Afs2 hard drive space

[jimimac 19]

Hi how much hd space is required for afs2 including all the download content and orbx Innsbruck, I'm just trying to work out  the size of hd I require on my new build I'm only installing Windows 10 and afs2 on this pc.

   Thanks, jim

 

  

[Guest]

Somewhere around 125 - 130 GB.

I would get the biggest SSD you can afford for W10 and AFS2.

[jimimac 19]

I can only afford the 250gb nvme Ssd or the 500 ssd or two 250gb ssd what do you advise. 

  Thanks jim

[Guest]

I'd go for the 500 SSD in that case. 250 is a bit small, specially if you plan on using any upcoming scenery from IPACS or user generated GeoConvert scenery. NVME is nice and all but a regular SSD is fast enough already. And using two 250 GB SSD's isn't ideal because you will have to make choices where to put what and so you will end up 'losing' space because of that. 

[carlito777 712]

Not really necessary to put AFS2 on a SSD. I have it on a (fast) HDD and it runs perfectly. Starts up very quick and no problems with texture loading. Totally different story then FSX/P3D...

[jimimac 19]

I already have  500gb hdd so I could use that for afs2 and still go for the 500 ssd.

 

    Thanks,Jim

[torium 207]

22 hours ago, carlito777 said:

Not really necessary to put AFS2 on a SSD.

Correct. IPACS has confirmed that SSD disk is not required.

[Guest]

I never meant to say an SSD is required. I only meant to say that I'd get an SSD whenever you are building a new PC. They simply are faster (noticable with Windows startup, AFS2 startup, etc.), make no noise, give less heat, no need to defrag, etc. My current PC doesn't have any HD's, SSD's only and I will never go back to HD's again. With an SSD my computer feels and behaves as if I installed everything this morning: with HD's things can become sluggish over time.

[jimimac 19]

On a previos PC I had a ssd it was only 60g which I used for Windows 7 I liked the fast boot up times compared to my hdd however the 60 g was soon used up my son had got a new PlayStation 3 at the time and replaced the new 500g ssd drive for a bigger one and gave me the 500g ssd for my PC I installed and put Windows 7 on but it wasn't any faster than my hdd drive and nothing like my 60g ssd I thought the PlayStation ssd would be OK to use in my PC but for some reason it's far slower than my 60gb ssd so looks like I will have to purchase a new ssd drive.

 Jim

[Guest]

There is a lot of difference between various SSD's! Not all SSD's are created equal. ;) You also have to make sure the system is set up correctly. 

[WingZ 547]

2 hours ago, J van E said:

 My current PC doesn't have any HD's, SSD's only and I will never go back to HD's again. 

Don't SSD's degrade every time you read or write to them?

I always understood they have a finite lifespan as a result.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, WingZ said:

Don't SSD's degrade every time you read or write to them?

I always understood they have a finite lifespan as a result.

Well, that almost is an internet hoax. I do wonder why this rumor keeps popping up everytime! Yes, they have a certain lifespan but so do HD's and the lifespan of SSD's is longer than most people use and have it! Just Google for it and you will see reports like this (both from 2014 already):

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2856052/grueling-endurance-test-blows-away-ssd-durability-fears.html

https://betanews.com/2014/12/05/modern-ssds-can-last-a-lifetime/

Quote from the last link:

"To reach that mark in 10 years, you would have to write 204.8 TB of data each year. That is 17.06 TB of data each month, or approximately 574.4 GB each day. I rarely write more than 5 GB of data per day, let alone more than 100 times as much. If you do, either of the two best-performing SSDs will still last you a very, very, very, very long time. I am willing to bet that the sort of person with these needs will replace their PC or laptop twice, before the 10 year mark.

What about the other four drives? Well, every one of them managed to survive past 728 TB of data (that's the figure for the other HyperX 3K). Intel's runner survived 750 TB, while 840 Series and Neutron GTX lasted until 900 TB and 1.2 PB, respectively. All have entered into damage-control mode before dying, so there were clear signs from the drives regarding their health.

728 TB of data is not as much as 2 PB of data, of course, but, even so, we are still looking at a very long lifespan in this case. Using the same 10-year lifespan, one would have to write 204.23 GB of data each day to reach the aforementioned figure. That is still a lot of data."

I rest my case. SSD's are the way to go and I am done with HD's. (Well, for internal use in my PC: I do have two external HD's for backup purposes only.)

[WingZ 547]

Actually, HDD's are amazing machines.

Every time I thought: "OK now they are obsolete", they bounced back with an order of magnitude increase in speed or storage, often both. And waay cheaper than SSD's

I remember when 204.23 MB of  data was an enormous amount... :)
Writing 204.23 GB of data could be quite commonplace in a few years' time. AFS2 itself is quite the data gobbler, for example.

Whatever, I have both in my PC (in fact AFS2 runs on a HDD with no problem at all)