A more ideal system requirements list.

[Calibuddy99]

Hello there. I have thought up an idea of what I would consider as more accurate system requirements. As of right now, the game's system requirements seem a bit off to me. For those who don't know, the current system requirements are: MINIMUM:
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Dual core CPU 2.4 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: GeForce GTS 450-class (Intel HD 4000)
Storage: 7 GB available space
RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows 7/8.1/10 64-bit
Processor: Quad core CPU 3.0 GHz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: GeForce GTX 760-class (2 GB)
Storage: 7 GB available space
I don't think these are the most accurate requirements. I think they would be better being more specific with the CPU, and up-to-date on that storage requirement. They would be better being:
MINIMUM:
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3 GHz
Memory: 8GB RAM
Graphics: GeForce GTX 760 (2 GB) or better
Storage: 12GB-16GB available space(Assuming you use all State DLCs and want to be future proof for more DLCs)
RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows 10/11 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-8600K
Memory: 16GB DDR4 RAM
Graphics: GeForce RTX 3060 12GB or Equivalent
Storage: 20GB available space

Okay, I recently made a few changes. Based off of how people appear to be interested in just 400% scaling, I changed the GPU requirements to be more accurate to that. I now recommend a 3060 12GB because since there clearly is a difference from the default 125%, and 400% scaling requires a lot of VRAM. In fact, I never actually really experienced 400% scaling because I didn't have a good enough computer to do that. Now I have a better computer, and can experience 400%, I can tell the difference. I still consider it to be partially pointless since it is a VRAM hog, but I can tell the difference and it is worth it in my opinion. I also updated the RAM as well, since people were disagreeing with 4GB as a minimum. And with 400% scaling, you'll have to have at least 8GB for a playable enough experience. And in the modern day, 16GB is almost the minimum RAM in a gaming PC, assuming it's prebuilt, however many companies still are foolish enough to put 8GB of RAM, which is not good. And I slightly updated the CPU as well, just since it would be a decent decision. Also, should I add a 4K recommendation listing?

What do you think? Do you think this would be more fit? Do you have your own idea? I would like to see your own idea or your opinion on mine. I hope I didn't list something overkill. Although, I do know that this game takes about 12GB of space right now, assuming you use all of the DLCs. If I posted this in the wrong spot, then you can move it.

[Brian Benton]

I think that you (like SCS) took the names of components thoughtlessly and did not imply any specific graphics settings. Objectively, the recommended settings for 60 FPS at 1080p/400% Scaling/Ultra Preset/Recent DLC Territory are:

Processor: R5 5600/I5 12400
Video Card: RTX 3060 Ti
RAM: 16 GB
Storage: NVME SSD and 20 GB of free space.

As for the minimum ... I don’t know who would be interested in counting this, but any budget PC build of 2023 can provide 30 FPS at 1080p and the minimum preset.

[Calibuddy99]

I think that you (like SCS) took the names of components thoughtlessly and did not imply any specific graphics settings. Objectively, the recommended settings for 60 FPS at 1080p/400% Scaling/Ultra Preset/Recent DLC Territory are:

Processor: R5 5600/I5 12400
Video Card: RTX 3060 Ti
RAM: 16 GB
Storage: NVME SSD and 20 GB of free space.

As for the minimum ... I don’t know who would be interested in counting this, but any budget PC build of 2023 can provide 30 FPS at 1080p and the minimum preset.

400% scaling is basically nothing more than a performance drop. What does scaling change? It doesn't look any better when I try it, so I use the default setting of 125%. I bet that 400% scaling in 1080p basically makes the game 4k, in which is not necessary. Besides, this game is an old game. Scaling is just a way into making the game perform way worse than normal. I also didn't make it thoughtlessly. The recommended requirements I made were made based off of what you'd want for 125% scaling. 400% is a joke. If anyone could tell me what the difference is other than making the game perform worse, that would be nice. I'm not trying to be mean at all. It's just that 400% scaling is pointless in my opinion.

[Brian Benton]

My eyesight is too good to notice the lack of anti-aliasing at 1080p at 100% scaling. For me, 400% scaling is an absolute must, because I have a fit of vomiting when I see stairs and a huge number of flickering objects on the monitor when rendering at 100%. Many will agree with me. If this were not the case, then we would not have seen hundreds of complaints about the lack of anti-aliasing in the game. I'm not arguing that 400% scaling to eliminate ladders is the greatest folly, but SCS currently doesn't provide us with any alternatives in this aspect of graphical improvements. Thank the gods that enthusiasts were able to find a way to run the game with NPI anti-aliasing. For 100% scale at 60 FPS (all Ultra), some 1050 ti is enough in this game.

Thus, 400% scaling at the moment is not a joke, but a necessity for those players who do not experience vision problems or suffer from neurological disorders. 400% scaling will become the plaything of spoiled people when SCS introduces classic MSAA or modern TAA, DLSS into the game, which will allow us to use 100% rendering with a huge increase in quality and performance compared to 400% scaling.

