Dario,What's that going to prove? Is it going to help me find out how SSD drives improve performance over velociraptors?Let's stay on track, please.

I just want to have a reference to compare my system with possibly the best you could build nowadays in general, that's all. I'm a flightsim junkie not a hardware expert nor trying to start anything. just asking

Dario,What's that going to prove? Is it going to help me find out how SSD drives improve performance over velociraptors?Let's stay on track, please.

FPS is not the only performance monitor. You can have fps in the 60s with stutters. The important factor is overall performance and smooth simulation.I don't even own Aerosoft's EGLL, but based on the performance I'm getting in NYC with Imagesim's KLGA, Manhattan X, and FSDreamteam KJFK, fps in the high 20's & 30's in poor weather and very dense AG, plus smooth. Settings 8sQ, 16Anis, High Quality texture. FSX sliders mainly to the right except cars, light bloom off, etc. I can predict smooth 30s in EGLL. I will eventually buy the add-on airport and I will be happy to post some pics.Let me assure you that with today's technology (i7 980x OC, HQ ram, SSD drives, and the gtx 480) FSX should perform well with most payware add-ons.

Maybe if you had mentioned that you were using a controller card in the first place, we could have avoided that arguement. But I forgot many of us don't read the postin instructions stating that if you are looking for support, you should provide all elements relating to youur topic. Now if I was going to post this topic, in my very first post I would have said I was using a controller card, or if not then, after that first reply.

I'll ask again:If you updated from the velociraptor and are currently using an SSD drive, single or RAID0, please share your findings.Is the added cost really worth it? My goal is texture loading (AG pop reduction etc.) So far my system is about 95% complete.Thanks.JoseHere's a London X pic:

I'll ask again:If you updated from the velociraptor and are currently using an SSD drive, single or RAID0, please share your findings.

I went from a 160 GB "FSX Dedicated" VRap to a 160 GB SSD which I used for both the OS AND FSX, defying my own advice to keep FSX and the OS separate.So you know, I very rarely if ever benchmark. I find it a waste of my time... I go by what I perceive has changed. If I can't perceive a change, then I wasted my money. I did not waste my money on an SSD, but not for the reasons you might think...Results:FSX boots to flight selection screens far faster. MUCH faster. HELLA fast. 50%+ faster, in my estimation. qquuiicckk. Upon flight selection, FSX will load the flight/scenery far faster as well, again in the 50-60%+ range. While IN-FLIGHT, there is very little perceived difference. I expected this, as improving hard drive speeds will really only help out in loading situations... my system did not have any in-flight stutters before or after the SSD update. Once I am flying, there is very little observable difference. Where I'm getting my money's worth out of the SSD is in the day-to-day increases in speed from my OS and other apps... With it's damn-near instant seek rates, the SSD gets programs up and running ultrafast. Likewise, with it's damn-near instant seek rates, having FSX on the same drive as the OS is not nearly the problem it used to be... with the exception of not having very much free space anymore. The SSD will boot Win7 quite rapidly as well. FSX + other apps running does not tax the SSD at all, and the quickness remains without impacting either FSX or the other apps I might be opening. Future plans:My plan for the coming weeks will actually be to pull FSX back to it's own dedicated, traditional hard drive, and keep my OS and apps on the SSD. FSX needs more space than the SSD can provide, and considering the only observed improvements are loading times, I don't mind if I need to look at the progress bar a few more seconds. For all intents and purposes, the sim performs the same once I get flying. Conclusions:SSD's are a marked improvement for loading up whatever application you throw at it, FSX included. Unfortunately, FSX is not a hard-drive performance oriented program... the benefits are really limited to loading times. Depending on your personal priorities, dedicating a SSD to FSX may not be the greatest cost/benefit update one could do for the simulator. Rumor has it that SSD's have helped people with microstutter and texture loading issues, but I was never plagued with them in the first place and cannot comment on +/- of that. SSD's do have a HUGE impact on your day-to-day computer use, if being used as the OS/Application drive. For even the most hard-core of simmers (*like myself), SSD's will probably give you the most bang for the buck as your OS/App drive. Don't get it for the sim, get it for your computer as a whole. As far as RAID'ing SSD drives... do you really need to load FSX that fast? Is the GB per $$ spent worth it for quicker load times? Hope this helps in your quest for information...-Greg

Greg,Thank you for all the helpful info. I'm considering one for the OS and one SSD for FSX. There are motherboards with 6gb sata and that should will help too.

I just migrated my Win 7 and FSX to a Crucial c300 128 gig SSD. Compared to the Western Digital black 1 terabyte the loading times are faster, but I still have stuff popping up... Especially the Fs dreamteam Geneva scenery... I thought I would have had that erradicated :(I'll open up a thread about this I'm still tweaking things a bit ;)I'm hesitating on doing a full reinstall of OS and FSX but with all the addons I have I'm still hesitating and not sure if it will change anything... Cheers,Thomas

Hola Jose,I have a 3ware 9650SE (4 port). I was running 4 WD1600YS drives (plain jane 160GB) and was happy with the performance. That is to say, there was a noticeable improvement in load times for FSX and Missions etc.One problem I had was the NYC area. I would test by departing KJFK RWY 31L, turn N over Ellis Island and Fly north over the Hudson River. As I approached the North End of Central Park, frame rates would go into the single digits (after having been mid-teens). I could minimize FSX, then maximize again and be back into the mid-teens fps, but no matter what "tweak" I did, always that problem would occur.I recently swapped out those WD drives for 4 Intel X25-V (Value SSD)... built again a RAID0 Array (according to NickN's advice for standard drives).From Starting FSX to Load Screen, I just checked, is 23 Seconds... 10 seconds if I have closed FSX w/o rebooting (which I like to do to "reset" things between flights).Loading the "Africa Relief Mission" took 21 Seconds, thenLoading the "Carrier Landing IMC" took 9 SecondsThe "Central Park Problem" has completely disappeared, and fps in mid to upper teen in there.Obviously, for my system, there were instances were the first RAID0 Array (non-SSD) was the bottleneck.Are Frame Rates faster overall? I "feel" like it is... ( :( who does not want to feel that way). But I also use FSXMark07 (by Gary Dunne / RESET MCP ALT on AVSIM) to substantiate this "feeling"... max, min and avg. fps went up by 3 fps.

Is the added cost really worth it? My goal is texture loading (AG pop reduction etc.)

I'm considering one for the OS and one SSD for FSX. There are motherboards with 6gb sata and that should will help too.

Wow... that is a question only you can answer. If you are the kind of person that would spend top dollar for top tier components..I would say it's worth consideration. That said, it would be nice if I could compare that Array to a single 100GB OCZ Vertex2 Pro, as it would be a cheaper solution, and it might be "enough". I am considering a new build, and I myself am torn as to build a bigger Array :( or do the "1 & 1" as you are considering. From what I have read so far, I am not convinced 6GB Sata is necessary. Would be nice if these reviewers would use FSX as part of the benchmarking suite. I had high hopes several years ago the kids at MaximumPC would do this, as they mentioned how FSX brought their systems to its knees (gr).At any rate... Load times of FSX/Missions/Freeflight are great. Plus, it seems, I may have gained a couple fps. I really enjoy the fast load times as my typical use pattern is to play a mission then close/open FSX... do some short free flight (close/open FSX)... I no longer have time to go the kitchen and make a sandwich while FSX loads. :(