Could you perhaps correct the "Aerosoft Long-EZ" to "AlphaSim Long-EZ"?Would be appreciated... :(

Indeed, apologies for that. Wilco.

QUOTE (Simicro @ May 10 2009, 11:03 AM) 1) Edwards Air Force Base is in the desert then I assume that scenery settings (complexity, mesh resolution etc.) are neglectable? If so for clarity and to give people confidence in the Index, maybe you can state it in the wiki.As long as those settings are the same for all measurements, then it doesn't really matter what they are, because they will be constant over time and for each reading. We're most concerned with taking out the factors that can change over time, like AI and the weather.QUOTE (Simicro @ May 10 2009, 11:03 AM) 2) Once the (monthly?) Index is published, the 'discussion' for the Wiki entry http://linux.myalbemarle.org/wiki/index.ph..._Petraeus_Index is wiped out? No tracability?That page is currently blank because no-one has yet used it to send measurements. All the measurements have come instead via email or PM. Any method is OK for getting the data to me.QUOTE (Simicro @ May 10 2009, 11:03 AM) 3) To avoid 'spam' and let the audience judge the realiabilty and trustworthiness of the measurement for a given aircraft, IMHO you should indicate not only the result of the measurement but also the number of people who sent their reports. And the method of calculation (eg: a score for an aircraft is the mean of all measurements?) should be stated clearly in the wiki.The score is always the mean of all measurements. Measurements are always screened for consistency - for example, if the highest FPS values are always a maximum of 60, then that's a good indication that someone has not switched VSYNC off. It would be nice to show ranges of measure, standard deviations and the rest, but for the moment I'd prefer to stick with the clarity of the current presentation.I look forward to your measurements, Simicro!

How do we respond? What format do you want for the data?Also, I only have some of those addons.... but I have MS Excel, do you want data in columns or just a graph of my results

Any method is OK for getting the data to me.

Microsoft CRJ700 : 75 fpsDodosim 206 for FSX : 87 fpsDreamfleet Dakota for FSX : 60 fpsRealAir Decathlon for FSX : 77 fpsRealAir Scout for FSX : 78 fpsRealAir Marchetti for FSX : 69 fpsRealAir Duke for FSX : 36 fpsThe VC zoom was set to 0.5 and the view was straight-forward (CTRL-Space)Without speaking of detailed stats (min, max, standard deviation etc.) I would like to see the number of measurements for each aircraft in the next Index. Otherwise it would have no significance to me. Example : 2 measurements for aircraft X and 100 measurements for aircraft Y.

How do we respond? What format do you want for the data?

Just as per Simicro's post. Your FPS for the CRJ700, and your FPS for whatever aircraft you measure, will be fine.

is this from the VC or external view or an avg of both?cause i think the VC should matter the most

VC as explained on the Wiki :(

I didnt read it, but i found the link now, and am testing....was going good until the Mustang crashed fsx lol

Ok, I did the same settings as per the wiki, but I did VC default view at .50 zoom tooAerosoft F16C- 25.5Captainsim C130E - 38.0Carenado Arrow - 58.5Default CRJ7 - 53.0Eaglesoft SR22 G3 Turbo - 35.5Flight1 Mustang (copilot PFD removed)

Thanks for those numbers, Simicro and ryanbatcund. They'll be included in the next version.

Is the Petraeux index still being updated? The link to the wiki is dead and the May results aren't visible anymore.

I too found the link to be dead and the results missing in the Wiki.Anyone have any ideas as to why this study is no longer available to the community? I'm flying an older system and this seemed like a useful benchmark as to how an add-on aircraft might perform for my computer. I thought the idea to benchmark the aircraft vs the Microsoft CRJ was brillant. All of us have different computers but this gave us some insight (admittidly not perfect) into what range of FPS we could expect.Thanks for any information ....

I too found the link to be dead and the results missing in the Wiki.Anyone have any ideas as to why this study is no longer available to the community? I'm flying an older system and this seemed like a useful benchmark as to how an add-on aircraft might perform for my computer. I thought the idea to benchmark the aircraft vs the Microsoft CRJ was brillant. All of us have different computers but this gave us some insight (admittidly not perfect) into what range of FPS we could expect.Thanks for any information ....

The Wiki got zapped about the same time as AVSIM was hacked. I do have the source data, and so can reconstitute it, but there's going to be a fair bit of work, and another real-life activity of mine is unfortunately taking priority at the moment.

Thanks for the response. Ugh! I hope the hacker(s) of Avsim get their just punishment. I'm sorry to hear your study was affected by the hack and completely understand (and appreciate) the amount of work that must go into a study like this. Thanks for doing it in the past.....