>Okay, agree. But at what scale? Milliseconds, seconds? Let's>be honest with ourselves, after installing any tools which>promises performance boosts, new smaller textures, and so on,>we all 'feel' in the beginning something like: 'Ahhh, this>runs smooth now, really fast'.>Until we are back in day by day usage and actually nothing>really changes :-)It can make a visible change, when drives get fragmented. Sim load times can definitely increase. When you start installing gigs and gigs of addons, fragmentation can hurt you. You can run a defrag overnight while you sleep, so why wouldn't you? A defrag is never going to hurt your performance. At worst, it simply makes little difference. Running a defrag before installing fs2004 can have an impact as well. >Yes, but this is something completely different than>defragmentation, isn't it...>I never said it was? I offered it as an alternative. I don't get your point???

Or not at all sometimes, unless I pause the sim for an hour.I recently defragged my FS drive (a partition) with Auslogics free disk defragmenter and now textures are very very slow to load, much worse than before. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can fix this?Thanks,Jeff

Well.... i have had the same thing and i use ( or used to ) use the Auslogics defragmenter , i thought it was just my PC , i now use IOBITs Smart defrag ( its a free defragger ) as i brought their windows care program .. and its a lot better now , i use the DEFRAG and OPTIMIZE option . Rich

Or not at all sometimes, unless I pause the sim for an hour.I recently defragged my FS drive (a partition) with Auslogics free disk defragmenter and now textures are very very slow to load, much worse than before. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can fix this?Thanks,Jeff

If you defragged with a complex defragger and then did a simple defrag could this be the problem...probably. If you optimize something for a name method with a complex defragger, and then later on defrag for consolidation of free space, etc, with a simple defragger, you will end up with a hybrid defrag and that can't be optimal. I would not recommend jumping between defraggers and defrag methods. Pick ONE defragger, and stick with it. As far as defragging and performance? Yeah, if your hard drive was poorly maintained and you give it a once over with a defragger, you will be amazed at how well your system runs. Well, guess what, your amazement is at how your system was supposed to run in the first place! You can't get any faster than the way your hard drive was before it got defragmented in the first place. Defragmented means defragmented just like say, 150 mph is 150 mph. While it is quite possible to claim that your 150mph feels faster than my 150mph, in the end, most sane people know that is not the case no matter how convincing the argument.Albeit, I'll concede that tests have shown that in some instances one defragger has been able to squeeze a few milliseconds of seek time over another. Now, if one is able to temporally perceive millisecond timeslices, I would assume that one can also see light quanta and is beyond the need for a something as mundane as MSFS since that person should also be able to travel in inter-dimensional space-time and playing with MSFS would seem quite silly to such a being. :( Regards,Mike T.