cheapest of the cheap.
Even on mobile my data cap only counts some of the time. Streaming services are not included.
So I can watch all of the YouTube or Netflix or Disney plus that I want and my data limit never goes anywhere. Basically it’s just for general browsing. Given that the bulk of my usage is streaming my data cap essentially doesn’t exist for me.
*Most
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.
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.
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 $10. Oh I’ll just choose another ISP…nope Comcast is the only option in my town. Not unless I want 5G cell Internet or satellite which is not super reliable or fast.
I will never understand why the United States insists on living about 30 years behind the rest of the planet.
Just because one shitty company has it doesn’t mean they all do. I have Quantum fiber which is 8/8 gbps at my house with no cap. Only costs me 165$ a month.
My cousin in a rural as shit location has fiber as well… 10/10 available for 240$. He currently does 1/1gbps and pays something like 65$
Quantum Fiber is Century Link. They have always throttled for going over a cap. They have always advertised no cap and no throttling. They have always waited for you to call customer service with the speed test receipts several times to come clean about doing so.
Sorry not buying it. You may have had shit experiences with them, but I definitely haven’t. And I definitely don’t believe it’s some overarching hidden policy of theirs.
This month I’ve pushed nearly 100TB… I’ve never once called in for anything other than for them to fix their jank ass CX6500 (Fucking piece of shit, let me use my own SPF+ stick FFS). Although I’m sure I’d be more frustrated if I ever ran into any issues with billing or anything like that.Last 30 days: 56.85TB download and 40.78TB upload.
Last 7 days: 8.02 TB down, and 6.27 up.
And I can still spawn speedtests/iperfs that hit near my max 8/8…
Even more importantly… Since it would be easy for them to just “not” throttle speedtest.net. I can pull out my phone on cellular network and speedtest against my own speedtesting server and match the speeds my phone gets speedtesting to a normal server (since my phone will never be able to saturate 8gbps anyway, but I still get into the 200-300mbps).
I’ve had users speedtest against my speedtesting server on other networks that were gigabit get those full speeds regularly.
I see those full speeds torrenting regularly. I see them regularly from steam downloads and other sources as well.
man… just commenting on your speed test. i worked tech support for an ISP in the late 90s (probably a lot of us around here did) and it is just stunning how far the speed has come. we had 100mb ethernet in the office and felt like pimps. My comcast down is about 1/7 of yours, and my up is not in parity. I do pay to not have a cap though, so there’s that.
Prior to Quantum coming into the area, I was on Centurylink bonded vDSL. I got 140/25. The only reason I took that over the cox gigablast was because of the lack of data-cap. Higher speeds are useless if I can’t use that speed all the time. The vdsl was more useful at the slower speeds because I could max that lower speed out 24/7 for the whole month if I needed to. 140 at full bore was way more than the 1.2TB cap on coax… (Cox is 1.28TB cap, which you can hit in about 3 hours at full speed… The fuck is the point?)
Though since then… I’ve definitely grown into using much more bandwidth than I used to.
I remember 10mbit thinnet though. Hope you didn’t lose the termination plugs. Connecting more than 2 computers together was awesome. The IPX lan games started nearly immediately. We definitely have come a long way. While 8/8 is definitely not needed for 99% of people out there… the tired bullshit of 100/20mbps that most people seem to purchase and not even get is definitely not good enough.
Insane isnt it, my cousin got a roaming charge driving across his own country.
Wait what, that’s insane! I can roam over the entire EU (probably EEA too) without roaming charges.
Yeah they get reamed on roaming, speeds and data caps on top of it. Its crazy.
They be like “we earn more” and then also have to pay 12000 for medical insurance, 1000 for terrible internet and then a host of localised taxes.
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.
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.
You can pause large game downloads and pick them up again later.
150Mb/s, way different than 150MB/s…
This is why I prefer MB/s and Mbit/s it’s less ambiguous.
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.
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.
What ISP? That seems awful.
Every ISP I’ve ever had in America.
I’m sorry that seems awful 😞
Bell Canada. One of 2 of the only options for ISPs in Canada.
I’m sorry that must suck.
Sounds like they need to throttle their payments
Yeah man, all the way to zero, because that’s how much you pay for no internet.
I am fortunate to have the option to switch internet providers.
