So how it it that you're doing it Chris?

There are missions, but we are looking at using PMDG744x and addon scenery. The 744 is too complex to simply change a missions ac. Needs to be a custom flight.

There obviously is a point to this benchmarking and not knowing all of the new "details" in the docs I dont want to say it won't be credable but unless you start getting a little more anal the credability surely is/will be questionable at the least, sorry but its true.If on the other your just going for fun, great and enjoy but it could never be looked at as more than anything but a collection of questionable numbers that may or may not represent reliable FSX performance for a given system or hardware state.For instance, still..."Static weather" ? Maybe another dev or someone can correct me, but its not really possible in FSX for a reliable benchmark to include weather at all unless either the benchmark is run several more times than the FSX random generatorcreates scenes so that there is an average OR run with no weather (clear skys) because FSX still loads different combinations of random textures for a given "static" scene.And For instance the coments about not needing to reboot win7 for benchmarking...you would prefer not to have the best chance for a steady state OS before running FSX benchmark? Not a good idea, its all ready hard enough asserting that X person has a properly set upOS invironment let alone hope that all else is even. Win7 and memory, way off! Sure it does a nice job, but being "free" in Win7 means nothing other than the address space is availabe for use, however it is still in cache long after FSX is shut down and used again unless you reboot or manualy clear it your result will not be totaly reliable from setting change to setting change, what ever that change maybe (game, driver, hardware, clock speed, timings etc).The ONLY FSX.cfg posted so far (where are the others?) shows settings that are all over the place, no? TML@2048, LOD at 3.5, mesh at only 70 etc etc and has it been defined as to windowed or full screen etc?Please dont take this wrong way (we all do) and read into this what is not here, Some of you understand and are -->really headed int the right direction and I really dont mean to be a kill joy and I hope you enjoy the fun of benchmaking but seriously I hope this doesn't ever get "stickyed" until it becomes even close to credable effort. Really, hope some of you understand the rant in the right way... Cheers!

I actually agree to the last post by freebird. What we need to do is be really anal about the settings and everything.The thing about the static weather is also true. We should use no weather at all, because only that represents a really same situation. I had a test file with more layers of clouds, all at 8/8, and was wondering each time, that the clouds loaded everything in different direction, sometimes with holes in the middle and such.Concerning fsx.cfg, yeah, there needs to be something do with it. My suggestion would be - delete (backup) and let remake. Setting all to global high is easy from that point off.I believe Chris is gonna put everything into readme so that we might have most precise benachmarks.

Yea, a totally clean post is hard though. We'd need the admin to sticky it or something. We had made a spreadsheet here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ahq4ws8Rx4gudEtLYlE5ZGdDanc1ZG1WcVdZY1FIMUE&hl=en&authkey=CKrfrI8D#gid=0I dont think you need an account

Alright, how should I be able to edit it?

The only reason I am using weather is so that I can land on runway 27L, where almost entire airport is visible until you actually touchdown, whereas landing on 9L only shows part of the airport on final approach and onwards. I'll try putting weather as static, give it a few tests, then start on the readme and settings etc. That will probably take a while to type up properly, so please bear with me.

That was my fsx.cfg, and it was the "global high" settings in fsxmark07 that's why LOD was at 3.5, mesh at only 70...

There obviously is a point to this benchmarking and not knowing all of the new "details" in the docs I dont want to say it won't be credable but unless you start getting a little more anal the credability surely is/will be questionable at the least, sorry but its true.If on the other your just going for fun, great and enjoy but it could never be looked at as more than anything but a collection of questionable numbers that may or may not represent reliable FSX performance for a given system or hardware state.For instance, still..."Static weather" ? Maybe another dev or someone can correct me, but its not really possible in FSX for a reliable benchmark to include weather at all unless either the benchmark is run several more times than the FSX random generatorcreates scenes so that there is an average OR run with no weather (clear skys) because FSX still loads different combinations of random textures for a given "static" scene.And For instance the coments about not needing to reboot win7 for benchmarking...you would prefer not to have the best chance for a steady state OS before running FSX benchmark? Not a good idea, its all ready hard enough asserting that X person has a properly set upOS invironment let alone hope that all else is even. Win7 and memory, way off! Sure it does a nice job, but being "free" in Win7 means nothing other than the address space is availabe for use, however it is still in cache long after FSX is shut down and used again unless you reboot or manualy clear it your result will not be totaly reliable from setting change to setting change, what ever that change maybe (game, driver, hardware, clock speed, timings etc).The ONLY FSX.cfg posted so far (where are the others?) shows settings that are all over the place, no? TML@2048, LOD at 3.5, mesh at only 70 etc etc and has it been defined as to windowed or full screen etc?Please dont take this wrong way (we all do) and read into this what is not here, Some of you understand and are -->really headed int the right direction and I really dont mean to be a kill joy and I hope you enjoy the fun of benchmaking but seriously I hope this doesn't ever get "stickyed" until it becomes even close to credable effort. Really, hope some of you understand the rant in the right way... Cheers!

