Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi guys. Just been reading about SSD's for fsx and can not make my mind up if it is worth it. So my question is will FSX benefit by installing it on an SSD. Will it load FSX faster and will it be better for the scenery. Can not afford a Raptor so can not go that way. Also I was thinking of a 250 gig one, would that be big enough considering all the lovely Orbx scenery coming out. My son's bought me an ssd for start up, it's only a 60 gig one but it certainly starts my comp pretty quick. If I had got one it would have been a larger one. I'm just about keeping it clear of software. Anyway any help would be appreciated. Thanks and happy flying. Derek

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a Samsung 840 EVO 500GB SSD. Yes it is well worth it. I wouldn't bother with anything smaller then 500GB at this point with all the new global scenery coming out from ORBX. The price of the Samsung EVO's are very reasonable now.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the Evo as well. I managed to save enough for the 750 GB. That was actually the lowest cost per GB when I purchased mine. I'm sure it will fill up fast enough with all the North America goodness Orbx has planned. It made a noticable difference in load times for me, and the sim felt a bit smoother too. Since then I have moved exclusively to P3D V2.2 but it helped with FSX when I had it. It helped with P3D too.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All. Right so looks like most people are saying get a larger SSD like a 500gb, mmm nice but very pricey here, and at momment one person saying not really worth it as all you get are faster loading times which is good in one way. does that help like say you have loads of aircraft installed which tends to slow down FSX loading times, would an SSD help there. My FSX is on a 500gb drive on its own and taking up 77gb at the momment. I guese its looking like personal preferance as to what you use. You can get a sumsung ssd 250 gb for just over £100,  a 500gb will cost £300 and a 1Tb would cost £360 now theres a saving, but im retired and married, doh, so dont think the boss lady would agree to that. So if I do go down that route its looking more like a 250gb one. Ok thank you all for your help, maybe I will just stick to my normal drive and spend the money on more scenery Yea. Cheer's Derek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a big one, at least 840 GB or better yet get 1TB. Because once it fills up past 80-85%, you can start to experience crashes. I had one 480GB and another 240GB and it wasn't enough. So I spent the money and my 1TB SSD is arriving in the mail tomorrow. I'll keep the 1TB and the 480GB SSD installed and put the smaller on in reserve.

Might be you decide to wait until they get cheaper but I think we'll all be going this route eventually - unless some newer better technology appears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bother with a 250 SSD if you're planning on extending your range of ORBX products and want some planes to go alongside them. I have two 250s, but just ordered a 1TB Samsung to be on the safe side, since both of the 250s are reaching their capacity...


 


Cheers


 


Mallard


 


(just see that Ripcord beat me to it) :D


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ripcord, that sounds good. Might just have a look around and see whats available. Derek.


Hi all. Perhaps you all can help me with another question. Been trying to find the post about changing some windows settings to make FSX look better. Found it the other day and now when I whant to change things can not find it again. cheer's Derek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I'm sold on the Samsung EVO.


 


This is what I want to do, and maybe you can tell me if the thinking is sound?


 


Money is a factor, and I'm looking at the 500GB as the affordable option for now. I have FSX, as well as P3D, but, as well as the OrbX regions, Global and (soon) EU land Class, I also have 350 GB worth of MegaSceneryEarth.


 


The plan being, to keep FSX and P3D on the C:Drive, and to put all my photoscenery on the SSD.


 


It seems like the consensus is, putting photoscenery onto an SSD will speed up the loading (although I don't seem to suffer with blurries anyway), and the fact it will be physically separated from the Flightsim (FSX), it will allow the PC to 'multitask' far more efficiently? Is that right?


 


I'll then have more headroom on my 1:5 TB HDD for the FTX Land Class regions as and when they become available.


 


My concern is that 350GB of photo real on a 500GB capacity SSD won't allow for the 'free disc space' seemingly required to prevent crashes or slow downs?


 


I will be adding to the MSE collection, but will have to throw a third drive into the mix when funds allow.


 


Maybe in my scenario a bigger capacity 'conventional' drive would be a better and nearly as efficient option?


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Samsung 512gb ssd which I used for FSX. The only benefit I found was the speed of the initial loading time. (Maybe that has something to do with my other specs, I don't know.) To be honest I don't think that was worth the cost. I have since moved FSX back to the HD and now only use the ssd for P3D.

If you do get one, I agree with the others, get the largest you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an identical build on a set of Crucial SSD,s (120gb OS, 500gb FSX) and a set of Velociraptors (150gb OS, 500gb FSX), they are a clone of each other and I have used them both extensively and both sets work awesome....the SSD,s do not improve the performance of FSX in any way that I can tell, and I actually prefer the Velociraptors for overall maintenance abilities and operational smoothness...graphics and visuals even seem to be better with my Velociraptors. :)


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Doogles, an SSD will not help your sim.  It will cost more, and hold less but there is no defragging.  Your load times will be a few seconds shorter but overall the Velociraptors are a better value.  I use a combination of 500GB and 1T (six in all, no hassles and no problems) and I have zero issues with p3dv2.2 and Orbx. I am sure someday SSD's will be the norm, but not today.  If I were to do a rebuild today, I would not use an SSD.  But if you have the money go for it......you are the final judge of what is good for you....I just added my opinion. 


