I am not posting this question to ask about possible performance increases - I know that that subject has been plastered all over the internet; some say that as Windows has to decompress files the performance will suffer; others say that as the files are so much smaller, they open much more quickly. An old chestnut, I realise (and one I never found a definitive answer to) ...I am however running out of space on my FS drive, what with a full FSGenesis mesh installation and all. Given all the bitmaps installed,it's tempting to try compressing the drive (or at least certainfolders - those which will compress down easily, like BMPs); thatwould certainly solve my space problem.But I don't want to solve one problem only to create another. Justwondered if anyone does run FS9/FSX on a compressed drive, and what the result is. Is there any change in performance, up or down?? Comments welcome before I experiment !Martin S.

I have been running FS9 compressed for a long long time with no problem whatsoever. I noticed no difference in initial loading time, texture loading times, or frame rates when I compressed FS9. For whatever reason I have not compressed FSX.I just noticed that you use the term "compressed drive" and I wonder if we are talking about two differnt things. I just compressed the FS9 folders and files. The rest of the drive (including FSX) is not compressed.R-

Yes, in effect I meant compressed folders. Might be worth my trying on the folders with bitmaps in at least. Save me several GBs of space. Interesting you noticed no change...M.

Hello,I am using the "compressed" folder for FSX and some other folders.I see NO improvement in load time.

What I obviously didn't want was an increase in load time; any improvement (not expected) would just be a bonus.I am half way through compressing all 'texture' folders (it takes for ever!) - I have left out scenery folders as bgl files don't compress anyway - and have gained 3 GBs of space already ..M.

Well, assuming I don't get any performance hit (which I haven't noticed so far - fps seems the same), this is quite a success, space-wise: I have gained over 20GBs of free space in a 60GB installation. Not a bad result!!Martin

I compressed FSX totally and had no noticeable change + or -. Let's call it harmless and value-added. I bought a new 80gb disk so FSX is not compressed YET. Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

When FSX first made an its appearance I installed onto a compressed partition but FSX wouldn't start. However, FSX worked with no further action after decompressing the partition. I haven't re-compressed the partition since.I seemed to remember reading some years ago that the cutover point for compressed vs uncompressed performance was at about the AMD 3000 cpu level or Intel equivalent.

I've flown several flights since compressing all the bitmap folders in FS9. I can see no fall off in performance at all. But I did gain a whole 14 GBs of disc space.... !!M.

I've been flying FS9 & FSX with its folders compressed for about a year now on advice from somewhere? My below par system increased performance slightly afterward so a must for me. Perhaps this will help others trying to squeeze every bit of longevity out of their aging systems before taking the upgrade plunge!Ken.http://www.kennair.comhttp://www.kennair.com/Images/avatars/b200pil.jpg