That is what I was referring to.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It’s just using Bing Maps data, which is smart. Not everyone flies at 35,000 feet, low altitude flights look spectacular and are accurate in a way no stored world map could. The terrain is automatically generated from Bing data, not hand modeled. Every building is in the right spot, is the right height, and the exact right shape, and it costs me no storage. It’s an obvious evolution of the genre with all kinds of benefits. Like all airports on earth, even grass landing strips, that are visible in Bing Maps, exist in the game without having to be hand modeled or stored locally. It detects them automatically then plops down an in game runway, tarmac, and taxiways on top of the satellite imagery in the exact shape and size as the real thing. It’s really cool!
But they can pack that down and create regions. That doesn’t need to be at super high definition for the entire globe.
But it can be that detailed for nothing, so why not? They own Bing Maps. They already have optional extra high detail for certain areas you can keep on your hard drive, just as you suggest. That’s why some people have a TB of game content. That’s what the new game wants to fix. The Bing stuff fills in the bits that aren’t bespoke. In the new one it streams it all, and most people who actually plays the genre are very pleased about it.
It’s not for nothing. If they keep the ability to have it on your hard drive then that’s fine. But if they don’t, then people are going to be hitting their data caps super easily.
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.
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.
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
I’ll just throw it out there, why wpukdnt you want it to stream back as fast as possible?
Speed is not the problem. The problem is the sheer quantity of data needed to play a video game. Some people have data caps. Others may not be able to run the game smoothly, and others still not at all.
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?!
It’s not stupid to not want software consuming more RAM than is necessary.
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.
At this point you might as well stream the game video, it would be less bandwidth.
This guy just invented Google Stadia (and GeForce Now I think)
Nobody remembers OnLive…
I remember OnLive. I was waiting for it to become usable, then…nothing.
… who?
Steve Perlman
Steve Perlman sure does
Doesn’t it already run on Gamepass xCloud whatever they call it?
It wouldn’t be as responsive though.
Just fly Boeing in game. It’s a more authentic experience that way.
If the experience you’re after is a near death experience, sure.
Well they do have the whistleblower expansion pack too if flying the plane isn’t near death enough for ya
Ah yes, the Flight Simulator and Hitman crossover expansion.
If you have small data caps, it may even be cheaper.
Don’t have to render doors if they’ve fallen off
I was thinking more of uninstalling this 81 GB/hour game and enrolling in flight school (if you have data cap overage fees). But I like the way you think!
It’s hardly Counterstrike.
Exactly - People don’t seem to realize that cloud gaming responsiveness only really matters in competitive games and shooters. Turn based games or more casual games run perfectly fine with fast Internet.
Well if you think it works well there is nothing stopping you for streaming the game with xcloud.
Imo experience the bitrate and latency is pretty poor even with gigabit internet.
That seems excessive
It is. If it’s 140 mbit/s (or 15 MB/s), Flight Simulator only uses 54 GB per hour. OP is confusing bits and bytes.
It’s still a shit load of data.
I watched a couple Of live streams showing a graph for bandwidth as they flew. It tended to spike to around 180 MB a second when whole new areas were loading but during flight it was much much lower at around 10 to 15 MB per second.
What!? Why the games don’t just run locally
they’re streaming world data. I shudder to think about the size of the entire dataset.
Are the streamed data stored in a local cache? Surely the bandwidth costs are going up to the sky with the server sending data to every single player.
From what I’ve heard, yes. They’re storing data in cache for frequently charted areas
3d terrain tile streaming takes a crazy amount of data. it essentially downloads hundreds of png files at a time and overlays them over 3d terrain data. Everytime you move an inch or pan the camera, it pulls down new data.
That seems like a wildly inefficient way to render things
MSFS implements optimizations on top of that (progressive detail, compression, etc), but that’s how almost all map systems work under the hood. It’s actually an efficient way to represent real environments where you don’t have the luxury of procedural generation.
That’s literally how every 3d game works (barring a few procedural games maybe). Now they just stream those texture and meshes as needed and presumably cache them.
Don’t get distracted by this terrible piece of an article. It never states how long this peak was. It could have been just 100ms. So interpolating this to 81gb/h make no sense at all. It’s just pure click bait.
In the end only the total volume downloaded matters (which the article of course doesn’t mention). Why wouldn’t you want to receive that as fast as possible?
it’s not the same. 3d games use polygons and shaders and whatnot. you can optimize things much easier in that space since it’s a lot more computational. 3d tiling is literally a bunch of png files being streamed down.
