Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 needs 64GB of RAM for ideal performance — oddly, the game install size is only 30GB
64GB of RAM and RTX 4080/RX 7900 XT are recommended for an "Ideal" experience
The next version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024, is due for release very soon— and ahead of that November 19 landing, Microsoft has shared an extensive list of enhancements to Flight Simulator in a blog post as well as disclosed the new Flight Simulator system requirements, which have become much lighter in one way (storage) and much heavier in others. This is particularly true when you look at the "Ideal Spec" Microsoft advises since Flight Simulator is such a technically ambitious game that it needs Minimum, Recommended, and Ideal System Requirements.
The original specification listed in a June 2023 post is 50 GB, but Microsoft claims a 30 GB requirement in its most recent September 20 blog post—more on this below and why 50 GB may still be required.
First, good news: Microsoft has successfully reduced the install size from the 2020 release of Microsoft Flight Simulator by a significant margin. Prior, Flight Simulator's base version alone required 130 GB, and content added afterward pushed the install size closer to 400 GB—now, though, the base game is only 30 GB while maintaining all the same features. How is this possible?
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 System Requirements and Recommended Specifications
Header Cell - Column 0 | Minimum System Requirements | Recommended System Specifications | Ideal System Specifications |
---|---|---|---|
Operating System Version | Windows 10 with latest update | Windows 10 with latest update | Windows 10 with latest update |
DirectX Version | DirectX 12 | DirectX 12 | DirectX 12 |
CPU | Intel Core i7-6800K or AMD Ryzen 7 2700X | Intel Core i7-10700K or AMD Ryzen 7 2700X | Intel Core i7-14700K or AMD Ryzen 9 7900X |
GPU | Nvidia GTX 970 or AMD RX 5700 | Nvidia RTX 2080 or AMD RX 5700 XT | Nvidia RTX 4080 or AMD RX 7900 XT |
GPU VRAM | 4 GB | 8 GB | 12 GB |
RAM | 16 GB | 32 GB | 64 GB |
Storage Space | 30 GB | 30 GB | 30 GB |
As Microsoft explains, "By tapping into the latest cloud streaming technology, installation size has been trimmed down to about 30 GB to get you in your seat and flying as quickly as possible, streaming in the higher detailed areas that are only necessary for your flight path; Why install all the data for the United States when you're intended to just fly over Europe for the evening?"
This could mean that 30 GB is the required install size before you can select a flight path and stream the rest of the data as needed to your drive, with an estimated ~20 GB buffer required on top of the base game for a flight path. But whatever the case may be, it's undoubtedly a massive improvement over the insane install size of Flight Simulator (2020).
At the cutting edge of consumer flight simulators, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is looking to shape up fairly well— and its reliance on cloud streaming is probably also why those Ideal RAM requirements are so astronomically high, at 64 GB. As unreasonable as it sounds and may even be (at least for your wallet), it does make sense when you consider Flight Simulator's ability to simulate nearly the entire planet with incredibly realistic graphics.
If you're into that, there's a more chilled-out hot air balloon mode now.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Christopher Harper has been a successful freelance tech writer specializing in PC hardware and gaming since 2015, and ghostwrote for various B2B clients in High School before that. Outside of work, Christopher is best known to friends and rivals as an active competitive player in various eSports (particularly fighting games and arena shooters) and a purveyor of music ranging from Jimi Hendrix to Killer Mike to the Sonic Adventure 2 soundtrack.
-
Neilbob Some rather bizarre minimum and recommended requirements there (or so it seems to me).Reply
Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.
Difference between a GTX 970 (with that 3.5 GB VRAM) and an RTX 2080 = even more significant.
Meanwhile, the AMD requirements are virtually identical. Struck me as odd.
But whatever, this isn't a something that's of particular interest to me. Also, it'd very likely obliterate my relatively slow internet with only 100 GB per month maximum usage (I'm still about 10 years ago). That's why I purposefully broke my Windows Update, because that alone was contributing to the Windows System munch up about 30 GB. -
Makaveli The comments from this around the web have been funny. Everyone is hyper focused on that 64GB of ram for Ideal and completely ignore 32GB for recommended.Reply
You are right the difference in those requirements are weird.Neilbob said:Some rather bizarre minimum and recommended requirements there (or so it seems to me).
Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.
Difference between a GTX 970 (with that 3.5 GB VRAM) and an RTX 2080 = even more significant.
Meanwhile, the AMD requirements are virtually identical. Struck me as odd.
