New Build

Hey all,

Sorry, I've searched and researched until I'm blue in the face and am still unsure of the correct way to go. I'm building a new system soon which will contain a 250GB SSD and a 1TB WD Black HD. Simple question.... should OS AND FSX be placed on the same drive? Running W7 64-bit BTW... Thanks in advance..

I've run it both ways. My experience has shown that having FSX on the SSD will give about a 30% improvement in initial loading times and there is absolutely no noticeable in-game performance difference between the SSD and the HDD. Nice choice on the HDD.....

Doug

Yes, the loading times will definitely be faster with the SSD. But, again, no real performance gain. One other thought, many OS installations with all the application stuff are 100+ GB. And it's really easy to go 150+ GB with a lot of FSX scenery installed. Something to think about with a 250GB SSD. (I'd put FSX on the HDD or go to 500GB on the SSD).

Doug

Yes, the loading times will definitely be faster with the SSD. But, again, no real performance gain. One other thought, many OS installations with all the application stuff are 100+ GB. And it's really easy to go 150+ GB with a lot of FSX scenery installed. Something to think about with a 250GB SSD. (I'd put FSX on the HDD or go to 500GB on the SSD).

 

Doug

Better yet, consider how much we do load up on FSX. Scenery, PMDG planes, etc. Spend $250-$350 and buy a 1T SSD, load all your FSX & related stuff there and put the matter to rest!

After already spending so much for your system, what is another $300+/-? If you're really concerned about FSX response and load time, why short change what actually makes the system load best on FSX?

BTW: I hope you're going for a i5 or i7 chip that runs over 4GHZ! No other brand of chip seems to work as well with FSX. I'd also go for the 2400 DDR4 or so ram as well. You only can access 8GB of ram. But the faster the better! ;)

Just to clarify..the amount of RAM Windows 7 64-bit can utilize depends on the edition:

•Home Basic: 8GB

•Home Premium: 16GB

•Professional: 192GB

•Enterprise: 192GB

•Ultimate: 192GB

Doug

Can't really compare well. I just bought my SSD a few months back and had it set up one way only.

Before that I had a 1TB caviar black, one disk system, with C:\Win, and partition E:\ contained FSX. A lot of ratteling from the drive all the time, louder then the engines sometimes. And long loading times, even though I had few addons.

I now have a 256Gb SSD (C:\) and the caviar (D:\ and E:\)

For backup purposes I decided to put both Windows and FSX on the SSD.

That way I can make a system image of C:\ every two weeks and have everything safe.

If anything happens, unbootable windows, virus, or fsx messed up, it will be simple to fix.

I can just restore the system image, and I have the system (Win, progs, fsx) back that I had max 2 weeks ago.

---Any programs I installed after I made the image will be gone of course, as will the last fsx changes. They will need to be re-done one by one.

(But isn't that the whole reason for doing this.... indeed.)

My personal files, documents, pictures, downloaded stuff (.zips etc), fsx files I created, etc, etc are all on D:\ and E:\

They will not be affected by restoring the system image of only C:\

Another reason to install on the SSD, noise.

The system is whisper quiet. All I hear is the fans running.

If you do SSD---Win and HDD--FSX You will hear a lot more harddisk ratteling.

About disk size. My SSD is 256Gb (238 in windows)

I do have a lot of software. FSX (30GB) Open Office, Antivirus, Antispyware, the FSX-SDK, The Windows SDK, Several IDE's, such as SharpDevelop and Visual Studio 2008 , About 20-30 Freeware programs for FSX, DVD writer software, Sandisk Dashboard, Evga precision, Ultradefrag, Speccy, WD Disk Software, Notepad+, and a few more.

I had most of those programs before I migrated the system to the new Disk.

119Gb Available of 238Gb total now.

So it's just about the right size for my needs.

(But I would have liked to get a 512 Gb model instead.)

One Addon i got reently was "FreeMeshX" ...checking... this is 47.8 Gb

Clearly to much to put on the SSD.

-But, this is scenery. (Mesh actually) And scenery can simply be placed in any location, and then added to the scenery library. It does not need to be in

"..\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Addon Scenery\"

I placed FreeMeshX in E:\Extra Addon Scenery\, on the HDD.

When planning, imagine yourself at the PC and imagine how you want to use it. Imagine clicking on things and putting things in folders. And take in account your backup-system.

That will make it easyer to plan for what you will need room for later.

Also, there is a thread running now that has info on using symlinks. Have a brief look there.

Symlinks can be usefull if you discover at some point that you didn't plan for enough room after all.

il88pp

Better yet, consider how much we do load up on FSX. Scenery, PMDG planes, etc. Spend $250-$350 and buy a 1T SSD, load all your FSX & related stuff there and put the matter to rest!

After already spending so much for your system, what is another $300+/-? If you're really concerned about FSX response and load time, why short change what actually makes the system load best on FSX?

BTW: I hope you're going for a i5 or i7 chip that runs over 4GHZ! No other brand of chip seems to work as well with FSX. I'd also go for the 2400 DDR4 or so ram as well. You only can access 8GB of ram. But the faster the better! ;)

As a matter of fact going for the I4790K and the 2400 RAM...:)

BTW: I hope you're going for a i5 or i7 chip that runs over 4GHZ! No other brand of chip seems to work as well with FSX. I'd also go for the 2400 DDR4 or so ram as well. You only can access 8GB of ram. But the faster the better! ;)

I have to respectfully disagree with that comment on both statements. First DDR4 2400 will yield no great performance gain in FSX whatsoever over DDR3 1600. Having built a number of custom dedicated FSX systems for paying customers both using Intel and AMD CPUs the statement that Intel CPUs are the only CPU that works or gives performance in FSX is just plain wrong. You will notice my personal dedicated FSX system uses a AMD CPU. Why because at present that CPU out performs all others in FSX at the moment.

I run ORBX sceneries, AI traffic, FSrealWX, REX, Majestic Q400, PMDGs 737. I get 35-40fps on the ground at JFK and LAX with everything turn up to the highest settings.

Each system build is as individual as each owner is, so system requirements differ. But to give advice that you should dismiss a complete range of CPUs because you think one brand works better in FSX than another with no real experience in that being the case is irresponsible at best when clearly it is not.