Yes, just like msfs does. They still use polygons and shaders… Polygons that make up the terrain and more and shaders that sample png tiles as textures… Msfs really does not do anything different than other games, outside of streaming in the assets instead of pre-installing them. Not sure why people think it’s any different.
Other games store those png tiles locally. Which, sure, increases the installed size of the game. Storage is cheap though, might as well use it right? Like, even if this article is off by an order of magnitude, 8Gb/h is still a ton of data to stream just to play a video game. If other games also do that, that’s news to me. But i was under the impression that games try to be as efficient as possible when it comes to networking. Storing all your texture tiles in the cloud and making your clients download and redownload them seems the opposite of efficient, or at least that they optimized for the wrong thing.
A highly compressed, global base map at 1m resolution is somewhere on the order of 10TB. MSFS is probably using higher resolution commercial imagery, and that’s just the basemap textures, most of which you’ll never see.
Thats why there is a cache, so you don’t re download every time… So only new locations you visit will be streamed, but it will still be way less than having to pre install maps with locations you might never even visit in game… I don’t get why this is so hard to grasp.
Do you manually download all your maps from google maps/earth every time before you use it? No you don’t, you let the program figure out which parts you actually need and stream it to you. Same exact thing, fot the exact same reason.
Storage is cheap
So is bandwidth. 8gb/h is only 2mb/s which was maybe a lot 25 years ago. These days you can’t even get a connection slower than 50/100mb/s
But i was under the impression that games try to be as efficient as possible when it comes to networking.
Games try to be as efficient possible with their network code for real-time updates, so latency is minimalized. This is not at all important if you prefetch stuff minutes before you actually need it.
Thats why there is a cache, so you don’t re download every time… So only new locations you visit will be streamed
K so why not just include that with the initial installation, if you’re gonna need to store it locally anyways?
it will still be way less than having to pre install maps with locations you might never even visit in game…
Or allow users to decide what areas of the map they want to fly in and just download that subset when the user requests it?
Implicitly streaming that much data seems like a good way to piss off your users when they unknowingly saturate their bandwidth or bump up against their data cap.
Do you manually download all your maps from google maps/earth every time before you use it?
No, but Google maps doesn’t potentially use gigabytes of data per hour, and isn’t something I use for hours on end multiple times a week like a video game, except in relatively rare occurrences like road trips/vacations.
So is bandwidth
You pay for storage once and that’s it. You pay a subscription for bandwidth, plus fees if you go over your data cap. Bandwidth is absolutely more expensive than storage, and should be optimized for.
kinda… graphics all end up as polygons eventually but 3d tile rendering has a lot of different considerations and limitations you don’t have with rendering a normal 3d asset rendering. check out things like CesiumJS that is an equivalent kind of technology
The world they built for the game is hundreds of terabytes, it’s really the only way to do it without forcing players to preload tiny chunks of the world and restrict their flight to only the ones they’ve downloaded.
Cant wait for how many flight nerds are about to find out about their comcast data caps.
Or how many ISPs are going to accuse people of illegal internet activity due to constant large data transfers when its literally just a Flight Simulator lol.
your isp already knows youre streamin nonsense from microsoft. this wont trigger anything
Unless you run a VPN
must be some great vpn pushin 180Mb/s
It’s public domain music and Linux, I swear!
So Comcast users can’t have youtube tv?
The hard cap in my area is 300GB a month, you can only go over twice in a year and its only for 10GB and you pay 50$ each time. If you are over that limit they just shut it off.
Are they streaming it to you??
Wait that would actually take FAR LESS DATA
They don’t stream a video feed to you, they stream the terrain to you
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.
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.
The current Microsoft Flight Sim is gigantic. My install folder is upwards of 300 GB and I’m missing a few terrain updates
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.
I don’t get it; what do you think they’re doing?
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.
Well then you shouldn’t have gotten rid of the big bacon classic! That would be like McDonalds getting rid of the BIG MAC, and replacing it with the double quarter pounder with cheese…except no condiments or toppings besides 8oz of BIG MAC sauce, and calling it the “MAC ATTACK”.
AND WTF HAPPENED TO YOUR SPICY CHICKEN??? ITS LIKE HALF THE SIZE NOW! LIKE AN OVER GROWN CHICKEN NUGGET!
