With three disks that have identical performance it makes no sense to move folder scenery from within FSX folder structure, especially so if you're not experienced with this. Configuration with three identical disks is different situation from the one that OmniAtlas has, where he has one small but significantly faster disk and he was wondering, which files from within FSX folder he should move to his fastest but smallest disk.Do not move any sub-folders of FSX if you're not sure what you're doing, you can cause re-instal of everything! In my previous post I was referring to scenery as various addons - additional high quality airports, whole countries or big areas covered with photo-real tiles and so on. This additional sceneries tend to be big in size and it makes sense to put them on the first (fastest) partition of the third disk if first partitions of first and second disk contain the operating system and FSX.

Oki doki, Thanks!

Your best option Johhny is to get a terabyte drive and put all your FSx stuff on it. Although in practice it's not that big of a deal, if you have the FSX files spread over several drives you will increase your access time. Understand we're talking micro or nanoseconds here but it does increase. And for reasons posted elsewhere stay away from RAID *UNLESS* you use a dedicated controller card. Software RAID has no effect on FSX performance and in most cases affects it negatively.Vic

Your best option Johhny is to get a terabyte drive and put all your FSx stuff on it. Although in practice it's not that big of a deal, if you have the FSX files spread over several drives you will increase your access time. Understand we're talking micro or nanoseconds here but it does increase. And for reasons posted elsewhere stay away from RAID *UNLESS* you use a dedicated controller card. Software RAID has no effect on FSX performance and in most cases affects it negatively.Vic

Sorry, but I simply can't agree with anything of this. Theoretically and also in practice first of your statements make no sense. First reasonably small partition of physical hard drive will always be faster than the rest - it's pure geometry.So it does matter where files are positioned on a disk. I'm using RAID0 on motherboards based controllers for years and RAID0 has almost double speed compared to a single disk - measured with any disk speed software and timing loading time of FS X. So far I never lost a single bit of data from those RAID setups. Real reason for problems with RAID setups is almost always in PSU - people simply forget the fact that adding more and more hardware requires more power.Only thing I agree with you is that it makes no sense scattering the FSX files on other disks if you only have disks with same data output rate.

Part one - one a single drive I agree but on two DIFFERENT drives, there is a lag in access - miniscule true but a lag none the less.as far as RAID - check this - http://forum.avsim.n...or-not-to-raid/for starters.This applies ONLY to FSX. If you are seeing doubled speed with FSX I would suspect your testing. It is NOT possible with software RAID. This is due to the way FSX access files and the file size and stripe limitations with software RAID.. This does NOT apply to general use, in that case, the benefits of RAID are well documented. FSX performance is not helped and could be reduced. I said nothing about lost files.The thread I referenced is a good start, further searching will provide further info as it relates to FSX only.Vic

My family is pretty big and all of my kids want to play, so we happen to have 4 PC's that are capable of running FSX more or less decently. And if I start FSX on any of the 3 that don't have RAID simultaneously with the one that does have it, I'm finding myself in simulation almost 10 seconds earlier on the RAID computer and I don't have any stutters even in densest scenery areas, which is not the case on machines without RAID. All 4 of PC's I'm talking about otherwise have GPU's and CPU's that are not identical, but not so far apart to make them incomparable, so what I'm stating here is not theoretical expectation, but practical, measurable and with human feelings noticeable difference in performance .

I used the mklink command to symbolically link my files. http://forum.avsim.net/tutorials/article/8-moving-fsx-over-to-an-ssd/

My family is pretty big and all of my kids want to play, so we happen to have 4 PC's that are capable of running FSX more or less decently. And if I start FSX on any of the 3 that don't have RAID simultaneously with the one that does have it, I'm finding myself in simulation almost 10 seconds earlier on the RAID computer and I don't have any stutters even in densest scenery areas, which is not the case on machines without RAID. All 4 of PC's I'm talking about otherwise have GPU's and CPU's that are not identical, but not so far apart to make them incomparable, so what I'm stating here is not theoretical expectation, but practical, measurable and with human feelings noticeable difference in performance .

