Printable View
Im looking at reintstall of x-plane. FS9 is on the small 200g hd and fsx is on the 500g E drive. Thats my # 3 computer i use for scenery work and AC experiments. Think i should install to the E drive as that drive has over 360g on it left, but has FSX on it. I f I install there with x-plane disk 1,5,6 will that install have any preformance effects on FSX? C drive id have to cull some of Fs9 to make room and im not throwng my lionheart hanger to the culling.
It really depends on how strong your system is..If its powerful and fast than yes it will sit well with FSX....
But if its a slower system then it will naturally take longer to access all those files while flying.......How much that will affect FSX performance is questionable..Just try and see....But installing X-Plane second after FSX will still allow FSX first priority on the disks....
If you have a bad result..HDDs are cheap if you have a spot for a dedicated one for X-Plane
True im about three months into a new computer build to replace my dedicated Fs9 computer. HD are getting cheap. I have fs9 planned to run on a 750g drive. I'll plan a 500g hd for x-plane i that build and keep X-plane installed to the C drive and cull some of Fs9 for hd space. Now back to converting fsx scenery experiment with Mocats Caribbean sea planes. Gota learn xplane scenery design somehow.
I use a 1 TB as G drive. I have FSX and XP on it and experience no problems.
VCN-1
Ditto that.Quote:
Originally Posted by VCN-1
Now if only there was a profile for the X-52 that matches FSX default.
I just went into XP & assigned the same buttons that I use in FSX. That way they both operate the same.
Only thing that messes me up is when I fly Helos. Pull for pitch in XP while more accurate is opposite FSX.
I have FS9, FSX, and XP9 on an external 1TB HD and its fine. FSX hasnt run this fast on any of my other computers and they all had FSX on the internal drive.
Thats why my thoughts are that if you have FSX on an external drive, that I think it will run faster. I could be wrong on that, but whats happening is you have one HD running the OS, and a second (totally seperate) running the FS, thus its like 2 chips running the computer, you have 2 HD's managing data.
Zat! ist mein Theory! Ja?
Bill
Na.....LOL
Its more work for FSX to access the OS when needed and then run from another drive at the same time....Twice the work actually I would think as oposed to having it all together on one drive, all info following one path to the monitor...
IN THEORY....:friday:
BUT...If the systems good and fast I too think that nano seconds don't count for beans then....