But whatever, this isn't a something that's of particular interest to me. Also, it'd very likely obliterate my relatively slow internet with only 100 GB per month maximum usage (I'm still about 10 years ago). That's why I purposefully broke my Windows Update, because that alone was contributing to the Windows System munch up about 30 GB.
And an uncapped internet connection is required for this I wouldn't bother if I had a data cap. -
JTWrenn
I am curious which way it is weird, and I think it is likely that AMD's version of a 970 just couldn't handle it. ie the minimums for the AMD side were bumped up because of something weird with older gen stuff. Maybe some compatibility issue? The rx 5700 is a much more powerful card than a 970 but AMD really was well behind until at least the 2000 series so maybe that is the issue? Betting it is some specific requirement that a card handle something that old AMD cards just didn't support and for some reason NVIDIA's did.Neilbob said:Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.
Difference between a GTX 970 (with that 3.5 GB VRAM) and an RTX 2080 = even more significant.
Same with the CPUs I guess. Pretty odd I agree. Such a hugh diff I wonder if it is a typo.
edit: interesting note while the rx 5700 beats the pants off the gtx 970 in most things in something like Counter Strike it is only about 15% better. So I wonder if the 970 just has really high raw polygon pushing but horrible lighting/shading by todays standards. So for potato level it is doable, but old AMDs can't so they must be 5700? Still weird but think that is it. -
Neilbob
Yes, it's a good job my descent into being a curmudgeon includes losing interest in excessive data usage.Makaveli said:The comments from this around the web have been funny. Everyone is hyper focused on that 64GB of ram for Ideal and completely ignore 32GB for recommended.
You are right the difference in those requirements are weird.
And an uncapped internet connection is required for this I wouldn't bother if I had a data cap.
I also agree about the pointless fuss about the 64 GB. I reckon the issue here is that the 'Ideal' may exceed 32 GB on occasion, but I suspect it rarely does so. This is likely just Microsoft insuring themselves against raging. If having 48 GB installed wasn't a pretty obscure setup, I'm sure that'd be listed instead and would be far more than adequate. -
why_wolf By streaming do they mean "no install" as in each time you fly this path the data will be sent to you again. Or do they mean we will install the bits of the Earth you fly over bit by bit. So by the end your file size will be back to that 400Gb if you fly over the whole Earth?Reply
I suspect many people will want to download the Earth data just once and not have it streaming in forever. Low caps or slow bandwidth. -
Neilbob
In this case they could probably suggest an RX 5500 as a minimum. That'd be much more in line with a 970 but still keep up with the technology of the time. In fact, I reckon that said 5500 would be able to manage.JTWrenn said:I am curious which way it is weird, and I think it is likely that AMD's version of a 970 just couldn't handle it. ie the minimums for the AMD side were bumped up because of something weird with older gen stuff. Maybe some compatibility issue? The rx 5700 is a much more powerful card than a 970 but AMD really was well behind until at least the 2000 series so maybe that is the issue? Betting it is some specific requirement that a card handle something that old AMD cards just didn't support and for some reason NVIDIA's did.
Same with the CPUs I guess. Pretty odd I agree. Such a hugh diff I wonder if it is a typo.
Maybe. Like I already indicated, my interest here is merely academic :unsure: -
JTWrenn
Agreed. Far less vram but they claim 4gb is fine so...it just makes no sense. Hope it is a typo, but who knows.Neilbob said:In this case they could probably suggest an RX 5500 as a minimum. That'd be much more in line with a 970 but still keep up with the technology of the time. In fact, I reckon that said 5500 would be able to manage.
Maybe. Like I already indicated, my interest here is merely academic :unsure: -
Neilbob
Hrm, possibly.JTWrenn said:edit: interesting note while the rx 5700 beats the pants off the gtx 970 in most things in something like Counter Strike it is only about 15% better. So I wonder if the 970 just has really high raw polygon pushing but horrible lighting/shading by todays standards. So for potato level it is doable, but old AMDs can't so they must be 5700? Still weird but think that is it.
It'd be nice if we could get some kind of benchmarks when the time comes, but all these cards mentioned are rather past it, so it's probably unlikely.
I bet RX 5500 would still give the RX 6500 a spanking! -
DS426 So people wanting to play offline are screwed? Is it like that for FS2020?Reply
Funny that they traded storage for RAM. 1 TB SSD's are pretty common and affordable as opposed to 64 GB RAM that is far more expensive, so this "beauty of cloud technology" isn't so beautiful at all, lol.