For you all who have not yet decided on the ultimate "extra" personalChristmas purchase - consider a dedicated Flightsim SSD.Prices are coming down (now under $100 for 64GB), and they work remarkably well for FSX.Check the Hardware forum for SSD topics..

I found the sad fact that those SSDs is that they don't unlock any fps limitations but just load things faster. In theory, blurry stuff could disappear then, but practically no progress is done since FSX seems to run some internal (and therefor CPU intensive) things which mainly cause blurry textures (if they appear, they shouldn't though, SSD or not).I had two 120 gigabyte SSDs and saw no gain at all on the mentioned aspects while the loading times (which never annoyed me) were shortened by a big margin. As this was the only advantage over a current 2tb drive with "old" mechanics in it, I gave them away and returned to the bigger drive while really saving some money and gaining room on the disc.Also, even those 2x 120gb are easy to fill with FSX, while I think he really laughs about 64gb if somebody has a not empty hangar and some nice scenery packages. Install the Lancair and 1.5 or so are gone for just one plane (a really good one by the way). So while I really applaud to SSDs as a system drive for your Windows and some often used apps, FSX looks like the currently most expensive and less useful way to fill it in my eyes. A too big app with no performance gain (except for loading times).Get one 64gb drive for your OS and leave FSX at the bigger mechanical one to really gain some system (Windows) performance and don't lose or gain anything on your FSX experience. If you are full of money, go for SSDs all the way, no question. but don't expect any more fps or lesser blurry stuff there.Fps come out of strong CPUs in FSX, so Christmas time might also be theirs.

I found the sad fact that those SSDs is that they don't unlock any fps limitations but just load things faster. In theory, blurry stuff could disappear then, but practically no progress is done since FSX seems to run some internal (and therefor CPU intensive) things which mainly cause blurry textures (if they appear, they shouldn't though, SSD or not)....If you are full of money, go for SSDs all the way, no question. but don't expect any more fps or lesser blurry stuff there.Fps come out of strong CPUs in FSX, so Christmas time might also be theirs.

I would say:Priority 1: Fast CPUPriority 2: Fast Motherboard, memory and video cardPriority 3: Well tuned systemThen and only then... an SSD might just give you very smooth texture loading in flight - it did for me

Agreed. And Christmas should come more often. But how do you get along with 64gb for FSX? I think the UK alone will fill that twice or so if you go for VFR scenery.

I'm waiting for an affordable 250-500gb ssd before I dive in. They're just too small right now.

Agreed. And Christmas should come more often. But how do you get along with 64gb for FSX? I think the UK alone will fill that twice or so if you go for VFR scenery.

My FSX drive is currently 42GB... A dozen favorite planes and Orbx PNW and RMN scenery, along withFSAddons Vancouver+ and Victoria+.. My Raptor is a 70GB model, so the transition was pretty smooth..But, you can always install really big scenery packages on an additional drive..

The big plus for SSDs is the freedom from defrag chores forever. That is flying time back in the pocket.

I couldn't disagree more with some of the observations.I've noticed that most people who buy an SSD don't even know how to set it up correctly.Some have bought an SSD and just copied FSX to to new drive and assigned drive letter. Presto! Easy installation, right? WRONG! Why? IDE is slower that AHCI.Then most wonder why they experience only a slight improvement in performance. With my properly set up SSDs I experience faster loading times, sharp textures, less pop ups, less stutters, and smoother simulation. Every software I use runs much better.I highly recommend 2 SSDs (one for the OS & one for FSX.) The faster, the better.

I couldn't disagree more with some of the observations.I've noticed that most people who buy an SSD don't even know how to set it up correctly.Some have bought an SSD and just copied FSX to to new drive and assigned drive letter. Presto! Easy installation, right? WRONG! Why? IDE is slower that AHCI.Then most wonder why they experience only a slight improvement in performance. With my properly set up SSDs I experience faster loading times, sharp textures, less pop ups, less stutters, and smoother simulation. Every software I use runs much better.I highly recommend 2 SSDs (one for the OS & one for FSX.) The faster, the better.

I could not agree more with Jose. Having SSDs working together in this system has brought a level of FSX fidelity like nothing else could. In order to benefit greatly however, solid state drives must be working with an equally proficient CPU, fast RAM and a compatible GPU, otherwise performance drops to the lowest common denominator. If there is a weak point in any of those critical components, the performance will drop accross the board to match it. There is absolutely no exception to this rule in any computer, at any time.Kind regards,