  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Every one thanks for your posts and have a feeling might forget about the ssd. But no body has told me where that post is for the tweeking of windows for FSX. I can remember it showed an aircraft that was clear as anything and one of the things you could change was a setting to photograph. Thats all I can remember. If anybody has an idea what section its in I would appreciate it. Thanks Derek.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Every one thanks for your posts and have a feeling might forget about the ssd. But no body has told me where that post is for the tweeking of windows for FSX. I can remember it showed an aircraft that was clear as anything and one of the things you could change was a setting to photograph. Thats all I can remember. If anybody has an idea what section its in I would appreciate it. Thanks Derek.

 

Do you mean this thread?

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/58637-improving-fsx-via-windows/

 

The tips really helped me..

 

Cheers

 

Mallard

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had my Samsung ssd evo 1TB up. run the magician software  and the report is good. except now I am seriously thinking


 


whether to move just the ORBX folder to the evo and do the mklink\j   or  move the complete FSX folder and change the drive letter.


 


still thinking.... ???..


 


a 250 GB would be fast fill up , if your are someone like me keep buying whenever there is sales. It is true, I still have another at least 10 over sceneries by ORBX bought during


 


the recent sale, haven't install as my existing 250GB crucial ssd is almost fill to the neck.  go for something higher (GB) if can . Do a survey here can possibly find the leading brand use by members.


 


ricky1088 :mellow:


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there I am running FSX and P3D on a dedicated Samsung 840 Evo. Completely agree with previous comments about dont do anything smaller as I upgraded from a 256Gb Crucial M4.Performance is much improved however. Certainly cant fault the config.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say that performance is better running on SSD, but clearly the load times are a LOT faster. That is the big advantage for these and when my load times started to get ridiculous, this is the route I went. Glad I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can´t agree with you Ripcord. Have tested that with 2 different SSD:s and inital loading time for my P3D compared wit my fast HHD (15 loadings) was an avrage 18,7 sec faster. IMHO It is NOT worth the money.  Apart from the initial loading NOTHING else was faster or gave any performance boost.  ::) But as peole say, if you have the money to spend, go for it, it´s your money.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All. Right so looks like most people are saying get a larger SSD like a 500gb, mmm nice but very pricey here, and at momment one person saying not really worth it as all you get are faster loading times which is good in one way. does that help like say you have loads of aircraft installed which tends to slow down FSX loading times, would an SSD help there. My FSX is on a 500gb drive on its own and taking up 77gb at the momment. I guese its looking like personal preferance as to what you use. You can get a sumsung ssd 250 gb for just over £100,  a 500gb will cost £300 and a 1Tb would cost £360 now theres a saving, but im retired and married, doh, so dont think the boss lady would agree to that. So if I do go down that route its looking more like a 250gb one. Ok thank you all for your help, maybe I will just stick to my normal drive and spend the money on more scenery Yea. Cheer's Derek.

I am in agreement with everyone else when it comes to better performance on an SSD. The only benefit you will get is that it wont take 10 minutes to load FSX, or any other game or software that utilizes a lot of disk space. That said, when they start designing hard drives to fit in the memory module slots on the motherboard, and utilize these devices as BOTH hard drive and memory at the same time, is when FSX will actually benefit from that SSD. I doubt that will ever happen in this lifetime though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can´t agree with you Ripcord. Have tested that with 2 different SSD:s and inital loading time for my P3D compared wit my fast HHD (15 loadings) was an avrage 18,7 sec faster. IMHO It is NOT worth the money.  Apart from the initial loading NOTHING else was faster or gave any performance boost.  ::) But as peole say, if you have the money to spend, go for it, it´s your money.

 

+1. I, too, see only a small difference in the load times between my SSD and my 10,000 RPM HDD. Other than not needing to be dfragged, SSD's, from an FSX perspective, aren't worth the money.

 

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some are missing the point of an SSD here. For me I have a 500gb SSD as my main drive for Windows 7 and FSX. Right now I can do a complete reinstall of WIndows, FSX ORBX and all aircraft all in one Sunday afternoon. That wasn't possible with SATA drives. Also not having to Defrag is a major time saver.


 


The load times also should include Windows startup because when I get home from work I turn on my FSX rig and get into flight much faster because FSX load times is only a small portion of it, I also have to startup Windows. I am also in the habit of restarting Windows in-between flights to clear out any bugs and that goes fast too, I have noticed no OOM's from doing that so it is an important step.


 


SSD is much much more then just FSX load times and saves time in all things you do on your PC, no Defrag and fast Windows startup is a major one as well as reinstalling things, all things we all have to do.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if you don't mind waiting ten minutes to load FSX, then I agree it is not a good use of your cash. Honestly I think it just depends how much add-on scenery and aircraft you have installed. If you have just ORBX and a couple payware aircraft, then your load times aren't going to be that long anyway. But for me it was becoming completely untenable, with load times taking eons. With all the messing with AI and new scenery and building my own stuff here and there, I had to be able to start and restart in a reasonable amount of time.

Not having to defrag is another nice benefit, but probably not one I'd pay hundreds of dollars for. Having few OOMs, however, is very much a benefit I would pay for. The main thing there, though, is you have to keep your drives from getting filled up. Once you get about 80% full, the CTDs really start to pile up.

And JJ I cannot speak for load-times for P3D, as I don't have it, but I like that you ran the numbers and tested it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, also forgot...changing Textures in REX is extremely fast and I do that more often now because it has become a bearable task. Also for Ultimate Traffic 2 users fast to get in and out of that to change traffic settings. Like I said, it is not just about FSX Load Times.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...