Hi, just a real quick one. Definately not scared off - nobodies threatened to fire bomb my house yet ;-) But I'm just getting ready to leave the US and get back to the UK. I'll be back on the list later this week when I'm over the jet lag, and I'll catch up on everyone's ideas :-)
TTFN! Paul ~~~~~ --- "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
