The Petraeus Index

[pontiuspilotus 6]

What a great idea! Congratulations.What do you think about having a little application that would do the following things:-1) Backup the users FSX.CFG and Scenery.CFG files2) Set FSX.CFG and Scenery.CFG files known values (eg Graphics, Scenery, Traffic sliders etc)3) Launch FSX4) For each aircraft in the users system:- (a) Start a flight at your test airport with that aircraft loaded, and sit idle for say 3 mins(:( Write the average FPS and aircraft name to a .CSV log file5) Restore the FSX.CFG and Scenery.CFG from backup6) Upload the .CSV log file to your ftp/email for you to analyse/chart resultsThe advantages of such an app would be:-1) Consistent FSX test configuration2) Makes it easy for users to run test and so many more users might actually run the test, hence you will get a bigger sample3) You could easily test different scenerios (eg different FSX.CFG settings)4) Results are collated for you automatically

That's a great idea, Matthew. Always had something like that in mind. Are you volunteering? :( The more the merrier!Ponti

[Mango 0]

Thanks Mango, we'll add these to the graph. Can you confirm that these are raw FPS readings (we can normalise them for you) and that the readings are for the VC view? You mentioned that the FPS was locked in some of these cases; I hope they in no way constrain any of the FPS measurements (causing them to be invalid).Thanks again for the contribution.Ponti

Hi Ponti,FPS were of course unlocked and all were measured in the VC at daytime (vsync off). I even took care of the different initial zoom levels and was setting it like i would fly the aircraft. Readings are average FPS rounded up or down. All systems were running, weather was set to clear sky. The CRJ had straight 100 FPS average.Like i said, some aircraft have very stable FPS at unlimited, some are all over the place... Wonder why.

[Mango 0]

1) Backup the users FSX.CFG and Scenery.CFG files2) Set FSX.CFG and Scenery.CFG files known values (eg Graphics, Scenery, Traffic sliders etc)3) Launch FSX4) For each aircraft in the users system:- (a) Start a flight at your test airport with that aircraft loaded, and sit idle for say 3 mins(:( Write the average FPS and aircraft name to a .CSV log file5) Restore the FSX.CFG and Scenery.CFG from backup6) Upload the .CSV log file to your ftp/email for you to analyse/chart results

Well, no need to do anything with the scenery.cfg. Go to the FSX settings page - you will find four buttons (Save, Load, Customize and Reset Defaults). There you save your current settings as f.e. Standard and your FPS test settings as f.e. Test. Easy to switch. Set up your test situation (i was sitting at the Ayers Rock airport with the CRJ700) and save the flight as f.e. FPS Test. It can happen that some aircraft crash when you work through your hangar. Load the 'Test' cfg and the 'FPS Test' flight and you are back in no time.

[Guest rdg]

Hi all,I hate to sound like a party pooper, but it seems to me there are more variables than you can shake a stick at. Kindof like herding cats sort of. Setting up a test configuration environment is not an easy task.I hope you guys can figure it out as it may be somewhat valuable in the decision process to buy or not to buy. I must agree on the Carenado findings as all of their planes have done great on my system.RegardsBG

Hi Ponti,FPS were of course unlocked and all were measured in the VC at daytime (vsync off). I even took care of the different initial zoom levels and was setting it like i would fly the aircraft. Readings are average FPS rounded up or down. All systems were running, weather was set to clear sky. The CRJ had straight 100 FPS average.Like i said, some aircraft have very stable FPS at unlimited, some are all over the place... Wonder why.

[1mikel151 71]

Hi all,I hate to sound like a party pooper, but it seems to me there are more variables than you can shake a stick at. Kindof like herding cats sort of. Setting up a test configuration environment is not an easy task.I hope you guys can figure it out as it may be somewhat valuable in the decision process to buy or not to buy. I must agree on the Carenado findings as all of their planes have done great on my system.RegardsBG

Agreed, but it's not about the test environment, it's a measure aganist airacraft, not the environment. Example, according to the two lists posted, the Aerosoft Bushhawk gave less than half of the FPS than they got with the default CRJ, so no matter what your environment setup, you should see a similar result between the two aircraft. So if you are getting 20 fps in the default CRJ, then I would expect to get around 10 FPS in the Aerosoft Bushhawk based on this test data. If enough people post their findings, then performance can be more precise based on the average.This is why I always ask users how an addon compares to the defaults since I get good performance with them.

