How do i find what FPS i'm running under windows/FGv098a?
Dene
From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: FlightGear user discussions <[email protected]>
To: FlightGear user discussions <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Frames/Second and Hardware survey
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:42:48 -0600
bass pumped wrote:
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.
Having a well defined test case (or set of test cases ... day vs. night, 3d
clouds, shadows) is definitely important to having some sort of validity to
the results. Benchmarking complex computer applications is not a fixed
science. There are just way too many variables. Assuming we haven't
scared off Paul from the task, my suggestion is to try to strike a balance
between enough simplicity to make the task managable, and enough complexity
to make the results useful. The results don't have to be perfect to be
useful.
Perhaps there could be an optional 'notes' field for a variety of special
case comments to handle some of the nuances that are outside the core test
case(s).
Here we could make note if a particular video chipset or card has abysmal
performance, or if some combination of things just don't work. That would
be a useful tool when/if people shop for new hardware.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
