DCS disk space / compression questions

[Hammer1-1]

So I got to looking into my install folder and was curious as to how much DCS took, and not taking into account my Saved Games folder (just my custom skins made for me, add 100GB), my entire DCS library takes up almost a full terabyte of disk space. All my skins and mods (just the OH6, A4E and F15EX) are held on a separate disk. Mind you that I have all the modules, campaigns, terrain, tech add-ons and assets packs, so yours would likely vary. With THAT information out of the way, my question is this: what kind of performance hit would one take with compressing the files to save on disk space? For the longest time Ive kept it compressed, but Ive also heard that theres a penalty that comes with that in the form of loading times, stuttering and what not. I would really like to hear thoughts on this because yeah...DCS takes up more space than Ghost of Tsushima, GTA5, Hell Let Loose, RDR2, and about 6 other games. FWIW, DCS is installed on a PCIE 5.0 M2 NVMe drive with 10kMB read/ 9.5kMB write speeds.

[Hammer1-1]

nobody, huh? does my breath stink or what?

[The_Nephilim]

Well if it compressed and DCS needs to uncompress it too use it sure there will be a hit. I guess just have it like a regular install and see for yourself.. me I would not want it compressed regardless how much space it takes up..

I had experimented with uncompressing files that are zipped in DCS regularly but not sure  if it helped and I guess you would need to run some test to see if it helped.. I forget which files are zipped but unzipped they made the game even larger then it was at the time by alot.. so if those files are doubly zipped I guess it would take even longer to unzip them so they can be used..

 

IDK try uncompressing what you compressed and see what the frametimes and such are..

 

I found the files that are zipped it is in the textures folder.. here is my location K:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar\textures.. this is seperate from what you zipped and they might be double zipped??

Edited July 30, 2024 by The_Nephilim

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, The_Nephilim said:

Well if it compressed and DCS needs to uncompress it too use it sure there will be a hit. I guess just have it like a regular install and see for yourself.. me I would not want it compressed regardless how much space it takes up..

I had experimented with uncompressing files that are zipped in DCS regularly but not sure  if it helped and I guess you would need to run some test to see if it helped.. I forget which files are zipped but unzipped they made the game even larger then it was at the time by alot.. so if those files are doubly zipped I guess it would take even longer to unzip them so they can be used..

 

IDK try uncompressing what you compressed and see what the frametimes and such are..

 

I found the files that are zipped it is in the textures folder.. here is my location K:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar\textures.. this is seperate from what you zipped and they might be double zipped??

 

Ive never seen just much of a difference between the two, Ive always had a compressed file system on my game drives. Then again, I havent really flown much in a while and a bunch of new maps have come out that Im just starting to explore so I dont even have a baseline anymore. But since I went to Gen 5 NVme, my load times have drastically improved regardless.  What used to be a 2-3 minute load for DCS now takes around 1 minute or so without a compressed drive, and since then some new improvements in DCS as a whole so I cant even say its the drive or DCS performing better.

Edited July 30, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[Mr_sukebe]

Compressed files need to be uncompressed to use and takes CPU and RAM resources to do it.

With DCS, that’s likely to result in stutters and lower frame rates.

I can’t help but think that if you’ve the cash to purchase pretty much every module, that a 2TB drive would be a good move.  They’re now under $200 for a decent NVME2.

[Whistler_RIO]

Ya i own every map, including the new ones Afghan and Kola, and currently only have like 3 aircraft currently installed.  my install size is about 950GB. that is uncompressed btw.

Its definitely bigger than any game, but not really any sim.  MSFS2020 can gobble up some serious space too.  

[Hammer1-1]

7 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Compressed files need to be uncompressed to use and takes CPU and RAM resources to do it.

With DCS, that’s likely to result in stutters and lower frame rates.

I can’t help but think that if you’ve the cash to purchase pretty much every module, that a 2TB drive would be a good move.  They’re now under $200 for a decent NVME2.

I have 6 installed in my pc at this moment; 2x 2tb, 3x1tb. and 1x 4tb. Between MSFS, X Plane 11/12 and DCS, thats my 4tb drive just gobbled up. With the size of games coming out nowadays, 1tb drives are the new 250gb drives, and realistically, only 4tb drives or greater are necessary. They are not cheap. I paid almost 300 bucks for my PCIE 5 microcenter brand 2tb NVMe on sale.

Edited July 30, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[Mr_sukebe]

1 hour ago, Whistler_RIO said:

Ya i own every map, including the new ones Afghan and Kola, and currently only have like 3 aircraft currently installed.  my install size is about 950GB. that is uncompressed btw.

It’s definitely bigger than any game, but not really any sim.  MSFS2020 can gobble up some serious space too.  

Agreed, just part of the entry cost to flying in the best flight sim currently available to the public.

I don’t really see the cost being the end of the world in the context of the cost of our PCs, GPUs and flight sim hardware

[kksnowbear]

I bought a Crucial T705 end of March for $282.

Even 4 months ago they were less than 300 including tax (6% here)...but now they're $266 at Amazon (before tax).

Better drive, nearly 50% faster than all the Gen5 drives that only read ~10000, and cheaper.  Not really any point paying more, when you can get the best drive on the market for less. 