I actually agree to the last post by freebird. What we need to do is be really anal about the settings and everything.The thing about the static weather is also true. We should use no weather at all, because only that represents a really same situation. I had a test file with more layers of clouds, all at 8/8, and was wondering each time, that the clouds loaded everything in different direction, sometimes with holes in the middle and such.Concerning fsx.cfg, yeah, there needs to be something do with it. My suggestion would be - delete (backup) and let remake. Setting all to global high is easy from that point off.I believe Chris is gonna put everything into readme so that we might have most precise benachmarks.Alright, how should I be able to edit it?

we'll just let bangoman edit it he created it, if your willing to do a FSXmark 07 bench? PM him I guess when your done.

we'll just let bangoman edit it he created it, if your willing to do a FSXmark 07 bench? PM him I guess when your done.

Sounds good: http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__1865995If you want to create a google spreadsheet for these other tests with add-ons, just register a google account and away you go. Sharing the google docs spreadsheet is pretty easy, just decide whether or not you want others to edit it. I can't help much in this series of tests as I don't have any add-ons nor fly any jets.[Thread jack not intended, trying to keep it on topic]

So here we go, I created a spreadsheet, if you have an idea what else to put in that could more define the hardware we are using, please feel free to edit. If you don't know how or don't want to mess with it, please PM me or post a suggestion here, I'll do it. Accessible without an account and editable.Please keep it clean and neat, as I created it.https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuiXjW8fJyDrdC1KZm5fSlJYdnJBaXRRclFuU0U3WUE&hl=en&authkey=CMSSocoI

Specify if onboard sound please - just type in onboard if you have onboard sound, so it's clear. Thanks.

I have set up a flight over EGLL we can use. Chris, if yours is ready too maybe we can use both

Well, here it is just in case someone wants to try it and comment or somethingIt includes a suggested settings file to do the test, just something to start with, not really that we need to use this particular one, but we definitely must agree on the settings.Also important: we need to provide info like "WideViewAspect" or Bufferpools, apart from what has been already mentioned (complete hardware breakdown, scenery addons, traffic addons, CPU & GPU overclock, GPU driver, resolution...)http://www.divshare....ad/13035276-9f1

Dario, as has been mentioned before, one should be running virtually vanilla FSX, with those two addons, of course including either Accel. or SP2. Otherwise benchmarks are going to be biased.Absolutely no changes to fsx.cfg manually, best way: backup, delete, load FSX, make formentioned settings and benchmark. And of course, no scenery addons, no traffic addons...Right now, 4:23 am, just came back home, and will try your file tomorrow!

Roger that Just the Heathrow Scenery right?g'night!

Dario, as has been mentioned before, one should be running virtually vanilla FSX, with those two addons, of course including either Accel. or SP2. Otherwise benchmarks are going to be biased.Absolutely no changes to fsx.cfg manually, best way: backup, delete, load FSX, make formentioned settings and benchmark. And of course, no scenery addons, no traffic addons...Right now, 4:23 am, just came back home, and will try your file tomorrow!

You didn't specify what resolution and if AA/AF turned off or on - those settings are not being loaded with the file. In all truth, we just gotta be very correct about everything.We should also testing without clouds and traffic, because those are uncontrollable over more users. Clouds always display different and bias the settings, and traffic, not everyone is gonna uninstall their traffic to make a test.

I will test any resolution (max 1920x1080x32), AA, & AF that anyone else tests to compare, and we could also try one run with minimal resolution (1024x768x32) no AA and no AF to isolate the CPU.I can also easily set up another flight with no clouds, but all the tests I run so far where quite similar even with the little clouds that appear scattered in fair weather.With no traffic you mean 0% traffic or just default traffic? I already disabled mytraffic X (it just takes 1 minutes to disable MyTraffic / UT2 and restore default traffic) so if someone doesn't want to disable their traffic addons, well, ok, but I'd still rather have some results with addons than noneJust my opinion

You didn't specify what resolution and if AA/AF turned off or on - those settings are not being loaded with the file. In all truth, we just gotta be very correct about everything.We should also testing without clouds and traffic, because those are uncontrollable over more users. Clouds always display different and bias the settings, and traffic, not everyone is gonna uninstall their traffic to make a test.