Does your system have SSDs?

[NetNinja 14]

No, not an an infection :)If you run a flight sim system with Solid-State Drives (SSDs), I'm interested in your experiences:1) Did you notice great performance gain compared to HDs?2) Do you follow the standard practice of separate drives and/or partitions for OS/FS/SWAP?3) Do you bother with either 3rd party or OS scheduled defrag programs?4) Did you change customize Power Options?5) How would you rate the impact of the SSD compared to a very good Video Card upgrade?6) Would you do it again today or wait 6-12 months?7) Any other insights? ( Let's not discuss price, it's a given )ALL, Feel free to post any additional questions about FS+SSDs- ThanksYour Specs:CPU (cores/speed):Memory:SSD size(s):OS version (32/64 bit):Flight Sim version:Addon(s):My next system ( Maybe ):Intel Nehalem 4-core ( Bloomfield ) 2.93GHzNvidia 280 GTX | ATI 48706GB DDR3 1600Mhz128GB SSDVista Home Basic 64-bitGEX/UTX/REX

[1mikel151 71]

I'm interested in this as well. your future system specs are similar to what I am looking at also.I wonder if it's feasible to have harddrive tech and SSD in the same case, say the SSD drive for gaming since it's immediate data transfer and then a typical HD for data storage.I sure hope the Nehalem lives up to the hype!Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Glynn 405]

HelloIf you are running a core2 or quad then most texture loading should be happening on another core to the main FSX program ie in the background.http://www.freewebs.com/reading1871/30.jpg

[NetNinja 14]

>>I wonder if it's feasible to have harddrive tech and SSD in>the same case, say the SSD drive for gaming since it's>immediate data transfer and then a typical HD for data storage>>MichaelAgreed, should be possible & cost effective. Although I might look at External SATA or USB for 500GB & portability.>>If you are running a core2 or quad then most texture loading>should be happening on another core to the main FSX program ie>in the background.>>MaddogI'm not that versed with graphics rendering in FSX. Are you stating that texture loading will not benefit from low latency disk access?- NetNinja

[Guest UlfB]

>Hello>If you are running a core2 or quad then most texture loading>should be happening on another core to the main FSX program ie>in the background.>Hi, I don't understand the implication of this regarding the use of SSD compared to ordinary disks. Could you please elaborate upon this?Ulf B

[Guest tcable]

Here's some infoI have no direct experience with SSD's yet.However on another forum I visit, somebody borrowed an 80GB version and popped it into their PS3.They claim that performance of disk based IO was at least triple. Loading a demo went from 2 minutes to under 30 seconds.Take that for what it's worth.remember that SSD's eliminate a few things- latency: there is no longer a wait for the data to pass under the 'heads', and seek- there's no heads to move!I figure that next year SSD's will become much more mainstream, and certainly affordable for all. From there you'll see an astronomical adoption rate by the PC industry.Tim

[greggerm 312]

That being said, SSD's should theoretically improve FSX (and to a lesser degree, FS2004) flight loading times. Given the thousands of little files that FSX has between textures, terrain, and scenery definitions, rapid loading would certainly be a benefit. We'll see what happens!-Greg

[McCrash 3]

Prices are a tad high on ssd drives. But I think when the prices come down I will try one for fsx.

[SLKVP 13]

.. reading on FS12 box the requirements state "SSD drive recomended" :-roll LOL!!!Sam______________________________________Flight Simmers never get drunk........ Just get their Yaw-Damper disactivated.

[btacon 1,772]

Just curious. I've got an 8 GIG stick in my laptop bag. This afternoon I'll copy my FS Folder to the stick and run from there.Probably much more latency than a SSD, but we'll see.I'll report back to this thread with my findings.Cheers,bt