Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

uhntissbaby111

Is 240GB enough for FSX?

Recommended Posts

I am currently debating on what HD setup i should go with for my new build. At the moment my plan is a WD black 500GB for the OS and other stuff, and then a WD velociraptor 500GB for FSX. However, after reading some great things i am thinking about going with an SSD. Given the price, i would get a 240-250GB SSD for FSX and keep the WD black for the OS. Is 240GB enough capacity for FSX if i plan on having a good amount of addon aircraft and scenery? And second, is the performance gain by going to the SSD worth the loss in capacity? If the only difference is that the SSD gives lower load times, then i would rather stick with the velociraptor. However, if the SSD provides a big enough in-flight difference then i would take the SSD. Thanks for any help!!

 

 

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

There is no such thing as "big enough" for FSX, unless you keep trimming your hangar and manage your scenery collection.

 

Having said that, I run FSX on a 120 GB Samsung 840 SSD, and only use about half..

 

You can move scenery off to other drives if you start to run short on space..

 

Main thing I like about the SSD, is that it is fast and quiet..  ^_^ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we could use NASA's total hard drive capacity for FSX...:))) 

But as Bert said, with managing addons 240 GB can be enough. I am using about the same amount of HDD space (no SSD yet)

 

Tamas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


You can move scenery off to other drives if you start to run short on space..

 

Is that possible with Orbx scenery? I have a 512GB SSD but with FTX global around the corner and all the sceneries I want to put into it there isn't much space left...help :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space on your HD will always be a  difficult issue. I run fsx on a 300 GB Veloraptor but in all the years where I'm collected my FSX add-ons, I'm almost at my max (I heard that a Veloraptor performance will decrease when you have more than half of its capacity used). I started switching my photoscenery to a second HD as what Bert says. I downloaded some Megascenery states and it is not good for your space on your HD B) (my second 500GB HD is almost full), and with all the ORBX stuff it only becomes more difficult. From what I read is that ORBX must be installed on the same HD where you have FSX. So I made choices installing add ons. For instance, I now have a period mostly flying in Europe, so all my airports and sceneries add-ons across the rest of the world are uninstalled. Thinking of buying a 250GB SSD although, and using my Velo for porting over add-ons, and my 500GB HD for photoscenery :P .

 

Good luck with your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No entirely sure what you can or cannot do with Orbx scenery - but once installed, I would think you can move

selected areas to a second drive - just manually update the scenery.cfg file, so FSX can find the scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I run fsx on a 300 GB Veloraptor but in all the years where I'm collected my FSX add-ons, I'm almost at my max (I heard that a Veloraptor performance will decrease when you have more than half of its capacity used).

 

That's about true for all mechanical HD's. On my old rig I had a 500GB drive that housed the OS, FSX and everything else. By the time I was done on that computer, which was up to last week, I consumed about 270GB out of the 500GB. I didn't really notice a difference yet, but much more and I might have.

 

The new rig that I am now setting up FSX for has a 500GB VelociRaptor for the OS and other programs and a 1TB VelociRaptor for FSX and all my addons. Hopefully 1TB which I can safely fill to about 500GB will hold me for a long time as I don't go too crazy with photo scenery.

 

I had considered a 500GB SSD but that would have put me at the same size I already have and really would like a 1TB SSD, but am not willing to shell out $1000 or more for one of those at this point for a quicker boot and not having to defrag any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run FSX off a 128gb SSD (16gb remaining free) , and have most of my aircraft and rotor-craft on a separate HDD, and my add-on scenery (except Orbx) on a third HDD. Total storage space used is just shy of 200gb, not counting additional third-party stuff like REX (16gb more), or the various "user" folders containing all the operational stuff.

 

So to answer the O/P's question: 240gb is the barest minimum I'd reserve for FSX use. Triple that value for future (worry-free) expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


and a 1TB VelociRaptor for FSX and all my addons.


That is definitely worth considering this option, I looked at the prices and in Europe they are around 200 euro, compared to an 500GB SSD you get it for double the price. When having value for money I think it is a good choice. And I'm very satisfied with the performances of the Veloraptor.

