On 11/27/05, Gerard ROBIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le dimanche 27 novembre 2005 à 07:54 -0800, Paul Duncan a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > It seems we could do with a little spreadsheet like we > > used to have which gives frames/second for a given > > hardware/OS combination. If you guys on the list could > > E-mail me the following info, I'll make a nice little > > spreadsheet and stick it up on the web - hopefully > > either on or with a link from the main FG site. > > > > Please submit the following info: > > > > Frames/second > > CPU type and speed > > main RAM > > Graphics hardware (including graphics RAM if known) > > Operating system > > FG version > > Whether it works or not - I think this could be useful > > to steer people away from certain hardware that FG > > won't work on at present. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Paul > > ~~~~~ > Your idea is good, > Unfortunately we have others parameters, which are difficult to > measure, > what are the consequences, from AI (AC tanker, Carrier Nimitz, and > others) from Atlas (which geometry), which AC, and so on.... > Does FG running standalone ( i do have others appli running they use > memory and CPU) > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gerard > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d >
In that case it might be necessary to define a 'standard test' condition' after which results of those can be sent. You could define what fg should start with, what should be done, and that everything in the background except essentials should be shut down. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