You must not repeat the mistakes of SCS. Every good game developer makes a note of what graphics and FPS settings correspond to the minimum and recommended computer configuration. As you can see, I pointed this out in my comment. For me, the recommended settings are a stable 60 FPS on max settings (400% zoom is not a hidden item in the console, but an option that any regular player can use in the main menu of the game). 3060 Ti has been identified through rigorous testing. This video card will have a 10-20% headroom in the most difficult scenes. The listed processors have sufficient performance per core (but still sometimes we will see drops to 50 FPS). NVME SSD will reduce card loading and freezes to a minimum. In fact, 10-12 GB of RAM is enough, but it would never occur to anyone to collect a config of RAM that will not work in dual-channel mode. 8 GB is not enough (4+4 GB). The next kit of RAM starts with 8+8 GB sticks. Therefore 16 GB.

[Calibuddy99]

Well, not everyone has the money for a 3060 ti, and, this game works fine with 8gb of ram.

[Mohegan13]

Quality is irrelevant. Minimum specs are what is needed to run the game, no-one circling the drain on requirements is going to be expecting a quality experience.

It's also worth noting that SCS actually have a system with the min specs that they test the game on.

At the end of the day if you want a quality experience in ANY game you want to make sure your system is above recommended any way.

[GinXeng]

I think that you (like SCS) took the names of components thoughtlessly and did not imply any specific graphics settings. Objectively, the recommended settings for 60 FPS at 1080p/400% Scaling/Ultra Preset/Recent DLC Territory are:

Processor: R5 5600/I5 12400
Video Card: RTX 3060 Ti
RAM: 16 GB
Storage: NVME SSD and 20 GB of free space.

As for the minimum ... I don’t know who would be interested in counting this, but any budget PC build of 2023 can provide 30 FPS at 1080p and the minimum preset.

400% scaling is basically nothing more than a performance drop. What does scaling change? It doesn't look any better when I try it, so I use the default setting of 125%. I bet that 400% scaling in 1080p basically makes the game 4k, in which is not necessary. Besides, this game is an old game. Scaling is just a way into making the game perform way worse than normal. I also didn't make it thoughtlessly. The recommended requirements I made were made based off of what you'd want for 125% scaling. 400% is a joke. If anyone could tell me what the difference is other than making the game perform worse, that would be nice. I'm not trying to be mean at all. It's just that 400% scaling is pointless in my opinion.

I play at 4K on a 55inch, 400% scaling is a must, I can tell the difference from 100 to 300 all the way to 400.

[angrybirdseller]

300% to 400% scaling at 4k there little difference to me. The lower scaling see jagged lines more, but performance is better.

[Brian Benton]

this game works fine with 8gb of ram.

If you are playing on the lowest graphics settings in the territory of the base map, then this is so. For ultra settings, this is not enough if you do not want to get friezes due to lack of RAM and active system access to ultra slow HDD or SSD. Since your recommended settings correspond to 125% scaling, I won't mention the low VRAM of 1650 when using 400% scaling.

@GinXeng Q.E.D. I also have experience using a 4k monitor in this game and 100% rendering and SMAA Ultra is objectively not enough to overcome ladders and flicker. But it's definitely better than the fake 4k when using the 1080p + 400% SSAA scheme. This is nonsense, but such is the reality in games without normal anti-aliasing ...

[VTXcnME]

I think that you (like SCS) took the names of components thoughtlessly and did not imply any specific graphics settings. Objectively, the recommended settings for 60 FPS at 1080p/400% Scaling/Ultra Preset/Recent DLC Territory are:

Processor: R5 5600/I5 12400
Video Card: RTX 3060 Ti
RAM: 16 GB
Storage: NVME SSD and 20 GB of free space.

As for the minimum ... I don’t know who would be interested in counting this, but any budget PC build of 2023 can provide 30 FPS at 1080p and the minimum preset.

400% scaling is basically nothing more than a performance drop. What does scaling change? It doesn't look any better when I try it, so I use the default setting of 125%. I bet that 400% scaling in 1080p basically makes the game 4k, in which is not necessary. Besides, this game is an old game. Scaling is just a way into making the game perform way worse than normal. I also didn't make it thoughtlessly. The recommended requirements I made were made based off of what you'd want for 125% scaling. 400% is a joke. If anyone could tell me what the difference is other than making the game perform worse, that would be nice. I'm not trying to be mean at all. It's just that 400% scaling is pointless in my opinion.

I play at 1440, and at 300% scaling there is absolutely a difference in textures vs 100% scaling. I notice a change in the quality of scenery on my rig. I see little difference going from 300 to 400, so I play at 300. But there's absolutely a difference on a rig with some VRAM and overhead space.

Ryzen 5800X CPU
RTX3080 12GB GPU
32GB DDR4 4000mhz RAM

This system was built to play MSFS2020 at higher resolutions, but it did marvelous things for ATS and the visuals at ultra settings and higher scaling levels.

I'd imagine you are correct that on a marginal system that scaling is just a resource hog