> The guy with the i5@3.3/8G/GT450 (and taking 50ms/frame for full-noise
> rembrandt) has a crapton of hardware grunt -- no current commercial
> game is going to bring that machine to its knees -- we're just *slow*.
>
X-Plane 10 would kill it dead as a post. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
I would be happy to set up an automated "are we fast yet"-style system
for FG. It would be nice to have perhaps 10 minutes worth of
(representative) test that the machine can just run against every
commit.
What hardware do people think is actually a sensible baseline?
The guy with the i5@3.3/8G/G
Geoff
> > I agree that for this question, a standardized benchmark would be
useful.
>
> Hi,
>
> Not exactly 'standardized' but certainly agree the some comparative
> information is important, not only which video/resolution/OS/...
>
> These were all run as default, noon, full screen, 1440x900,
-Original Message-
From: James Turner
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:32 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Random buildings improvements - phase 2
On 4 May 2012, at 14:21, Alan Teeder wrote:
> At the moment it seems to me that FG requirements are in
>
> Selectively disabling features is probably not going to work reasonable
> as long as the features in question are required to play nice in order
> to get disabled, there's no such infrastructure as a "kill-switch" to
> prevent the use/loading of *any* shaders (or whichever additional
> feature
> I agree that for this question, a standardized benchmark would be useful.
Hi,
Not exactly 'standardized' but certainly agree the
some comparative information is important, not only
which video/resolution/OS/...
These were all run as default, noon, full screen,
1440x900, c172p, motor idling,
> At the moment it seems to me that FG requirements are increasing faster
> than the performance of affordable computers.
I can't confirm that. The 'bare' current binary (= all shaders off) runs even a
bit faster for me than previous releases.
I think one clearly needs to distinguish between
Alex Perry wrote:
> It would probably make things a lot simpler for the average user if
> FGFS included a wizard that automatically identified which
> combinations of features would be usable on a specific installation.
> Using that result as constraining logic in the menus would allow
> unusable
On 4 May 2012, at 14:21, Alan Teeder wrote:
> 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
-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 setti
> 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 abs
On 05/03/2012 11:47 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On my system I get the following just SE of KSFO facing the city at
> ~155 degrees):
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?
For
12 matches
Mail list logo