The money you save, you can better spend it buying new add-ons or photoscenery. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the help everyone. i think what ill end up doing is sticking with the 500gb for the OS and all non-fs related things, and then get a 1TB velociraptor for FSX. from what i gather the SSD really only helps with load times and no difference in flight, i rather have the capacity and save the money

 

adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using intel SRT right now, best of both worlds.

 

High capacity, and 60 GB SSD cache drive.

 

But I'm planning to change that; when the price drops ~ $150 for a 256GB SSD I'll get one, and move FSX over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Samsung 830 256 GB SSD where I have FSX with ORBX sceneries installed together with FS9 and have no problem fitting them onto the disk and still have some 60-70 GB left. It goes without saying that "a good amount" is a very relative concept! I have perhaps 10 ORBX airport sceneries installed and pacific rockies, central rockies and pacific north west. Of course sooner or later I will hit the upper limit but by then larger SSD-drives will be affordable ( also a relative concept) and I can mirror my content to the new disk. So it depends! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have portable HD just for photoscenery, another for planes. Buy another harddrive as like to backup things like this. Photoscenery eats space but worth it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using my new rig for a few weeks now with the two VelociRaptors, one 500GB for the OS and 1TB for FSX and have been more than satisfied. I have not even defragged yet, but Windows boots super fast and using DisablePreload, FSX boots in seconds. Even with disablepreload in place once I select my a/c, starting location and time/weather and press fly now, I am on the runway in matter of seconds. That's with about 250GB of stuff installed in FSX and UT2 and about 150 WOAI packages and some photoreal.

 

These VelociRaptor perform much better than I expected and of course much better than regular 7200rpm versions. In hindsight I am glad I didn't shell out $500 or more for a 500GB SSD for FSX and a smaller one for WIndows. I got 500GB and the 1TB combined for less than $500, probably more around $400 or less.

 

If they are this fast now with all the stuff I have installed on both drives and haven't even defragged yet, they will probably even perform better after a few passes. Years from now I will probably replace these with SSD of 500GB or more once the prices come down and they become more common place, but as much HD space as I need for FSX I just couldn't justify the price for the 500GB or larger models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

240GB should be fine, with room to grow. 120GB is too small in the long term.

 

I'm using 89GB for my P3D installation, on a 120GB SSD. OrbX stuff is installed on the SSD (haven't got much choice...), but some other add-on scenery is installed to a 1TB mechanical HDD instead. I expect to hit the 120GB ceiling pretty soon, as OrbX continue to release more stuff - haven't installed Scotland yet, and once NorCal comes out, there'll surely be a steady stream of new airports released at 1GB each. 240GB is a long way off, though. Maybe if you have hundreds of aircraft and every OrbX region and airport+a bunch of photo scenery on the SSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have win 7 on a 128gb SSD, FSX and P3D on a 240gb SSD and a 2tb HDD for general stuff. Still plenty of room on the FSX SSD but the Win 7 one is nearly full. I should have got two 240 ones really. Booting up, installing, dragging stuff between drives etc is lightning fast. FSX boots up from cold into the NGX in about 10 seconds. Compared to the old days where everything was on one creaky hard drive and you'd go make a cup of tea while it was booting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the price, i would get a 240-250GB SSD for FSX and keep the WD black for the OS.

 

 

Hi Adam, if you are going to split the OS and FSX onto two separate drives, which is always preferable, and you only have a single SSD, then as I understand things, the SSD should hold the OS, not the other way round. So, OS on SSD with FSX on HD. FWIW my systen consists of a 64Gb SSD with OS and a 256Gb SSD for FSX. I am currently at 238Gb full on the FSX SSD and am looking to replace the 256 with a 512Gb SSD. As for have you enough space, well that's a little like asking someone is this car big enough for me? Who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam, if you are going to split the OS and FSX onto two separate drives, which is always preferable, and you only have a single SSD, then as I understand things, the SSD should hold the OS, not the other way round.

 

That is not a law of nature - but a performance choice...

 

I've got it the other way around, with good results.  FSX is mainly a "read" data application, not a lot of writing going on, so an SSD is great for that and is not going to get stressed by constant updates, like the OS volume will be..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites