Since we're preparing a big benchmark, which should be profitable to all of us, to compare our computers, see if the computer is on-par with what it should do, and possibly compare future upgrades and what they bring, we are constructing a benchmark which should either be based on addons or NOT.Two possible choices:1) Aerosoft or UK2000 EGLL + PMDG 744xor2) Default EGLL + default AircraftThere will be no other addons required, or there should be none installed or activated, so the benchmark is fair and realistic.Keep in mind, less difference in settings, better results.The thing is, it's very hard to know how many people own both and which test would be of more benefit. Addon do stress more and give a real world scenario results, and default is probably more wide spread. So I ask everyone to vote in a poll so we can do the right thing.

Well I don't have either of those two so I vote default.While default yields very high FPS (make sure vsync is off when you test) everyone has them.The Petraeus index was really onto something. All planes are scored against one default plane.

they should create an benchmark tool like 3dMark, or heavy tessellated benchmarks like Unigine Heaven and StoneGiant, where everybody can benchmark their system that give a score that can be compared. As long as you have different set-ups, you can not really compare as some do a little tweaking etc that all influance the outcome. if you wnat to compare scores then you need one tool to do that, that is the same on every computor. But the benchmark should be written for FSX specific like benchmarks "call of duty" that is really writen to tax that specific platform. Unfortunately I dont see that happening ever..!but it would have been nice to have such a tool. then we all back to being boys.. oh mine is better then yours,etc etc

oh mine is better then yours,etc etc

I think such reason would be the last, if we do such test. It should help all people, especially those who are looking to achieve better performance inside FSX, and also those who are looking to upgrade the hardware, to choose the best for the money. The real advantage of such test is, it must never end. It can be edited by anyone, and if we are all fair, it will exsist to benefit us all. Something like a Futuremarks online system, but only for our closed community. I believe everyone here would be fair enough to respect that.

I own a bird, but do not own the scenery. When the Vsync is off, stock FSX would be enough.If I may suggest something, it will be good to have a predefined flight so every test would be in exact scenario.

Thanks Bart, we already have something ready. Just have to see which way we shall go.Right now, we see both sides kicking in. I hope we can make viable test platform for everyone to benefit from.

In my opinion "Default" option would be only good for old or slow machines.. in that case you don't need any benchmarking.. buy or upgrade your PC! It's almost 2011, when was FSX released? I'm not sure if fast machines (i7, gtx480,..) would get good info out of default. If it runs good on default it doesn't mean it will run good with addons. But not all have payware EGLL and 744, that would be the major downside. In my opinion.

Well not everyone can afford a yearly computer upgrade... :( The real problem is lack of quality programming. Ive seen exceptionally modeled planes such as Lotus L39, super fps efficient. But I think designers just get lax because people can "simply" upgrade their hardware... *sigh*That's why I'm so picky about which planes I buy.

I think it's virtually the same thing what configuration we take, it will percentually give the same result. You will just have to do with high numbers on default, or lower numbers on addon.The only advantage you have, is you can compare more or less real world situation, as many who are flying heavies will own 744x and some similar big airport. But then again there are many GA flyers, who have NO use that way.Let me put it like this:Top machine is getting on:default 100addon 50Slower machine is getting on:default 50addon 25It's all linear results. It doesn't really matter what aircraft or scenery you take, they all perform slower by the same percentage, NOT fps. The big difference would be, if FSX was really multi-core native, meaning really spanning over more cores, and spanning everything, which it doesn't do.Right now, only texture loaders go over more cores, and texture loading is in this benchmark not really a big thing.

I think it's virtually the same thing what configuration we take, it will percentually give the same result. You will just have to do with high numbers on default, or lower numbers on addon.The only advantage you have, is you can compare more or less real world situation, as many who are flying heavies will own 744x and some similar big airport. But then again there are many GA flyers, who have NO use that way.Let me put it like this:Top machine is getting on:default 100addon 50Slower machine is getting on:default 50addon 25It's all linear results. It doesn't really matter what aircraft or scenery you take, they all perform slower by the same percentage, NOT fps. The big difference would be, if FSX was really multi-core native, meaning really spanning over more cores, and spanning everything, which it doesn't do.Right now, only texture loaders go over more cores, and texture loading is in this benchmark not really a big thing.