[ryanbatc 12,775]

I always compare my addons to the default. And the the developers complain. Blah blah blah... It's best to compare them to default because everyone has default aircraft. I don't have nearly as many addons as a lot of you have but essentially say the C172 (non g1000) vc is 100 index:RealAir scout/decathlon 90Super 80 Pro 80LevelD 767 75SR22 G3 Turbo 60Mustang 50(all in the VC)

[Guest rdg]

Hmm, I guess your right. It really is relative when you look at it from your perspective. But I did see in another post that the F1 Mustang in one graph pretty much sat at the bottom but someone else posted and it was somewhere in the middle. So I am wondering.... Here is something to think about. You here so many talk about how increasing traffic (either car or ai) cripples their system. With my system, this is not the case. I can essentially turn up traffic on the ground and in the air and see very little change in my Frames. On the other hand, when I load up a glass cockpit, my frames tumble and I am running a 9650 processor. For me, autogen, traffic, clouds can be reasonably upped with out too much penalty, but sophistacated planes crash my system, even with the traffic and other sliders turned way down. This has always confused me. Anyway, good luck with the metrics. RegardsBG

Agreed, but it's not about the test environment, it's a measure aganist airacraft, not the environment. Example, according to the two lists posted, the Aerosoft Bushhawk gave less than half of the FPS than they got with the default CRJ, so no matter what your environment setup, you should see a similar result between the two aircraft. So if you are getting 20 fps in the default CRJ, then I would expect to get around 10 FPS in the Aerosoft Bushhawk based on this test data. If enough people post their findings, then performance can be more precise based on the average.This is why I always ask users how an addon compares to the defaults since I get good performance with them.

[MatthewS 761]

That's a great idea, Matthew. Always had something like that in mind. Are you volunteering? :( The more the merrier!

If I had the time, yes I would, but unfortunately I don't, so I can't! :(

[Luis Hernandez 566]

This looks interesting. I applied the same procedure, but for FS9 (no FSX in my PC) and I got an index of 72 for the PMDG 747-400. Because there's no default CRJ in FS9, I used the default 747 (which has an index of 100, and if I'm not wrong, the FSX one is exactly the same as the FS9 one) as reference. Is this a good reference, or should I've taken another one? And has anybody else tried doing this on FS9?Also, the Wiki says AI and autogen should be turned down to zero. Do I have to do so with Scenery or that's not necessary?Best regards from ColombiaLuis Miguel

[tf51d 284]

Interesting!, For it to be considered an accurate gauge though, it would have to be shown these numbers are relatively consistent, by the same percentage of difference, across the wide range of different systems. Also looking at the charts on the Wiki Page, why are there business jets listed under other aircraft? Wouldn't they be considered GA? Same goes for the Wilco CRJ and ERJ-145, shouldn't they be under airliners? I'm going to run these tests myself and see what I come up with with my system.

[Guest jshyluk]

"Like herding cats", indeed. Put me in that camp. Although, if I have some spare time, I will start making little tiny lassos.Now that I have some experience as a Reviewer for AVSIM, I would prefer to say "this product kills your framerates", or "this product is frame-rate friendly", and have folks be accepting. I also buy lottery tickets from time to time and expect to win, so I imagine there's also a Petraeus Index for how much I tend to live my life in my own little world. There are a lot of variables involved with evaluating add-on products, especially when you write reviews. I honestly don't think it's easy to define them all objectively, and I don't much care to. Things just kind of average out, as there are good computer days and bad ones, and after seeing enough products, I like to think I have a decent "feel" for something that works well versus something that does not. And, yes, I have the winning lotto ticket in my wallet right now. Gonna buy me a real 737, anyone who wants a spin, come let me know. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[gman! 1]

"Like herding cats", indeed. Put me in that camp. Although, if I have some spare time, I will start making little tiny lassos.Now that I have some experience as a Reviewer for AVSIM, I would prefer to say "this product kills your framerates", or "this product is frame-rate friendly", and have folks be accepting. I also buy lottery tickets from time to time and expect to win, so I imagine there's also a Petraeus Index for how much I tend to live my life in my own little world. There are a lot of variables involved with evaluating add-on products, especially when you write reviews. I honestly don't think it's easy to define them all objectively, and I don't much care to. Things just kind of average out, as there are good computer days and bad ones, and after seeing enough products, I like to think I have a decent "feel" for something that works well versus something that does not. And, yes, I have the winning lotto ticket in my wallet right now. Gonna buy me a real 737, anyone who wants a spin, come let me know. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Oooo Ooooo Me first. I call setting up the FMC and communicating with ATC :(. JK. That lotto ticket will let you buy a brand new 737................ in FSX from PMDG. No way you are getting the real one, unless you are the next king of Saudi Arabia or something. :(