Illegitimi non carborundum

Tony A simple Windows file copy will do - all you have to is to give your new FSX SSD drive the same drive letter as your original FSX one. Obviously you can't do this if you installed FSX on your C:\ drive (system drive). But say FSX is on D:\ and you copy the FSX folder plus any 3rd party folders associated with FSX to say your new SSD which you gave the drive letter of G:\ Once completed you then give the D:\ drive a new letter say X: and then change your G: drive letter to D:\ That's it! That way all of your registry entries are as if nothing happened. It could affect other games or programs on that original drive. I have been using SSD's since they first came out and have never found them finicky - very reliable and easy to configure, I've just copied my Windows install from 1TB HDD to a 240GB SSD without reinstalling windows using an amazing piece of software called Paragon Migrate it all went well with no issues. Good Luck PeterH

Phil Good point - I'd forgotten on my H80i there are fans either side of the radiator and you have to make sure the air flow is in the same direction!! pH

Phil It will depend on the configuration of all the fans as if you say some opposing each other you could create a negative pressure effect with little effective cooling. Say with a liquid cooler if you are pulling air into the case then it has to go through the warm/hot radiator and you are then flooding the mobo, ram, gpu etc with air that is already warm/hot and then relying on any exhaust fans to get rid of it. I always set mine to blow outward and then I'm drawing in ambient cooler air and blowing/exhausting hot air. That is provided that you have good ingress air access to the case. Make sure you clean any filters regularly. I also use a HEPA filter device to keep dust down. Its a balance and the bigger the case the more efficient the cooling. pH

[speed_Achieved - No OOMs] X_Plane_10.2-64-bit] pH

TXh Thanks pH

Ron Don't know what happened there!! LOL Should have read Dan Try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....non_carborundum Who is John Boehner anyway? [Oxymoron] British Intelligence [inspiration] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full Hope this post better Regards pH

Dan<br />Try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum<br />Who is John Boehner anyway?<br /><br />[Oxymoron]<br />British Army Intelligence.<br /><br />[inspiration]<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)<br /><br />pH

Jim Priceless LOL LOL pH

Dane This has already been set in FSX SP2 it is called the Large Address Aware Flag and it means that a 32-bit app in a 64-bit OS can access 4GB of Virtual Address Space (NOT virtual memory - which is actually the paging file). It should not need setting again. I guess it could work if the FSX version fails when starting but that would be unusual. The VAS is totally independent of the Physical RAM and Paging File. The VAS is part of the operating system whereas the RAM is part of the hardware. They communicate only via the OS and the cpu, for example a 'page fault' [usually called 'hard page fault'] (see a lot of these in FSX in some stuttering) usually means that code has been loaded into the VAS but is not yet present in the RAM. I agree the 4GB is now too small for FSX with all the complicated add-ons that may have their own VAS and can also interact with the FSX VAS. This is a limitation of a 32-bit app and cannot be increased. The major advance has been X-Plane 10.2 64-bit which can access up to 8 TERAbytes of VAS (the OS accesses another 8 TB) and so a OOM is unlikely even with hundreds of add-ons. pH

Charles Great post. One caveat 90 proof alcohol is 45% Alcohol and 55% Water so a much better/effective cleaning liquid would be 100% Isopropanol (Isopropyl Alcohol) or 200 proof - not sure if you can buy that in the states. Regards pH

JRB I always used to write it as "Nil illegitimum carborundum est" but I met a wandering Roman (Julius somebody or other) and it was he that gave me the mock Latin aphorism that I now use. I like it better than "Non carborundum ######um" - much more refined, don't yah think?. pH

The silly season is upon me: [OVERCOCK] Delid Haswell =IB Crock Ramp up cpu=New_Room_Heater Vcore=Rotten_Apple DRAM Voltage=De_Electric_Sheep BIOS=Burnt_In_On_Sunday DirectX=Long_Gone_Fiancee_In_Movie SSD=Silly_Soft_Daft Format=Given_to_Matthew NTFS=Not_Taken_Fora_Sucker MOBO=Moms_Bosom ThermalPaste=Hot_Diamonds LOOSE=Really_Means_Lose BCLK=FSB_maybe CPU>C-3PO OVERCLOCK=WASTE_OF_TIME with apologies to the sensitive amongst us. pH

Goodthumb Its from Ye Olde English Pub Motto setting " Don't let the Bar Stewards grind you down" sounds better in dog Latin pH

[TURMOIL_MAX_CONFUSION] Heysus = ******* pH

ANZ You are quite correct - the content and the where, how and when a topic could/would/might be discussed on a particular forum would be pertinent as to whether it would see the light of day or not. I just that thought that some of the posts here were very good and I was glad that I was able to read them and get some insight into what was happening, and I could not get that somewhere else. As to other sites, as I said to a good friend of mine, it was a case of, "The Silence of the Lambs". Go Hannibal! Thanks for your comments. pH