Also not much point IMO in paying for storage speed, just to kill that performance with file compression.

Edited July 30, 2024 by kksnowbear

[Mr_sukebe]

16 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

I bought a Crucial T705 end of March for $282.

Even 4 months ago they were less than 300 including tax (6% here)...but now they're $266 at Amazon (before tax).

Better drive, nearly 50% faster than all the Gen5 drives that only read ~10000, and cheaper.  Not really any point paying more, when you can get the best drive on the market for less. 

Also not much point IMO in paying for storage speed, just to kill that performance with file compression.

 

 

How does the 705 compare within DCS?  Does it make any noticeable difference?

I've seen the benchmarks, which suggest that it's as good as it gets at the moment, but have no idea how that translates into real world performance.

[Dex0]

I am also have storage issues. Haven't been able to play since the penultimate update. I'd love hear about affordable external HD recommendations.

Edited October 6, 2024 by Dex0

[Hammer1-1]

On 7/31/2024 at 6:26 AM, Mr_sukebe said:

 

How does the 705 compare within DCS?  Does it make any noticeable difference?

I've seen the benchmarks, which suggest that it's as good as it gets at the moment, but have no idea how that translates into real world performance.

Id actually like to know if that heatsink can come off.

[Mk1_Trebuchet]

The heatsink can come off, and they sell a version without one.  But some kind of cooling is going to be required.   It's not likely to self immolate, but going without will shorten its lifespan. 

 

Removing the heatsink involves (carefully) removing the factory adhesives. So if you're uncomfortable with potentially destroying the PCB, stick to the version without the HS.

Edited October 7, 2024 by Mk1_Trebuchet

[kksnowbear]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:26 AM, Mk1_Trebuchet said:

It's not likely to self immolate, but going without will shorten its lifespan. 

That's not really a very accurate characterization, IMHO.

The drives have controller firmware configuration that limits speed based on temp.  It's absolutely true that the drive will throttle to cool down, but I am (reasonably) certain you'd be hard pressed to find a drive - at least one from anything like a reputable source - that will kill itself over time rather than simply slow down.  Slow down = less heat (and trust me, they know how hot it can run without causing failure, at least over the warranty period, certainly; probably well beyond that).

I would agree generally that less heat in most anything electrical means it'll last longer...but that can vary broadly, and is not absolute.  Certainly some devices can do better over time if they are allowed to run at an increased temperature (particularly if it's consistent).

In computers, of course, we generally want to keep heat down, but most stuff is designed to slow down to protect itself these days (with some obvious and notable flaws at times, of course...*ahem* Intel).

Most of these drives - certainly PCIe 5.0; possibly 4.0 and 3.0 drives - indicate they should be used with a heatsink of some sort.  For example, here's what Crucial says about the T705 being discussed:

1. Non-heatsink versions of the Crucial T705 must be installed with a motherboard or alternate heatsink to achieve optimal performance.

4. Under typical conditions for airflow and ambient temperature, our pre-installed premium heatsink allows the T705 Gen5 SSD to run at max workload without the need to thermal throttle. Comparisons made to SSD temperatures without a cooling apparatus. Please ensure your drive has proper airflow for maximum performance.

Note that it says 'to achieve optimal performance' and 'for maximum performance' - not "to ensure full lifespan" or "to avoid shortened lifespan".  This means that the drive will throttle to save itself ill effect from heat, but obviously won't perform as well.  That's the very reason for throttling, to reduce heat.

Also, FWIW I've removed quite a few factory heatsinks, and while I wouldn't claim it's representative of the entirety, I will say that I've never seen one that has anything I'd call 'adhesive' holding the heatsink on; it's always been mechanical in my experience (clips, screws, etc). 

If you aren't comfortable with doing it and accepting the risk of screwing it up, don't try removing it.  Get help from someone who knows what they're doing.  But if you are comfortable with the risks:  Work it slowly, use a non-abrasive tool like a plastic spudger or orangewood stick to leverage at the point of contact as you go.  It's actually very straightforward.

At most, the strip of thermal pad they use inside is more or less 'tacky', and sticks a bit along the length of a 2280 drive due simply to surface area.  (Water can cause a glass to 'stick' to a smooth countertop, but it's not adhesive at all of itself).  If there is some type of mechanical fastener - clips, screws, etc - then there's a very good chance the thermal pad inside isn't what's actually holding it together.  FWIW I've never seen one that didn't employ some type of mechanical fastening (although that's not to say they don't exist).

To be clear, the issue I take with the statement that 'going without (a heatsink) will shorten its lifespan' and similar perspectives is that it tends to cause laypeople to overreact to what are often normal operating conditions/'within normal limits' etc.  I know a guy I've built several systems for, who gets very apprehensive if his components run even a touch warm.  I've tried to explain his concerns are perhaps misguided, but that's one of the problems with people who know a little bit about electronics and computers:  They know what they hear about "rules", but they don't truly have an understanding of the details involved, nor the effect on the end result.  There's a good reason the old saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is still around after some 400 years.

Edited October 9, 2024 by kksnowbear