What about benchmarking ?

[Guest camilo]

Hi,I would like to see a benchmark module included in FSX. One of the big problems right now with FS9 is that everyone reports problems and performance issues based on their own subjective perception and unique HW/SW configuration. I think we need a performance tool that is uniform across all the software and hardware configurations (some kind of FS specific 3DMark) to allow us to do more objective analysis when solving problems, helping other fellow simmers or planning the next hardware upgrade.Maybe the never ending debate on FPS would be more productive and useful with such a tool.Just my two cents :-)Best regards,

[michal 44]

This is definitely a good idea.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest]

I like this idea too. Preferably there can be a few sliders (1-10) for screen resolution, overall graphics quality, autogen, clouds, traffic etc and it can determine the optimal settings for your choices (and let you save profiles). Its getting tiring trying every permutation of config settings to get a better performance.

[Guest PC509]

At the very least, how about allowing a pre-recorded flight that you can save and have it run by itself. The EXACT same time every time. Them you just fire up Fraps, and let it go. Get your #'s from there.I've just been flying the pattern, and landing. But, there are so many variables in there that a few FPS difference is normal.

[tgibson 11]

Hi,A problem with that approach is that a flight does not change all the display settings to a standard set. So people have differing display complexity and thus no real benchmark.What would be best would be a different mode (like Kiosk mode) with a standard set of everything (I assume that would be maximum complexity??)Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[scott967 62]

"Me too". Most hardware sites ignore FS9, because it is too hard to get repeatable results in a highly-taxing environment. Then we could prove that card x or driver y is better/worse. Esp. if FSX is going to use SM 3 or 4.scott s..

[Guest]

I'd rather have a nice game than something that's created just so it has 100000000fps on a test run for Tomshardware...All benchmarking stuff in FS has ever done is cause interminable complaints about "I get poor framerates, I only have 100 when in Doom 3 I get 500".

[Guest camilo]

I think this tool would be useful for comparing performance between FS configs. and not for using FPS numbers as an universal performance indicator, framerates are game dependant.

[Mike S KPDX 597]

I too really like this idea...think of this, just one stardard canned 'flight' with everything adjustable in the game being preselected. If you want to diagnose your box, you just select this flight. You dont fly it, the pc does.associated with this would be a small simple output txt file that records this stuff at a specific point in time, a capture.can you imagine how helpful this would be to come up on the forums asking for help with folks saying 'just post up your log flight...'

[Guest EdrickV]

With the sheer variety and amount of addons/mods for MSFS the only way a reliable benchmark comparison of two systems with different configs could be done would be with a totally clean FS install. Even after disabling all non-default scenery you couldn't be sure two identical systems would have identical results, since there are many addons that directly affect the default scenery. (Replacement water textures anyone?) Not to mention aircraft dependent mods. (panels, sounds)"Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

[Guest camilo]

I agree with you. The benchmark module should be totally independent from add-ons and mods, designed to stress at maximum the FS with specific (maybe fictional) scenery, planes, AI, weather etc.Best regards,

[kerosene31 349]

While a benchmarking utility sounds like a good idea, I fear that people would misuse it. As others have mentioned, it would have to benchmark from a default state, ignoring our addons. The problem I see is people might tweak their PC and sim to maximize this default benchmark, which may or may not give the same results for the sim once we're heavily modified it. For example, I'm sure we all get very good framerates using the default Cessna around certain areas. You would never use that scenario to tweak your sim. Of course you use a more common scenario. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. It would be a nice baseline performance measurement. However, knowing how people get, I worry that they would be misused.