Well, while it's just the two of us benching we can do what we want haha, even Chris is nowhere to be seen :sad:What if we make the 0% traffic test the #2 instead then?I posted in the PMDG section but no joy, so far the benchmark has 8 downloads, so I guess someone else must have tried it apart of usBTW, what EGLL addon scenery did you run the tests on if any? and did you disable REX2?Our averages are very close, but your min and max frames are significantly better

And I thought we agreed on 0% traffic. :biggrin:In all honesty - is it easier to mess up disabling the traffic externally, but rather just put the slider to 0%? Do what you think, but with the backup of fsx.cfg, nothing goes wrong in this field...I just think testing AI is pointless.I believe we will have people testing. Just have to see what we really do with traffic :Big Grin: I had virtually no difference between 4 and 4.2. Left it running at 4.2 just for the sake of it!Yeah, I think we can leave it at one test, 1280x1024 + AA/AF in FSX. Other test is pointless.

Well, while it's just the two of us benching we can do what we want haha, even Chris is nowhere to be seen :sad:What if we make the 0% traffic test the #2 instead then?I posted in the PMDG section but no joy, so far the benchmark has 8 downloads, so I guess someone else must have tried it apart of usBTW, what EGLL addon scenery did you run the tests on if any? and did you disable REX2?Our averages are very close, but your min and max frames are significantly better

Is there a difference with 100% AI (default one) and 0%?Give it a bit... and stop worrying so much ^_^ EGLL by Aerosoft as said.You know, the fact is, limiting ourselves to only 744x and Aerosoft EGLL, or UK2000, gives us fairly small amount of people to be able to make a test. Just a thought...

Is there a difference with 100% AI (default one) and 0%?

Well traffic takes it's toll on frames, even default traffic of course, and I'm sure you know that so I guess you mean if it's relevant for the tests, and honestly I have no idea, but I thought I'd pick the kind of settings peeps would consider maxed settings for this one as it was intended to be a hardcore simmer test. Again, no objection on my part on benching with no traffic

EGLL by Aerosoft as said.

Ok, sorry I missed that. That could very well be distorting our results, who knows. Should we just disable AS / UK2000 scenery altogether?

You know, the fact is, limiting ourselves to only 744x and Aerosoft EGLL, or UK2000, gives us fairly small amount of people to be able to make a test. Just a thought...

Agreed, I have all the PMDG stuff and the Concorde X by Flight Sim Labs, and don't mind setting up a test at KORD, KJFK or anywhere else if we get more people to join us. Even the default scenery at those airports is pretty demanding (or I think so, might be the traffic)

Well traffic takes it's toll on frames, even default traffic of course, and I'm sure you know that so I guess you mean if it's relevant for the tests, and honestly I have no idea, but I thought I'd pick the kind of settings peeps would consider maxed settings for this one as it was intended to be a hardcore simmer test. Again, no objection on my part on benching with no traffic Ok, sorry I missed that. That could very well be distorting our results, who knows. Should we just disable AS / UK2000 scenery altogether? Agreed, I have all the PMDG stuff and the Concorde X by Flight Sim Labs, and don't mind setting up a test at KORD, KJFK or anywhere else if we get more people to join us. Even the default scenery at those airports is pretty demanding (or I think so, might be the traffic)

Let's go without traffic for starters, if you don't mind.See here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/316767-fsx-benchmark-which-test-poll/Let's wait it out, see how it develops.I don't think the point is really "demanding" - you can also make comparisons at 100fps, the fact is you need conformity.We can do small, comparative tests, with addons, but on a large scale, you gotta think big. Thus the post. See what people vote.Let me put it like this:Default scenery/aircraft:PC1: 100fpsPC2: 50fpsAddon scenery/aircraft:PC1: 50fpsPC2: ... 25fps, of course.It all scales to the same amount for sure.Now, if people feel they get better results running addons, fine by me. But for the comparisons, you can take both them apples and oranges. Just gotta keep them separated.

Ok, but I tell you now it's going to be a landslide win for the complex addon option. People think that it's at those uber demanding situations when top of the line computers show how much better they perform. I for one have no clue if that's the case or not, but based on what I have been researching and testing all this time I think it's the other way aroundAlso most of the people who are concerned about performance are those with tones of addons of all kinds. And I'm one of them, well sort of heheBTW, how can you see who voted what? being a public poll we should be able to see that right? I can't or don't know how to. No big deal, just curious

Ok, but I tell you now it's going to be a landslide win for the complex addon option. People think that it's at those uber demanding situations when top of the line computers show how much better they perform. I for one have no clue if that's the case or not, but based on what I have been researching and testing all this time I think it's the other way aroundAlso most of the people who are concerned about performance are those with tones of addons of all kinds. And I'm one of them, well sort of heheBTW, how can you see who voted what? being a public poll we should be able to see that right? I can't or don't know how to. No big deal, just curious

Let's give it couple of days to see how it goes.As I understand benchmarking, the point of the whole thing is to see what gives best results. No matter what the source is.One could say lock at 40 and then test with heaviest addons - that would make sense. But, unlocked... it doesn't matter.I also have many addons, but I really could care less if some supercomputer gets 20% more performance. I can't afford it. Besides, I will see in the benchmark if there are such situations. I think that's also what you would like to see.You can't. Being public poll, you can see results without voting, as I understand it.

Just checked out the poll results. Looks like I'm never going to make a live as a fortune teller :Thinking:

Hehehe... but here's the idea I had on that thread: why not make two tests, one with addons and one with default? We already have a ready platform for that...

I'm ok with that, of course. Then we just use Test 1 for default (FSXMark07) and 2 for addons (the PMDG 744 benchmark)... problem is, at this point, I don't expect anyone to join us anymore. No big deal, but I'm afraid this is it

I'm ok with that, of course. Then we just use Test 1 for default (FSXMark07) and 2 for addons (the PMDG 744 benchmark)... problem is, at this point, I don't expect anyone to join us anymore. No big deal, but I'm afraid this is it

I'd like to avoid the area of FSXMark07, I think it's KSEA right? Many people use PNW, which is likely they will not disable. I tried, but I can't create a simple turnaround in a default aircraft, CRJ or something in FSX... maybe doing something wrong. Can you create a flight around EGLL with CRJ, just like with 747?I think I'm flying too many "serious" aircraft hehehe...