As said, the big price option always will be a SSD based one. No doubt there. What people should reconsider then are the costs in relationship to the actual gain. Apart from faster loading times I couldn't make out any. I had a fresh system on a SSD for the OS and those two mentioned ones with fresh FSX, supplemented with my favorite addons, mostly the denser ones as I wanted to test this new rig. Fps were the same as before and I never had blurry textures on the old drives, same as with the SSDs. But I've paid large amounts of money for lesser disc space.If the only gain (in optics, not fps) can be experienced if you pan around in unusual ways and therefor a somehow benchmark manner, I come to the conclusion that the performance bottleneck of FSX still is and remains the CPU, which can't be fast enough. If you don't see any gains on the normal usage, don't try to find them to get a better picture. Just accept that theory and practice don't always join in.The defragmentation point surely is a good one but I never was a big defrag fan and I can't follow the big need for it. Of course, if the drives jump around too much, they get some treatment. Takes quite some time though, but let it run when you are at work and receive a fresh system.I really recommend SSDs for the OS but FSX doesn't care about your fast or very, very fast HDD in case of the actual performance. So I once again don't join the hardware race until it proves large gains at affordable costs. A well tuned CPU at nice clocks always is a "first" on FSX systems. Nothing has changed there and SSDs won't kick you to heaven if you already run a fast processor.Just let the prices of SSDs drop and the discussion is obsolete though.Bert, you seem to have a lean installation when compared to others. No bad thing in it of course. I wouldn't want to miss some freeware (Spain, Netherlands) or the UK payware though and these things alone fill up large rooms.I think if FSX was smaller on my side, a SSD would very much be an option again.As said, I gave those two 120gb models away after seeing that the only thing they gave me was a lack of that room. Loading times were really nice but not that important for me. The costs were huge when compared to really big old style devices.I already have all PCs around here runinng on SSDs, for the OS. That's an improvement of quite some margin of course.But, Bert, that was a trap of yours. We've posted in the wrong section all the time, David will kill us. Shame on you. Just kidding though, don't get me wrong.

Anyone thinking an SSD is going to give them an FPS improvement doesn't understand how game engines work... What you're doing is giving yourself much faster load times, faster texture streaming while in the sim (which can reduce blurries and "pop in") and massively improving the overall responsiveness of the system while using Windows etc. No one has ever claimed there would be an FPS improvement from them - games run in RAM and your framerate is going to be nearly totally dependent on your CPU and to a lesser extent GPU power.

But, Bert, that was a trap of yours. We've posted in the wrong section all the time, David will kill us. Shame on you. Just kidding though, don't get me wrong.

Shh! :Secret: I'm moving this thread before he sees it!:--))

You are right, no one should expect or assume this but "much smoother now" seems to inspire some wishes on those devices and this statement is quite common on new hardware of any kind around forums, especially those flight sim biased ones.If the loading times are a problem, SSDs can help people. But even the "sharper textures and lesser blurry ones" don't got influenced on my system so I underline any statement on SSDs being nice but not necessary for FSX drives as they don't improve performance on the vital elements there. OS used ones greatly profit from this new architecture though.Until these nice and quiet drives get cheaper, the pure FSX usage is a waste of money there, fully agreed.

I'm moving this thread

Fully understood, David. Sorry for going the wrong way there.I realized it too late.

Anyone thinking an SSD is going to give them an FPS improvement doesn't understand how game engines work... What you're doing is giving yourself much faster load times, faster texture streaming while in the sim (which can reduce blurries and "pop in") and massively improving the overall responsiveness of the system while using Windows etc. No one has ever claimed there would be an FPS improvement from them - games run in RAM and your framerate is going to be nearly totally dependent on your CPU and to a lesser extent GPU power.

Yes and no, with SSD and a fast CPU and FSB you will see a slight increase in FPS because the CPU doesn't have to wait as long for textures to load and hence can get back to the job or processing the display frame. It will also eliminate the "stutters" -- so it will make 20 fps "seem" that much smoother. SSD are definitely a BIG boost for FSX, they reduce a serious bottleneck. But this bottleneck really only exists because FSX is not a 64bit thread and can't pre-load enough scenery tiles into RAM (2GB limit of 32bit threads). IF FSX were a 64bit executable, it certainly could pre-load a lot more scenery into RAM. RAM access is even faster than SSD. But FSX isn't a 64bit thread, so SSD is really our only option at this point.Agree 100%, the way FSX is code it is very CPU intensive, just about any current medium to low budget GPU can handle whatever FSX tosses at it, but get the fastest CPU and RAM you can possibly find. Unfortunately we still don't have a CPU that can handle FSX -- Intel/AMD keep pushing more cores, not higher clock speeds. And 6 cores really doesn't do much to help out FSX ... if you look at the latest Intel CPU reviews with FSX most show very little improvement in avg FPS (2-3 fps best case). If FS 11 ever comes back to life (we can dream can't we) it pretty much has to be a 64bit executable for a 64bit OS, if not, then whomever is coding a 32bit product will be limited by the same restrictions as FSX. I personally would like to see Intel stop the Multicore madness and offer a CPU with just 2 cores but clocked at 5 Ghz with an FSB around 2000 Mhz. Keep their existing 6 core and soon to be 8 core lines, but offer an "extreme gamer" CPU that is just 2 cores running at 5Ghz. There is no technical reason this can't be done on today's die sizes ... the power consumption and heat of just 2 cores at 5Ghz is less than 6 cores at 3 Ghz ... sooo, come on Intel, step up to the plate. All these cores just isn't doing the consumer any good other than 80% of them sit idle.Rob

Rob,If you're looking for the magic number 5ghz, you might get there with the next cpu release.I agree, the CPU is still our bottleneck. But we've come along way with SSD and the gtx 580 video card.