On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:56:42 +0000, David wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Paul Duncan writes: > > > > > > Yeah, I think you're right. So, suppose we say start > > off with Cessna 172 at KSFO *without* the Nimitz > > scenario loaded. > > > > You need a given time as well, to count the lighting effects out. > Suggest --timeofday=noon. You also need consistency in FSAA and > anisotropic filtering settings - both of these can hit frame rate on > pixel-bound setups. > > > Regarding the Linux/Windows issue, my plan was to use > > frames/second as the key field, and then it any > > operating system issue *might* become obvious... The > > results will hopefully speak for themselves. > > > > I can see this survey process is probably something > > that will be refined over time, but it would be nice > > to begin with a few data points :-) > > > > You also need to get consistency in geometry - eg 800x600, 1024x768 > etc. Measuring FPS at 2 pixel resolutions and 2 scene complexities > (eg. Downtown SF vs. somewhere flat and featureless) is a good way of > finding if you are pixel or polygon limited on a given setup. ..why just 2? And, what happened to FGBenchmark? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
