silentsage

I recently purchased the PMDG 777 and have a question about VAS use. I have most of the ORBX products on my system, including the various scenery regions. I also use FS Global Ultimate Americas. I know that VAS usage is an issue, and I've restricted my 777 flights to airports that are far from the ORBX scenery regions. A route I often fly is from Chicago to Detroit, and I believe it uses only the default P3D scenery. I also follow the PMDG guidelines for minimizing VAS use. My question is, would the ORBX products still consume memory on such a flight? I'm used P3D v3.2 on Windows 10. I'm considering running two parallel P3D installations, one which has ORBX, and one which does not. I have a few other aircraft where VAS usage is an issue, and if running without ORBX is a solution, I will try this. Thanks

WarpD - In my job, I design Intel motherboards, and work with quite a few folks who also design hardware and software using Intel CPUs. None of us have ever heard of CPU parking increasing CPU temperatures - it just does't work that way. If you have actual data, or can point to benchmarks that demonstrate your claim, we'd like to see it. Our Intel and Microsoft reps don't have issue with using it, but perhaps you have some information that they lack. StoreydTrain - Someone in another forum, using a different name, wrote a response that is worded very similarly to yours, and I'll post this same reply there. I read the thread that you listed, and many others, before posting my original question. The thread you quote points out that Microsoft itself, in published documents, acknowledges that disabling CPU parking improves performance. Also, the thread contains comments by several folks who tried it and got positive results. Sorry if this seems harsh, but when I posted the original question, I was hoping that someone could discuss some of the details as to why CPU parking may, or may not, help with the software architecture used in FSX and/or P3D. That's why I posted the same question on the P3D site, where I asked the LM experts for their opinions. Hand -waving arguments not backed by data just don't help anyone.

This topic is quite active for other types of games, I'm not sure why there is such reluctance to discuss it here. A number of folks have said it reduces microstutters in quite a few different games (including FSX), and that suggests there is something behind it. Let's try to keep responses data-driven. If there are facts about this (positive or negative), it would be good to know them. If not, we can all move on. Philosophical responses not linked to data are not all that helpful. FYI, the CPU park settings are not affected by the power settings in Windows (i.e., setting opwer to "high performance" does not change them). Thanks.

There is a topic in this forum* that discusses CPU parking, and it has been locked. In that thread, there is a link to a post that ostensibly discusses why CPU parking is a bad idea. When you go to that link, the text for that post is missing - the title is there, but the actual text is missing. Could I please ask whoever provided that link to please explain why disabling CPU parking is a bad idea? It's getting a lot of attention in other games, and appears to be successful and witjhout risks (though I could be wrong). FYI, I'm an electrical engineer whith 30 years experience in designing motherboards for Intel processors. The concept seems sound to me but, if not. I'd like to understand why. I've tested it on my system and it is a huge improvement. Thanks. * Since this thread was moved, the topic the OP is referring to may be found here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/432634-bad-idea-regedit-for-windows-7-microstutters/