Microsoft Flight Simulator (the 2020 version) is a disk hog. It's
currently occupying 312GB of space on the SSD. And that's just the
core game (and a few - but by no means all - of the official 'world >updates').
Microsoft Flight Simulator (the 2020 version) is a disk hog. It's
currently occupying 312GB of space on the SSD. And that's just the
core game (and a few - but by no means all - of the official 'world >updates').
And, look, visually it makes sense. MSFS is a gorgeous game, and it
covers the entire world. This isn't the sort of thing you're going to
squeeze into ten or twenty gigabytes of disk-space.
But on the other hand, I am only an occasional MSFS player. Every now
and again I fire it up, whiz across the country-side (usually some
part of the world I've visited in real life), and then leave. Or maybe
I'll show it to a friend to show-off how far computer game graphics
have come over the years. But it's not the sort of game I dedicate a
lot of time too. Is it worth me putting aside a third of a terabyte to
a game that gets visited maybe every month or so (if that often?)
But on the gripping hand... if I do uninstall it, it would take
forever to reinstall the game. While my Internet access is speedy
enough, Microsoft's servers are sloooow (and even if they weren't,
300GB is still a chunk of data to download). So maybe it's just better
to leave it on the disk?
<sigh>
You know what this really means though, don't you?
...
Alexa, how much for a 4TB M.2 SSD?
Alexa, how much for a 4TB M.2 SSD?
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 12:03:48 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Microsoft Flight Simulator (the 2020 version) is a disk hog. It's
currently occupying 312GB of space on the SSD. And that's just the
core game (and a few - but by no means all - of the official 'world
updates').
The total space of every game I have installed right now is less then
that.
but the aged curmudgeon
in me is yelling about how "I walked to school, uphill, both ways."
My take, SSDs are overrated and "SSD only" games are just the result of
lazy asset retrieval coding. It is the epitomy of hardware advances being eaten up by lazy programmers doing unnecessary things because they can
and slowing all previous generation machines to a halt in the process. I
used to wonder if this is deliberate, to keep people upgrading, but have
long since concluded it is just laziness and "because we can."
Ehh, just put it on some spinning rust. It's a old game, it won't need
too much read speed.
I have 5.39 TB of spinning rust. It's the way to go for things that are
that big and don't need crazy read access.
So, after that fiasco, I nuked a few aspirational games (or moved them to
the rust drive) and now my 1TB SSD has 315 GB left on it. I leave a lot
of stuff installed for no reason other than "I might play that." I bought
a small 1TB SSD when I purchased BG3 because most things run fine on
rust*, so I didn't need a lot of premium performance space.
Sadly, while MSFS may be ahead of the curve, it is also likely a
precursor of things to come. 100GB games are becoming increasingly
common, and - while I would have laughed at the idea even a few years
ago - terrabyte-sized games no longer seem so preposterous.
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ehh, just put it on some spinning rust. It's a old game, it won't need
too much read speed.
I have 5.39 TB of spinning rust. It's the way to go for things that are >>that big and don't need crazy read access.
I have a 8TB hard drive, recently upgraded from 3TB because it was full,
just for games. I install games on my 2TB SSD, but I move games I'm no >longer playing to the hard drive when necessary to make room. Steam has
own built-in support for moving games between drives, but for games from >other stores, I have a batch script that moves them with robocopy and >junction points.
So, after that fiasco, I nuked a few aspirational games (or moved them to >>the rust drive) and now my 1TB SSD has 315 GB left on it. I leave a lot
of stuff installed for no reason other than "I might play that." I bought
a small 1TB SSD when I purchased BG3 because most things run fine on
rust*, so I didn't need a lot of premium performance space.
I have you seen the prices of SSDs these days, by the way? They're stupid >cheap right now. You should be able to find a 2TB SSD for $100 US or
less on sale. The expection is also that SSDs prices are only going to
go up because flash chip manufacturers have drastically cut production
after chip prices plumetted this year.
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 11:18:16 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Sadly, while MSFS may be ahead of the curve, it is also likely a
precursor of things to come. 100GB games are becoming increasingly
common, and - while I would have laughed at the idea even a few years
ago - terrabyte-sized games no longer seem so preposterous.
That require 64GB of memory. But 64GB should be enough for anyone!
Talos II weighs in at 70.65GB, btw. I have some hope for the future.
I want the option to remove 4k textures from the disk, though. I don't
game at 4k. I think it's high time that we went back to the idea of
standard resolution and high resolution textures as a selectable option.
We bought a number of different tools for that at work, some of them
didn't work at all, while the ones that did the M.2 drive overheated
rather quickly and quit working. I actually burned my finger on one.
It started working and we were able to finish cloning it after leaving
it unplugged for about a half hour. In any case it doesn't seem
good for the long term use for them to get that hot, which is part
of why I've been avoiding buying one.
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
We bought a number of different tools for that at work, some of them
didn't work at all, while the ones that did the M.2 drive overheated
rather quickly and quit working. I actually burned my finger on one.
It started working and we were able to finish cloning it after leaving
it unplugged for about a half hour. In any case it doesn't seem
good for the long term use for them to get that hot, which is part
of why I've been avoiding buying one.
That sounds like the NVMe drive was defective, or the case it was in
was really hot or something. They're supposed to throttle themselves
to prevent overheating and shutting down, just like CPUs.
That sounds like the NVMe drive was defective, or the case it was in
was really hot or something. They're supposed to throttle themselves
to prevent overheating and shutting down, just like CPUs.
Do they slow down when they detect high temps or is it just a speed limit?
It suits my needs. Most games I don't mind running off of rust - even BG3
- but I splurged with an Amazon gift card I had received. Also picked up
an extra fan (Noctua FTW), a GTX 3060Ti, and a 5 1/4" hot swap cage. A WD >Black 9TB drive comes with no center mounting holes (nice of them to tell
me) and my drive cage depends on those.*
some have active cooling
I think ultimately, there should be something like SIMM slots for these >things, so at least both surfaces are exposed to air. Did anyone think
this through at all? I have one sitting under my freaking graphics card!
Hmm... come to think of it, even if I did get a new M.2 drive, I've no
easy way to clone it. All my tools are SATA, PATA, SCSI and USB
interfaces
Hmm... come to think of it, even if I did get a new M.2 drive, I've no
easy way to clone it. All my tools are SATA, PATA, SCSI and USB
interfaces
So with these in hand and the crude but effective Linux tool "dd" ...
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
So with these in hand and the crude but effective Linux tool "dd" ...
That's fine for making a backup, but you don't want to use dd to clone an
old drive to a new drive if the new drive is an SSD. The wear leveling algorithms used by SSDs work best if they know what parts of the SSDs
are in use and which aren't. The dd commmand has no idea what parts of
the disk its copying is unused and will copy everything meaning that
the new SSD will think every sector dd writes is being used, even if
the old drive had half its space free.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 42:20:42 |
| Calls: | 9,491 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,620 |
| Messages: | 6,122,791 |