Food for thought:You would think it would be the same, Like when you test on different platforms side by side, for example run a old quad AMD 940 at 3.8-4Ghz 4-8GB DDR2 vs I7-920 @ 3.8-4Ghz Tri-ch DDR3 6 same high-end Video card, default Manhatten, you will get close to same FPS perhaps even smoother on the AMD, throw in ManhattenX or anyother complex scenery and the I7 stomps all over the AMD...this is also were memory timing, and QPI freq start to stand out So I hope you guys consider both.BTW, Nice work to you and the gang

Food for thought:You would think it would be the same, Like when you test on different platforms side by side, for example run a old quad AMD 940 at 3.8-4Ghz 4-8GB DDR2 vs I7-920 @ 3.8-4Ghz Tri-ch DDR3 6 same high-end Video card, default Manhatten, you will get close to same FPS perhaps even smoother on the AMD, throw in ManhattenX or anyother complex scenery and the I7 stomps all over the AMD...this is also were memory timing, and QPI freq start to stand out So I hope you guys consider both.BTW, Nice work to you and the gang

Did you try this out and can say that for the fact this is so, or is it just your opinion?It would be really interesting to test such situations, though it would require couple of really dedicated freaks :(

Who is the 'we' that is preparing a big benchmark, is that the 'royal we', or an inclusive we? Just curious.There is no point in preparing a benchmark which requires people to buy stuff in order to make use of it, and especially not Heathrow, because even this year with volcanic dust reducing traffic averages, it is still the fourth busiest airport in the world, so it is not a good median for the average FS user, merely a good average for those who like to fly into busy airports. You ought to keep in mind that there are a variety of FS users out there, some fly GA stuff, some fly airliners, some will fly helicopters, or gliders, or vintage aircraft or whatever, and of those, some will buy large airport sceneries and others will prefer the wide open spaces. Thus if you make a benchmark that only suits those who fly big jets into Heathrow, it will be meaningless or irrelevant to a large proportion of users.So a benchmark should be with a default aircraft, on perhaps a default scenery medium preset, at a default mid-range airport , with a default weather preset and time of day, and all that with no other peripherals or add-ons running, such as Track-IR or whatever. That probably means choosing an airport which people are unlikely to have upgraded; perhaps even one where there actually is no freeware or payware scenery available for it, since if people have a payware version of that airport, they'll have to faff about disabling it simply to try a test out if it is at that location, instead of simply loading up a default aircraft at somewhere that we know can only be a default location.Al

Who is the 'we' that is preparing a big benchmark, is that the 'royal we', or an inclusive we? Just curious.There is no point in preparing a benchmark which requires people to buy stuff in order to make use of it, and especially not Heathrow, because even this year with volcanic dust reducing traffic averages, it is still the fourth busiest airport in the world, so it is not a good median for the average FS user, merely a good average for those who like to fly into busy airports. You ought to keep in mind that there are a variety of FS users out there, some fly GA stuff, some fly airliners, some will fly helicopters, or gliders, or vintage aircraft or whatever, and of those, some will buy large airport sceneries and others will prefer the wide open spaces. Thus if you make a benchmark that only suits those who fly big jets into Heathrow, it will be meaningless or irrelevant to a large proportion of users.So a benchmark should be with a default aircraft, on perhaps a default scenery medium preset, at a default mid-range airport , with a default weather preset and time of day, and all that with no other peripherals or add-ons running, such as Track-IR or whatever. That probably means choosing an airport which people are unlikely to have upgraded; perhaps even one where there actually is no freeware or payware scenery available for it, since if people have a payware version of that airport, they'll have to faff about disabling it simply to try a test out if it is at that location, instead of simply loading up a default aircraft at somewhere that we know can only be a default location.Al

Al, one of the "we" is me. here's the thread where it all sort of started http://forum.avsim.n...son-benchmarks/I completely agree that with so many different flying styles it's hard to pick the benchmark conditions, but anyway, for a default A/C & scenery benchmark there's FSMark07 by Gary (RESET_MCP_ALT in Avsim) alreadyThen some of us wanted to test some heavily demanding scenario with the PMDG 744 and addon scenery at a big hub like Heathrow.Of course, under that premise we're gonna be hard pressed to find simmers with the same addons and willing to benchmark their systems.

