FSX - Install to C: or D: Drive ?

[Toys_R_Us 0]

I'm finally ready to take the FSX plunge with a brand new machine containing a E8500 chip. It's up, running, and ready to go. This machine will be dedicated to FSX for the most part.I partitioned the 500 gig drive to C: drive at 250 gigs, leaving about 230 gigs, set up as the D: drive.My question is... Is there any reason to not install FSX to the D: drive and have that drive totally dedicated to FSX ? It sure would make for a nice clean and easy defrag.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)Asus P5N-DIntel E85004 Gigs Corsair DDR2 XMS2 6400/800Nvidia 8800 GT/512Windows XP Home SP2

[greggerm 312]

The only reason would be if you were looking to eek out the absolute 100% most speed from the system... as it relates to FSX/FS2004 LOADING TIMES ONLY. Placing the sim on the C: drive will place it closer to the outer edge of the drive, which is faster. This will lead to fractionally faster flight loading times... and have zero bearing on in-flight performance. I would actually not recommend this in your situation, just because. Placing the sim on the D: drive will keep it nice and segregated. Along with a decent defrag tool, you can keep the D: drive nice and orderly and clean... all sim, all the time. Loading times will be *ever so slightly* impacted, but probably not even enough to make you notice it. (FSX as you know takes longer to load than FS2004 no matter what). Again, no in-game performance differences.So which sounds better to you? Fractionally faster loading times, or exceptionally organized flight sim location? Put 'er out on the D: drive - no real debate needed! :)-Greg(Sidenote: I run FSX on a dedicated 250GB drive, and it has more than enough storage space to handle things)

[Guest D17S]

On the other hand, why complicate the issue for no benefit? There is no organizational benefit for a D drive install. A defrag "clean-up" will clean-up it up, whatever "it" is. Single or partitioned is not a factor. With a C install, a modern defragger will also be able to position a FS directory to the outer edge in the process. Even the most modern defragers cannot move a D drive directory to the outer edge of the drive (where max performance is available). It it's on a partition, the defragger can't do dat. So, the organizational benefit is nil, an unnecessary complication is created and the performance benefit is "at least a bit." Don't partition the drive at all. Just let FS install to its default directory and degrag with a modern tool.

[Toys_R_Us 0]

Thanks all for the replys.But I guess my logic gets to be... If I install FSX to the D: drive, wouldn't there be significantly less chance of any drive fragmentation in the first place, and after only a very long period of time. Wouldn't this essentially take the pressure off of having to defrag all the time, or even at all once you reach a point of your own level of add-on saturation ?Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

[Guest D17S]

Modern defraggers allow the option to be the default defrag program. The C drive has to be done anyway. Schedule a once a week run and that's done. I use Ultimate. If I haven't added anything, it's done in 5 minuites. Looks like everything stayed put, even on a Very actively used C. For instance I loaded Crysis. It didn't touch my hi performance FS file placement. And (BTW) load times are noticeably improved with a C drive install. If you fly a lot, that will be noticed, and appreciated. I really don't see the point of the added complication, other than being clever to speak of.

[greggerm 312]

With vigilance, the C: drive install can perform quite nicely - however, partitioning a drive and installing MSFS to the separate logical drive is really not a very complicated action.In fact, depending on your definition of complicated, it might actually be LESS complicated to install to a separate drive (logical or physical) simply because you know all your flightsim stuff will be in this one bucket. Bob, you are correct that a separate drive install will not fragment anywhere near as much as a commingled drive, however Sam is also correct in stating that many modern defrag tools are quite capable of keeping things separate and clean. I guess in the end, it comes down to personal preferences - I don't think there is enough of a performance difference to compel you to go with the all-on-C: install, but the sim-on-D: approach does involve a little bit of work to kick off. There are some fringe benefits to the sim-on-D: method if you are a tinkerer or frequent reinstaller of OS's, but that gets into more complicated subjects. Good luck on your choice!-Greg