Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

pontiuspilotus

The Petraeus Index, Version 2, Feb. 2009

Recommended Posts

Here is version 2 of the Petraeus Index. Thanks to everyone who contributed, especially Mango.The figures are broken down for convenience into three sets - airline, GA and other (bizjet, military etc.)Full details of what it's all about can be found in the AVSIM Wiki entry (link below). It's also the place where you can add in your own figures - there are full instructions there. You can either supply your own numbers for aircraft already shown, to give us a larger statistical sample, or add new numbers for aircraft we don't have details of yet. For example, we have no figures yet for Ariane 737's, or for the Leonardo MD80. So please pitch in and help this to become the definitive source of relative aircraft performance data. - the better the sample data, the better the overall reliability of the Index. The numbers are relative to the stock Microsoft CRJ700, which is given the value of 100. So something with a score of 33 will typically only give a third of the framerate of the CRJ on your system; something with a score of 150 will typically give 50% more frames per second.http://linux.myalbemarle.org/wiki/index.ph..._Petraeus_IndexThe links for the charts are as follows. Please maximise your window size to view these charts. Alternatively, if you're having trouble viewing, just download the JPG to your drive.For general aircrafthttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/325176...7504ef0fb_o.jpgFor airlinershttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3380/325258...638e7c0ed_o.jpgFor other aircrafthttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3395/325182...e46b7e173_o.jpgThe charts are getting really huge so it was decided to place them on Flickr for the time being, linked from AVSIM, until we can figure out a way to embed images in the Wiki itself.Enjoy. :( Petraeus / Pontiuspilotus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Excellent resource, thank you! I find those rankings to be very accurate with the aircraft I own:- PMDG MD11, LDS 767, Coolsky MD80 (including PRO), Twin Otter, and Mustang (refunded)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job ! But i still don't get it why the Twin Comanche and the SF260 get a lower rating then f.e. the Saratoga glass. I see a huge difference the other way around. Also the Flight1 Mustang is by far not worse than the BushHawk. Further the Carenado C182 performs much better than the default Baron G1000. Not sure if some developer can agree with the current list - IMO there should be much more input to get a fair average reading :( .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO there should be much more input to get a fair average reading :( .
That's the key! The more input we have, and we're as happy to have figures for just one plane as for 100, the more reliable the results can be across all systems.And if we get enough data, we can get really sophisticated and show the statistical variability for individual results. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW..."my" two-developed airplanes (the MS Acceleration F18 and the EH-101) are both at the top of the fps list!And they said GDI+ is "slow"...Umberto Colapicchioni / VIRTUALI s.a.s.http://www.fsdreamteam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW..."my" two-developed airplanes (the MS Acceleration F18 and the EH-101) are both at the top of the fps list!
Congratulations, Umberto!I wouldn't expect you to tell your competitors at the bottom of the list how it's done, but let's hope they'll start questioning their own development methods and tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has the Ariane 737 and Maddog MD80 please, please submit a test result. Or any payware aircraft you own, for that matter. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Petraeus, Just one observation, you should mention that the index is the performance of an a/c in the V/C. To differentiate from an "outside view". And I think that would give different numbers also.note: this is meant to be "constructive feedback" . I agree with your work, it is an excellent idea and will help simmers.CheersPierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Petraeus, Just one observation, you should mention that the index is the performance of an a/c in the V/C. To differentiate from an "outside view". And I think that would give different numbers also.note: this is meant to be "constructive feedback" . I agree with your work, it is an excellent idea and will help simmers.CheersPierre
Indeed Pierre. It's from the VC, not from outside, nor from the 2D cockpit, which will all give different scores and even rankings. It's done on the assumption, probably true for the majority, that the VC is where most simmers spend their time these days.And all feedback is welcome :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This exercise is a good start, but you need a slightly more systematic approach. Different planes will show different FPS on different graphic cards. Any comparison can only be made including mention of CPU, graphic card, driver version, DX9/DX10, etc. What are you looking at from the VC? Buildings? ATI and nvidia perform totally different when looking at building polygons. Are you looking at exactly the same things in all planes ... you can't, because the view from each VC is different. The outside view distorts your VC numbers I am sure. I have a 9800GT with the latest (181.x) drivers on a 4MB RAM quadcore PC.I tried to reproduce your ranking for the Digital Aviation Piper Cheyenne for example: which version did you use? which SP installed? there are 4 aircraft in that package. None of them reach marks as high as yours (166!!!!), the worst I can find is 26, the best 80%. Thats half of what you report.I then tried to reproduce your PMDG MD-11 and 747 numbers: they rank much higher than in your charts. So does the Level-D.The Carendo Mooney shows much higher FPS on my system than the standard. You only give it a hundred. The 182Q is almost 20% better than the Mooney -- your chart has both at 100.Even for such simple things as the default 747, 738, and A321. I cannot scientifically reproduce any difference between these three planes. In short, even though I applaud your enthusiasm, I fear you are are misleading users and are doing more harm than good with the current way of comparing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In short, even though I applaud your enthusiasm, I fear you are are misleading users and are doing more harm than good with the current way of comparing.
If you read the Wiki entry, which describes the standard situation, you'll see that there are no buildings - it's in the middle of the desert. Other things that could put additional strain on resources, such as weather and AI traffic, are removed.Obviously the results are an average, and there is variation about that average. The figures will get even better, the more people supply their own results. If we got enough figures, we could even supply measures such as standard deviation, that show how variable a particular airplane might be, and thus whether buying it may be either predictable or a complete gamble in FPS terms.So might I suggest that your own best contribution to the exercise would be your own numbers, but taken under the standard conditions as described in the Wiki?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites