therefore most of my computer is sitting there with half of its potential being wasted for no reason!

 

You interpreted the bottleneck part right, but this part is pretty absurd. 

 

Lower CPU loads are always better.

 

If your computer were running X-Plane near max load all the time, and I/O operation occurs  (such as loading in scenery on the fly) --- the OS will simply suspend the program (freeze the sim) until it completes its fetch. 

 

Another way you can look at this as is which scenario would you prefer to drive?

On a highway through the suburbs ... with a few slow drivers. Or on a highway through the city ... with a few slow drivers?

I also noticed this, I get my CPU at like 0.65 and FPS at 20 upon sim start.

 

I change the weather (just download from net again) and low and behold it is back to my 0.996 load and FPS 34+! 

 

Weird.

Ian

The thing I've always wondered is why does XP take longer to load if I pull up my browser window over it, versus letting the XP loading window have front focus?

 

I get the "not responding" on the XP startup window if I open my browser over it, then minimize browser.

 

 

I get the "not responding" on the XP startup window if I open my browser over it, then minimize browser.

 

Is it actually slower, or does it just seem that way due to the 'Not Responding' window? Yes, X-Plane does throw a window not responding note if you bring something else into focus in the foreground as it's loading. But, it's also been my experience that X-Plane isn't actually loading any slower when that happens.

 

I'm not sure which forum it was discussed on,  but earlier in the XP10 life cycle the "not responding" message was discussed in more detail, and this is what I remember from it...

 

In most cases as Windows users, when we get a window not responding message we assume that the program has stopped functioning. In X-Plane's case, when it throws that message, it's just that X-Plane isn't sending an "I'm here and working!" message to Windows when the operating system wants it. It's still chewing along working in the background, but it's silence sends Windows into a small panic and the operating system greys out the window and presents the "not responding" message. When X-Plane decides to start talking to the operating system again it comes out of this mode and you're up and flying.

 

I'd wager that load times would be the same if you took a stopwatch to X-Plane loading in the foreground, vs. changing focus and inciting the "not responding" message.

Nope I've timed them....

 

2:40 when I double click XP and let it load.

 

3:15 when I double click XP, open Chrome and browse the net.  

 

I restart Windows in between.  35 seconds isn't a big deal I guess but it is slower.  I do not use an SSD either.

If you get a chance, try the timing on the multitask version again, but this time only pop another window open (or use a file explorer window) just enough to trigger the "Not Responding". If you're simply trigger "Not Responding" and then close down the offending window without letting it contribute any processing load, it'll be a good test as to whether or not you were being slowed down by your browsing activity, or if indeed the "Not Responding" scenario slows it down on the whole.

 

Now I'm curious at this point - we've all been told that "Not Responding" wasn't actually reflective of an actual slowdown!

 

Two or three minutes - that's a long time all right. As an SSD user, I've forgotten how much that can help with loading times. It can also influence the lack of slow downs that I've observed as well.

 

-Greg

Yeah but "slowed down by browsing" activity?  lol - browsing the net takes barely any CPU resources.  It's almost like my CPU is throttled (I verified it's not) when another window is up.

 

I'll try to time it again sometime... but I agree with you that if I just opened and closed a browser it would probably load in about the same amount of time.  Still I can do the net browsing in FSX and it has no effect on load times.

 

An SSD is on my list of things to get - for FSX, XP and BF4.

Along the 10.20 beta versions, i've noticed that x-plane 64-bit process has been far from using 100% CPU time, while there's no other system bottleneck. This behavior has been confirmed by other users on LM blog.

 

On my PC, XP 64-bit uses about 70% CPU time after sim startup, and stays at this level indefinitely, UNLESS:

 

- I start a weather change event...

 

like: setting something different on the static global weather, reloading real weather from the net, etc.

 

Then the CPU will go to 99.99% load and will stay at this level, giving a FPS boost until the end of the simulation session.

 

In my case, I always got about 30% FPS increase

 

BTW, i filled a bug report to Laminar.

This worked perfect for me on Windows 7 x64

 

I just switched to windows 8.1, and now it doesn't work anymore. And I have lost 30% FPS! 

I have experienced very similar behaviour, however the "magic event" has been different. 

 

In some cases it has been switching between Full Screen mode to Windowed mode and then back to full screen. The gain come in the windowed mode initially, but then it is maintained when switching to full screen. Below are the steps I took to reproduce it: 

 

1. Load X-Plane in full screen mode and open a heavy in resources aeroplane (I loaded JarDesign A320Neo)

2. Observe the frames. Mine were at around 19-20 fps 

3. Load a light on resources aeroplane. I loaded the default Cessna 172

4. Notice that the frames have not improved at all

5. Change the rendering settings to windowed mode

6. Frames sky rocket. 

7. Switch to "full screen". Frames remain high 

8. Reload the JarDesign A320Neo. The fps now are about 34-35 (about 50% improvement)

 

This is in Windows 8.1, X-Plane 10.30r2, 64-bit

Get ready to buy a new CPU soon

Already smell some smoke...

 

Cheers

having a CPU at 100% is not an issue at all. Having it running a high voltage + high temperature is. If you run a cpu at 100% load on stock settings it'll go on, and on, and on...