If you think it's better, then go for it. However, I restate that I think your tyesting is suspect. There is NO WAY you have 4 IDENTICAL configurations on those systems. That alone makes your results useless as a test. All you've shown is that "your" system runs FSX better than your others and that your system has RAID. It does NOT show that any difference is caused by the RAID.Vic

Hi guys, thank you all for you help answering and explaining this stuff.-- HI Vic, thank you for your great assistance, as well. I have been doing some research on SSD, and what I've learned so far from different sites is that SSD has a huge difference from non SSD. Example: A WD 300GB running at 15,000rpm has an access time-read/write of 400 IPOS; where as a SSD has an access time of 16,000 IOPS...Huge huge difference.So, this is what I am thinking of doing, and anyone feel free to add, correct, etc. etc. as you wish to this: -- I am thinking about getting a SSD of 300-400 GB. I currently have 2 WD 320GB 15,000RPM Drives. One drive I has installed W-7 and all other software (Photoshop, MS Office, etc. etc), and the second drive only has everything that has to do with FSX and add-ons. -- So, I am planning on using only one WD 320GB 15,000rpm for the OS and other software, and getting the SDD drive and use it as the All-in-one FSX Drive....What do you guys think ? Will this be a good idea? ...To speed-up FSX load times, and better performance in general?Thanks,Johnny

You should get a noticeable increase in load time and a smaller but definite increase in performance especially related to stutters. Most of the reports that I have read related to performance indicate no big FPS change but positive effect on stutters. Be aware that to get the BEST out of the SSD, NickN recommends a clean install of W-7 with the proper AHCI settings for the drive. Not that it won't work just adding it to the system but that if you are gpoing to spend the $$ on an SSD, might as well get the best out of it. Actually that is the main reason I've stayed with my WD Vraptors. Next time I do a complete build I'll go SSD.Vic

You should get a noticeable increase in load time and a smaller but definite increase in performance especially related to stutters. Most of the reports that I have read related to performance indicate no big FPS change but positive effect on stutters. Be aware that to get the BEST out of the SSD, NickN recommends a clean install of W-7 with the proper AHCI settings for the drive. Not that it won't work just adding it to the system but that if you are gpoing to spend the $$ on an SSD, might as well get the best out of it. Actually that is the main reason I've stayed with my WD Vraptors. Next time I do a complete build I'll go SSD.Vic

Hi Vic, yeah I'm thinking of holding-off untill Ivy-Bridge comes out...I'm not sure if it will be a different socket from current I- 7 2700k. If it does will need to change Motherboard, Ram, and so on...and with getting 2 SSD, ouch that's going to be expeeensivee. Will Ivy-Bridge be a significant improvement for FSX ?

Wait for Ivy Bridge and pair it with a Nvidia Kepler video card in June or JulyYou will get far more for your money.Any improvement in CPU performance will result in increased performance in FSX with a properly configured system.

If you are going to move scenery:Remove the scenery in the FS Scenery Library. FS will rebuild it's databases.Move the scenery folders to the new drive.Add the scenery back into the FS Scenery Library. FS will rebuild it's databases.

I would create a file structure on the SSD that is similar to the file structure for your FSX drive. For example, these are the paths to a few of my scenery entries:Local=D:Program Files (x86)Microsoft GamesMicrosoft Flight Simulator XAddon SceneryRT_AIRPORTSKYNGLocal=D:Program Files (x86)Microsoft GamesMicrosoft Flight Simulator XSimMarketMMMX v2Local=D:Program Files (x86)Microsoft GamesMicrosoft Flight Simulator XTropicalSimMDPCXCreate a folder structure that is the same as the one within FSX on the SSD so that the paths are exactly the same but with different drive letters. Back up your current scenery.cfg. Open your scenery.cfg and do a find and replace for the drive letters. In my case, I would find "=D:" and replace it with "=(new letter):"Some installers don't use the drive letter when making cfg entries so those would have to be cleaned up but I think this would be faster than adding them to the scenery library within FSX.

Wait for Ivy Bridge and pair it with a Nvidia Kepler video card in June or JulyYou will get far more for your money.Any improvement in CPU performance will result in increased performance in FSX with a properly configured system.

My only concern now is with the new Nvidia Kepler...LOOK at the price on those buggers! $999.00 Hum, that seems way over-board isn't it. Of what I understand the GPU is not the determining factor for better fps (or FSX smoothness), but the CPU. Currently, I have a Nvidia 580, and it doesn't matter how high I OC it, there is no improvement in fps....Just an observation, Vic. Or maybe you know if these new cards will actually improve FSX, from say, a current 580...Just wondering if it will be worthy to invest that kind of $$$$$ on that card.

Personally, I'd stay with the 580 but the reports are that the Kepler will be excellent. Worth the price? Not IMHO. You are correct, clocking a video card does nothing except shorten it's life and generate heat. Has little or no effect on FSX

The Ultimate Solution - hock your car and buy a 784Gb SSD and you'll only need one drive. My whole FSX file system contains 254Gb of data so I have approx 225Gb left over - man that's a whole lot of space left. Problem solved.fb