Did you try this out and can say that for the fact this is so, or is it just your opinion?It would be really interesting to test such situations, though it would require couple of really dedicated freaks

Word Not Allowed,I dont want to mess up yet another thread but Yes I have been a "dedicated freak" as it were along with a few others that used to roam here and there and my therapist warns me not bring it up...Benchmarked on many other versions of FS going too far back, as for FSX - from RTM, thru SP2/Acc, on PIIIs&4,s Bartons, AGP including custom reversed PCI-E cards running on AGP thru present AMD and Intel systems (AGP was not as bad or behind PCI-E as made out - but that was back then). There are some strange combos that do really well and as strange as it my seem they were/are AMD/Nvidia systems, but when there are combinations of complex add-ons run all at once it is a different story compared to default. If you run it enough times a good AI program with a busy airport add-on added to some complex terrain with AG is one of the best things to use to separate the wheat from the chaff, sorry - just repeating myself.The most fun though was just unpacking new hardware, reading all the hype and waiting to see the results...that of course never lived up to the hype except for a brief period when real accelerated video cards first hit, real strides were made back then, not that things are all bad, its just that really nothing big has happened like that in a long while....oops time to take my medication...

Who is the 'we' that is preparing a big benchmark, is that the 'royal we', or an inclusive we? Just curious.There is no point in preparing a benchmark which requires people to buy stuff in order to make use of it, and especially not Heathrow, because even this year with volcanic dust reducing traffic averages, it is still the fourth busiest airport in the world, so it is not a good median for the average FS user, merely a good average for those who like to fly into busy airports. You ought to keep in mind that there are a variety of FS users out there, some fly GA stuff, some fly airliners, some will fly helicopters, or gliders, or vintage aircraft or whatever, and of those, some will buy large airport sceneries and others will prefer the wide open spaces. Thus if you make a benchmark that only suits those who fly big jets into Heathrow, it will be meaningless or irrelevant to a large proportion of users.So a benchmark should be with a default aircraft, on perhaps a default scenery medium preset, at a default mid-range airport , with a default weather preset and time of day, and all that with no other peripherals or add-ons running, such as Track-IR or whatever. That probably means choosing an airport which people are unlikely to have upgraded; perhaps even one where there actually is no freeware or payware scenery available for it, since if people have a payware version of that airport, they'll have to faff about disabling it simply to try a test out if it is at that location, instead of simply loading up a default aircraft at somewhere that we know can only be a default location.Al

I know what you mean. I get your point.As dazz already explained, we started it in hardware forums, and since noone joined there, I just thought what's the problem. That is why I started this thread, to see how people react, eventually who prefers what. I'm even open to the idea of making TWO tests, so anyone can load whatever they wish and make a test. That would probably be the best idea.There is the test already done, by Gary, but we wanted possibly a more specific test. There should also be a worksheet to really compare the results, which is freely editable.My last thing is to make people buy stuff for the benchmark. It's the other way around, I want to know what people mostly use, which way we should be thinking. I hope that clears it up.

Word Not Allowed,I dont want to mess up yet another thread but Yes I have been a "dedicated freak" as it were along with a few others that used to roam here and there and my therapist warns me not bring it up...Benchmarked on many other versions of FS going too far back, as for FSX - from RTM, thru SP2/Acc, on PIIIs&4,s Bartons, AGP including custom reversed PCI-E cards running on AGP thru present AMD and Intel systems (AGP was not as bad or behind PCI-E as made out - but that was back then). There are some strange combos that do really well and as strange as it my seem they were/are AMD/Nvidia systems, but when there are combinations of complex add-ons run all at once it is a different story compared to default. If you run it enough times a good AI program with a busy airport add-on added to some complex terrain with AG is one of the best things to use to separate the wheat from the chaff, sorry - just repeating myself.The most fun though was just unpacking new hardware, reading all the hype and waiting to see the results...that of course never lived up to the hype except for a brief period when real accelerated video cards first hit, real strides were made back then, not that things are all bad, its just that really nothing big has happened like that in a long while....oops time to take my medication...

Oh Lord :( I think we just trying to be a little more simplistic here hehehehe... but with the utmost accuracy.