Sadly, Yes! pH

Reading all of these diverse opinions makes me realise how lucky we are to have a forum like AVSIM. IMHO most of the posts here would be deleted in a trice if posted on either the simforums or ftx forums. So at least here we can air our views here - obviously within reason. I can see both points of view in this argument and don't have a definitive opinion on either (fence sitter) but it would have been nice if both sides had got together to work out the best solution for us poor simmers rather than the way that it has been handled thus far. But in this day and age we may prefer antagonism to synergy. PeterH

The amount of VRAM needed is usually proportional to the monitor aspect size and will usually only affect performance in FSX if there is not enough VRAM to display on the monitor what has been sent by the cpu. Note: (GDDR speed and or the bandwidth, etc can affect performance too). For example: If you have a 1920 x 1200 monitor displaying around 2.3 million pixels you could use up to 1.4/1.5GB VRAM to display FSX dependent on scenery, add-ons, complexity settings etc. A 1680 x 1050 aspect (around 1.76 million pixels) could use up to 1.1GB of VRAM to display FSX. A 2550 x 1440 monitor (3.7 million pixels) you could use up to 2.2/2.4GB VRAM and so on. These are approximate figures and will vary from PC to PC and what is actually being rendered/displayed and my observations only apply to NVidia cards. A GTX 770 is probably a good buy at this time. Regards pH

HL James What are you talking about :rolleyes: his mobo/cpu won't be able to recognise RAM of that speed being an i5 - his RAM is great for his rig but he is short of VRAM to drive that monster monitor. His BCLK is fixed so increasing RAM speed might give a slight performance increase only. Regards pH

IMHO you do not have enough VRAM to drive that very large monitor - I would say that card with 3 - 4GB VRAM might be better and upgrading to Win 7 64-bit would be a help. pH

Saab Can you explain the per cent figure where is the 100% figure in other words in the first column what is 95.5% relative to? I analysed those figures (ANOVA) as presented but could not find any significant difference between them, but that may be because there was not enough data to compare? You didn't state the BCLK (FSB) value used - was that changed from the stock value of 100Hz? If it wasn't then the RAM speed or latency is not likely to have much effect as the transfer rate to and from the cpu is static @ 100Hz. As I understand it faster RAM only comes into its own if you are able to overclock the FSB and not the cpu multiplier - but I could be wrong!! By all means use faster RAM it may well be more efficient but its unlikely that you will see significant increase in performance that you might see with a faster cpu. Regards pH

Bruce Like you I have run auto overclock at 4.2GHz on an i7 2600K for well over a year and I have not suffered any dire consequences, and for nearly 3 years on an i7 860 ditto. This could be yet another urban myth because if voltage settings were significant then the gaming forums and other forums besides avsim would be full of people who have had their cpu/mobo fried because they relied on auto settings in an overclock. 4.2 GHz is a mild o/c for the 2600K/2500K and nothing should need changing from auto. I agree as the o/c gets higher you may need to tweak the voltages to ensure optimum running or saving on your power bill. To my knowledge no one has carried out any research into whether a mobo/cpu lasts longer or is more stable with a manual setting vs an auto setting - if it was the case that a manual setting is better there would surely be advice in every mobo instruction booklet stating not to use an auto voltage setting. Your psu may have more significance in maintaining voltages than any BIOS tweak. Modern BIOS are excellent at maintaining your PC in tip top condition so why override something that does a good job? Just an opinion pH

Not excessive as far as I can recall - it was just an experiment to see if it could be done - so the flight might only been for about an hour or so. I use a large water cooling rig to cool the cpu - Thermaltake which takes up 2 slots on the front of the mobo plus 5 x 120 mm fans in a full tower case. This keeps everything fairly cool. pH

Meese As an experiment I turned of HT and then in the BIOS disabled 2 cores and overclocked the other 2 to 5.2GHz (water cooling) and FSX ran very well indeed. However as JABloomf . . above said I was afraid something would go wrong and reinstated the other 2 cores and ran all 4 at 4.6Ghz with no issues and with FSX still looking fine. So if the BIOS allows it then it can be done, but it may not be without drawbacks. I now use software to "maximise/Optimise" core usage but I could be deluding myself that it works well!! Good Luck PeterH

Thralni Obviously a SSD might be better than a conventional HDD wrt loading times etc, but good fast conventional HDD should work especially one of the newer WD or Seagate, etc drives. (For another sim I used a very expensive 64GB USB 3.0 thumb drive and that worked OK). One trick I used to use pre SSDprice drops was to use a large 1TB or more and partition it to say 300GB use it solely for FSX (leaving the other 700GB empty) and that way it became a much faster drive than if I hadn't partitioned it. (it allows only access to the faster parts of the drive). Even if you have multiple partitions make sure that FSX goes on the first partition that you create as that will be the fastest access for FSX. Just a thought. pH