Atomic Systems

Hi all,
Now that SSD have been out a considerable time could anyone give an indication if they are getting an acceptable life span with TS installed on one, I'm asking this question because I'm aware of the read\write limitations of these drives.
Also is there a preference in the manufacturer of the SSD which would be best suited for TS.

Regards,
Pete.

Started using SSD 4 years ago, was so pleased with it I swapped it for a bigger version after one year and bought a caddy so I could use the old one as an external back up for my TS files.

Not sure which brand to recommend, but I use Intel and have zero problems with them.

You don't need to care about the cycles as a normal pc user. I run TS as developer on SSD and no problems here. Alot of "traffic" goes around all my SSDs (5 TB at all). SSDs are the most usefull innovation since the last 20 years of computer hardware productions. Last year i banned all spinning HDDs out of my computer life at home instead a NAS system for backup data. And since about two month i run also a Samsung SM951 M.2 SSD (read ~2200, write ~1000) for the OS and its a blast, and what a blast. Next stop is a SM951 for TS only to give them a new boost.

You don't need to worry about read/writes with SSD's now as the technology has matured and got way better since when these were legitimate concerns (like 5 years ago) and now mechanical hard drives will fail way before SSD's will.

Would entirely recommend putting TS on your SSD btw as the load time improvements are great.

secludedsfx wrote:Would entirely recommend putting TS on your SSD btw as the load time improvements are great.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that simply having the OS on an SSD gives such results, which nicely gets round any space constraints that may come with using SSDs for programs.

I have gone over completely to SSD since the beginning of the year and whilst I run back-ups of all drives on a weekly basis (about 10 years ago I lost a massive install of MSFS with a horrendous hard-drive crash) and constantly monitor SSD health using a piece of software that assesses drive health, and each of my drives ( 2 Samsung 840 Pro and a Samsung mSATA which is dedicated to TS ) has an estimated 'death date of 2024, and based on my experiences there's very few people who keep a drive for more that three years due to programmes becoming larger etc etc.....

Changing from HDD to SSD has meant that Windows starts much quicker and so do programmes; There's no reasons not to changeover to solid state, especially as prices have dropped dramatically, and many compelling reasons for making that move, speed and durability being the main two....

KGBUssr wrote:There's no reasons not to changeover to solid state....

In performance terms, none at all....but capacity and price matter to a lot of folk. Yes, prices have dropped and capacities have increased, but taking the SM951 on maikG's shopping list as an example----the £75 for an 128GB SSD (the minimum size you should consider just for TS?) would buy you 2, possibly3, TB of conventional storage.
Horses for courses, if you want/need a faster booting PC or faster loading programs then get an SSD---just be sure you can actually put that *saved* time to good use. If you have a lot of data to store that doesn't need to be accessed at such speeds, then spinning drives are still a very viable option.


Reliability of SSDs, or rather the un-reliability, has been over-blown: failure rates have been comparable (often favourably) to spinning drives for a good number of years and the *limited amount of writes* argument has never really held water. If you're considering buying an SSD there's no need to worry, nor get paranoid, that the drive will die if you 'write too many times to it'

Been using an Intel 160GB SSD in my laptop since 2010, and that laptop is used every day, it is also used in my car in a RAM-Mount for off-road navigation. I can't recommend them highly enough.

Bought a Samsung 500GB Evo 850 for the desk top a month or so ago, and it cost less than the Intel. I am not running TS from it, my TS folder is over 300GB would hog most of the space available on the SSD so I have not installed it on it. I use it for ARMA 3, DCS, and Star Citizen and they all benefit from the extra speed of the SSD.

Hi all,
Thanks for all your comments, I have my op system plus a few programs on an SSD already but I was a little concerned about installing TS on an SSD because of the read\write limitations its seems from your comments that I have nothing to worry about.
I will buy a second SSD and just have TS installed on this drive, at the moment I have TS installed on a spinner on its own which I think does improve performance, I hope that an SSD will give me that little bit extra.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Pete.

Pete, could you do some measuring of loading times etc before and after adding another SSD?
It would be a perfect opportunity to compare just how having the OS on an SSD/TS on a spinner, and having both OS and game on SSDs behave.

Gary
On my rigs Windows 7 Sp1 on a SSD loads to usable screen in 45 seconds.
TS 2015 on a separate loads to main menu usually around 30 seconds.
Loading from a scenario to play is around on average 65 seconds - it varies due to what is being loaded.

I feel that SSD's do increase performance (not necessarily) fps but as they load data at least 40 + times faster than a conventional HDD stutters can be lessened during game play.

I have a OCZ Colossus still going strong after 4 years, IMO they are as reliable as a conventional HDD.
pH

gptech wrote:

secludedsfx wrote:Would entirely recommend putting TS on your SSD btw as the load time improvements are great.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that simply having the OS on an SSD gives such results, which nicely gets round any space constraints that may come with using SSDs for programs.

Had my OS on an SSD for about 6-7 years now and noticed a big improvement when I bought a new SSD for Train Sim (though having your OS on an SSD might help it slightly).

Hi Guys
I tried TS on a SSD some time back and found that having windows on its own 225gb SSD and TS on a standard 500gb drive about the same user experience. It was a much cheaper way to go. Maybe prices now are a little better but for this sim there may be better places to spend dollars
Regards....Phill

gptech wrote:

secludedsfx wrote:Would entirely recommend putting TS on your SSD btw as the load time improvements are great.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that simply having the OS on an SSD gives such results, which nicely gets round any space constraints that may come with using SSDs for programs.

That's right, i can happily confirm that there is very little difference in performance by having your TS folders on a spinner and your OS on an SSD! I know I've tried both, and as Gary says it frees up any concerns over space as my TS folders have progressed to nearly 300Gb's.

gptech wrote:Pete, could you do some measuring of loading times etc before and after adding another SSD?
It would be a perfect opportunity to compare just how having the OS on an SSD/TS on a spinner, and having both OS and game on SSDs behave.

HI Gary,
Not sure if this is what you are asking.
At the moment my load time to Windows 7 desktop on an SSD is about 30secs.
Load time to TS 2015 main menu another 40secs on a 500Gb Seagate spinner.
Load time of scenario Drayton Park to Finsbury Park on the ECML L to P route another 55secs of course on the same spinner.

My TS 2015 is on the Seagate spinner just by itself nothing else installed.
Windows 7 plus a few other programs on the SSD.

So the total from startup to a playable scenario is about 125secs.

Will post again if/when I put TS on an SSD.

Regards,
Pete.