Dude. What?
I think he’s 's onto it that people playing Microsoft Flight Simulator are actually flying real life drones and bombing civilians without knowing, just like in Ender’s Game.
Time will tell
I need some of whatever he’s smoking
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?
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.
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.
They do not have to stream it. PC hard drives come in the multiples of TB these days.
What makes you think it isn’t an option? Most people probably aren’t using it though, because there is no reason to predownload terabytes of world data when you aren’t going to come near 95% of it.
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.
ISPs are unshamable and a flight sim is a niche application.
They’ll still cap you at 250 Gb a month.
idk, I upload almost 1TB per day. never gotten notices or anything. fios.
I get Gigabit over coax tho
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.
upload too? cause coax upload sucks ass
Best I can get is 1000/300 which is far from symmetrical but also far from sucking ass.
yeah not bad at all for coax
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.
complaining a bout 50MB/s upload is a champagne problem.
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?
I won’t be upgrading my 50mbit download/10mbit upload 😂
So that’s about 15 hours before exceeding your Comcast data cap for the month (1.2TB) assuming you don’t use your internet for anything else that month. Then after that it starts costing you about $16/hr to play in data usage alone. ($10 per 50GB)
I keep seeing comcast mentioned, why do you guys across the pond pay for a broadband service with a maximum download amount like it’s a 3G phone?
I live in a monopoly area. My only choice for internet is comcast at 10/5mbps down up and it costs me 180 a month. Two blocks away fiber costs 40 a month.
Wait, so does a single company own all the cabling or something!? We have a despised-for-their-incompetence company called Openreach in Britain but the cables they manage cover almost the entire county and any ISP can use them.
There’s other options, but they’re all MUCH slower. If you want a different ISP with comparable or faster speeds, you need to move. In my case, internet is bundled with HOA fees. And there is no other fast option available at my address anyway.
So why don’t other ISPs offer comparable speeds in the same location?
Short simplified answer: nobody wants to pay for the infrastructure. Especially in the last mile. There’s probably a Planet Money episode about it. If not, there should be.
I’m guessing the ISPs aren’t forced to share their cables with other ISPs then?
Over here we have “fibre to the kerb” for people whose houses aren’t fully supported yet, meaning it’s fast fibre-optic cable all the way to somewhere near your house, then it uses your existing copper wires for the last bit. It’s not at fast as proper fibre-optic but still a lot better than old copper wires.
In the US, ISPs are government-enforced monopolies.
What exactly does that mean? I thought you had anti-monopoly laws?
It’s not a full monopoly. You can choose another ISP, but it’s just that in practice you’d need to physically move to a new location to make that change of vendor.
That’s a full monopoly.
Why are you bickering with me about it? I don’t appreciate people asking questions in bad faith just so they can make a spicy comment. Think I like it?
There are choices, it’s just they all suck unless you’re willing to move. Nobody’s arguing that it is a local semi-monopoly.
I’m not the guy you responded to, I’m just pointing out that it is a full monopoly. Which is important because part of the story they sell is that the ability to pay thousands of dollars in moving costs is a reasonable cost of switching providers. We’re never going to get the situation changed if we don’t acknowledge that it’s a full monopoly, complete with rent seeking.
The next flight aim is gonna lean even heavier into streaming. So not just landscape but also plane models will be streamed. So this is gonna get worse not better
What benefit would streaming plane models have?
Landscape and real time weather data makes sense. Things are changing and it doesnt make sense to have high res textures of the entire planet on users PCs. Or are you just meaning on demand download of the skin?
Well if the install size is anything to go by it drops from 120Gb to 30
Basically Google Stadia
Nah. This is asset streaming. E.g model data. Not video
I don’t see why it matters though? You’re not gonna be playing the game on your phone with limited data
Buddy, today you’re going to learn about data caps.
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.
They still a thing? Not sure they’re that common in the UK at least 🤷🏻♂️
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.
this isnt a thing on most countries on earth for “landline” internet.
monopolies in capitalism are brutal, and you guys shouldnt be allowing it.
I agree with you. They’ve even become a level of corporate governance with the whole copyright issue.
Because my ISP charges $50/mo extra for the “privilege” of having unlimited data.
That’s more than I pay for unlimited gigabit here wtf 😭
‘Land of the free’, init.
That’s insane!
