Best disk to use for new FS2020 installation

I am going to build a new Windows computer to be used mostly for FS2020 (which I haven't purchased yet). I have purchased 2 NVMe SSD drives, one 500GB and one 2TB. I was thinking I would use the 500GB as the system boot drive (C:\) and install FS2020 to the 2TB drive, so I'd have plenty of room to segregate downloads and installs of scenery, livery and other FS related items. I have some additional HDD's and SSD's (not NVMe) that I could possibly pull from an older computer.

But, in reading various posts, I believe that FS will install certain files (all files?) to the C:\users\[username]\app data directory. Is this correct? If so, is that where the FS "community" folder resides (which I understand can be large)? Would this be different if during installation, the user selects a drive other than C:\ as the installation drive for FS2020.

Just looking for some thoughts on the best way to set up and segregate directories FS uses to be away from the system OS to the maximum extent possible.

Of course, I am hoping that installing to a non-default directory would not adversely affect the ability to install future FS updates. If FS2020 and its updates can't deal well with a non-default installation location, I'd like to hear about that before I start the system build.

Thanks for any help on this.

Hi, your first idea of installing Windows on the smaller drive & MSFS on the larger one is fine. That is what I have done.

MSFS will install a small part of the sim on your C drive & it will then ask where you want the main part installing.

I chose D:/MSFS & the community folder is in there too and very easy to find.

I wouldn’t bother putting any old drives in though.

Regards

Steve

OK, thanks, Steve. I guess there's no problem with installing the bulk of FS away from the C:\ drive. Also no problem for updates?

I see from your post info that you have 64GB of RAM. So far my research has told me that 32GB is enough. But I could be persuaded. Do you have any comment on that?

And I see you have a 1000W power supply. I am trying to decide between 1000W titanium and 1300W platinum. I know the larger is probably overkill. I plan on getting a large monitor, RTX 3080 or better graphics card (if I can find one at MSRP), and flight controls from Honeycomb. The online calculators are predicting a peak power draw of 700 watts or so. I always thought it was good to almost double expected use so as not to stress the power supply components. I know peak power efficiency begins at around 50% of maximum. Do you have any thoughts on the size of power supply?

Thank you again.

You won’t have any problems with updates doing it this way. I find it works quite well. I upgraded my pc a few months back (I pretty much bought a new one) and went for 64gb but.. you’re right. 32gb would have been enough. PSU’s often get overlooked. I went for the 1000w so that I’ve got plenty of power for if/when I upgrade the GPU to a 30 series. 1300w is probably overkill.. but won’t do any harm.

As for the 3090 cards... I actually had a quick look for some the other day (after watching a YouTube video) but... there aren’t any available anywhere (at any normal price anyway) besides I can’t really afford one just yet. If I did decided to upgrade my RTX2080ti, then anything less than a 3090 wouldn’t be worth it.

As for Honeycomb... I recommend them! I don’t know the current stock levels of the yoke, but I’m guessing you might struggle to find one at the moment (just like the RTX3090)

I ordered the Honeycomb Bravo Throttle console with Amazon... last May! I’m still waiting.

I had an email last week, giving an ETA of March 1st.

I’ve had several ETA’s over the last few months (although this time it might happen)

Regards

Steve

I went for the 1000w so that I’ve got plenty of power for if/when I upgrade the GPU to a 30 series. 1300w is probably overkill.. but won’t do any harm.

Giving yourself some breathing room with a PSU is a good idea, but there is a point where too much means the PSU isn't running very efficiently. If your system is only using 500-600W under full load, for example, a 1000W PSU isn't going to be running optimally. Quality is just as important as the wattage as there are plenty of cheap 1000+ W PSUs that would happily fry your motherboard, and everything attached to it, when a good quality 800W model might be plenty.

I know peak power efficiency begins at around 50% of maximum. Do you have any thoughts on the size of power supply?

 

Thank you again.

Modern 80+ certified PSUs are 80% efficient at 20%, 50% and 100% load. So while they may be most efficient somewhere around 50%, they will still do quite well all the way up to 100% load.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus

https://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/what-is-psu-efficiency-and-why-is-it-important/

So if the PSU calculator is saying your PC will be using 700W, then you would want a PSU around 875W (700W/.80) or so. Round that up a bit and a 1000W PSU should be enough headroom. So rather than spend more on a 1300W PSU, put the extra money into a good quality model. JonnyGuru is a good place to start for PSU reviews.

https://www.jonnyguru.com/blog/category/reviews/power-supplies/

By default, yes. However you can specify where Windows installs Apps, which is what I did. There are plenty of articles on the web on how to do it, here's one...

 

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-files/windows-10-how-can-i-move-apps-to-a-new-drive/0160b136-2cf5-4022-8096-408b0e29c429

 

My main MSFS folder AND the Apps portion now reside on my D: drive

I did something similar and have the sim on my G: drive. Works well.

