-----Original Message----- From: Renk Thorsten Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:31 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Random buildings improvements - phase 2
> For the purpose of making the tests more comparable, would not it be > better to use a standard setting/script/options which would set FG to > some defined state? In this case clearly no. I'm interested in the relative change matrix of framerates for two features being on or off, not in the absolute scale factor (which depends on things like screen resolution, whether the binary is debug mode or release mode, ...). Stuart's post contains all the information I want to know whereas a defined state would not contain that information. I'm simply not interested if some people have an overall faster computer, I know that. I'm interested in relative scaling properties. * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ However it may be of general interest to find the relationship between computers and current FG performance. At the moment it seems to me that FG requirements are increasing faster than the performance of affordable computers. A few months ago I was getting over 60 fps with an Intel i5-2500k CPU @3.30GHz, 8Gb Ram, Nvidia GTS 450 combination. This is now down to 40 (no Rembrandt) and less than 20 (with Rembrandt). Alan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