...I believe that FS will install certain files (all files?) to the C:\users\[username]\app data directory. Is this correct?

By default, yes. However you can specify where Windows installs Apps BEFORE installing MSFS OR you can move it. There are plenty of articles on the web on how to do it, here's one...

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-files/windows-10-how-can-i-move-apps-to-a-new-drive/0160b136-2cf5-4022-8096-408b0e29c429

My main MSFS folder AND the Apps portion now reside on my D: drive

I also have Prepar3d v5.1 which likes to put add-ons in the Documents folder. Since it can grow rather large, I also moved that to the D: drive.

With my settings, I have seen 17-18 GB of ram usage. I have been running this machine for 1.5 years now, and the PSU which is a 750 watt titanium rated unit, has never been an issue (noting my RTX 2070 is less demanding than your planned GPU), I think a 1000 watt titanium unit will be fine. I chose the Seasonic unit because it is particularly stable and electrically clean. I had used a high quality Antec 850 watt platinum in the unit before this and it was chosen on the same basis (titanium was not out at the time of that build). I listen to a lot of classical and jazz on a good sound setup, so i wanted minimal electrical noise. Both units were notable in their expected life.

I also have my W10 on a small SSD and MSFS on a M.2. It works without a hitch.

16 GB is enough for MSFS2020.

But it runs much better with 32GB doesn't it? Personally I've got 64GB but that's only because I got an unusual "deal" - but hardly ever see it above 50% useage. The rest of my kit is a bit middle of the road - when prices are no longer stupid I'll upgrade the graphics card.

There has been some discussion that lower amounts of RAM could contribute to the CTD's, but of course nothing yet proved. Considering the price of RAM compared to other components getting as much as you reasonably can is IMO a no-brainer.

I've never seem my FS memory usage above 10gb.

The operating system probably uses a few more Gbs but even with the web browser and Google Earth running I can't imagine more than 16gb being allocated.

I take it back, I just used MSI to record memory usage, with a plane in the air, and it shows 22GB used, which includes Google Earth, a browser with 13 tabs open and of course MSI.

I am going to build a new Windows computer to be used mostly for FS2020 (which I haven't purchased yet). I have purchased 2 NVMe SSD drives, one 500GB and one 2TB. I was thinking I would use the 500GB as the system boot drive (C:\) and install FS2020 to the 2TB drive, so I'd have plenty of room to segregate downloads and installs of scenery, livery and other FS related items. I have some additional HDD's and SSD's (not NVMe) that I could possibly pull from an older computer.

 

But, in reading various posts, I believe that FS will install certain files (all files?) to the C:\users\[username]\app data directory. Is this correct? If so, is that where the FS "community" folder resides (which I understand can be large)? Would this be different if during installation, the user selects a drive other than C:\ as the installation drive for FS2020.

 

Just looking for some thoughts on the best way to set up and segregate directories FS uses to be away from the system OS to the maximum extent possible.

 

Of course, I am hoping that installing to a non-default directory would not adversely affect the ability to install future FS updates. If FS2020 and its updates can't deal well with a non-default installation location, I'd like to hear about that before I start the system build.

 

Thanks for any help on this.

I also have a 500GB NVMe for Main and a 2 TB NVMe for Games & MSFS and I also added two 1 TB SSDs (internal).

All my STEAM/UBISOFT files (games and such) go to the 2TB NVMe, including MSFS and the Community folder. Every other app gets installed in one of the two 1 TB SSD. My second 1 TB SSD is my OneDrive Encrypted storage using BIT LOCKER.

My main drive still have tons of space available.

 

I see from your post info that you have 64GB of RAM. So far my research has told me that 32GB is enough. But I could be persuaded. Do you have any comment on that?

 

And I see you have a 1000W power supply. I am trying to decide between 1000W titanium and 1300W platinum. I know the larger is probably overkill. I plan on getting a large monitor, RTX 3080 or better graphics card (if I can find one at MSRP), and flight controls from Honeycomb. The online calculators are predicting a peak power draw of 700 watts or so. I always thought it was good to almost double expected use so as not to stress the power supply components. I know peak power efficiency begins at around 50% of maximum. Do you have any thoughts on the size of power supply?

 

Thank you again.

I remember people telling me that 32 GB of RAM was an overkill, but I got 64 instead....then MSFS came out recommending 32 GB.

If you can afford it, go for it, make yourself future proof, it will save you $$$ in the long run.

I am using a Corsair HX1000 watts. and I have a STRIX RTX 3090 OC, i9-9900 all cores at 5 GHZ, liquid cooling among other things and my Power Supply is working fine. The Strix RTX 3090 recommends an 850 Watts PS. Like I said, make your PC future proof, at least for a good 3 years. Get the 1300 watts if you can afford it.