R U Ready for "Flight"?

[falcon409]

I'm taking this from the latest Edition (September/October) of "Computer Pilot". "Ready for Microsoft Flight?", page 26. Among other things they discuss the use of "Tessellation" and DXT11 as integral parts of the coming Sim and whether a lot of our current computers and graphics cards are up to the task. We all remember the claims of "minimum requirements" for FSX and what it "actually" took to be able to fly (with any autogen at all, lol).

This article gives a link to a benchmark program called "Heaven Benchmark 2.5" which will run a beautifully modeled surreal flight through a maze of various highly detailed floating mountains and every manor of texturing to test your setup and give you a readout at the end on how your system stacks up. Just Google the name Heaven Benchmark 2.5 and it will take you right to the correct link. Installation is simple and just as a heads-up, if your card isn't already DXT11 capable, don't bother running the test, you won't get the most out of what it's testing. Mine did fairly well, although my NVidia 9600GT does not support tessellation, so at some point if I decide to venture into the next Sim, I'll have to upgrade.

Tessellation: Implemented in the GPU to calculate a smoother curved surface resulting in more graphically detailed images, including more lifelike objects in the gaming world.

[falcon409]

I hadn't played much with the benchmark last evening other than to let it run through one time and then run the benchmark. When you're in the video, there are some selections at the top. . . .try the "Camera" dropdown, it let's you freely walk all through the models to get a closer look. . .the texturing is quite amazing.:salute:

[Roger]

Thanks Ed,
I've downloaded the benchmark and will test later.

[Bjoern]

"Heaven" has been, and still is, my benchmarking application of choice.

I use it mostly to determine any improvements in performance after driver updates though.

[olaf1924]

ED I tried the benchmark and my numbers went from a low of 14.6 up to 92.1 fps. I overclocked my cpu from 3.0ghz to 3.4ghz and there was no change in the fps. The graphic card is a asus 4600gt and my cpu is a e8500 using vista 64bit.

[Francois]

Sure. But ask me again in a year or so ;-)

[stansdds]

I'm not ready as I am still using a 8800GT and Windows XP, so no DX11 for me. I'd have to upgrade to Win7... then my Core2Quad may not be enough for Flight... 4GB of RAM is not likely enough for Win7-64bit... GT8800 certainly isn't enough... guess I'll be starting from scratch. I'm not worried, Flight won't be out until some time in 2012 and seeing as how the world ends it 2012 it won't matter! :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

[SkippyBing]

4GB of RAM is not likely enough for Win7-64bit...

Seems to be working fine here, not sure about the GT8800 I can't remember if I'd already upgraded from it when I installed the Win 7 beta but I don't see why it wouldn't work you just won't be able to run anything above DX9 on it.

[Roger]

I havent found anywhere to compare results but the test walk-through ran very smoothly.

Powered by Unigine Engine (http://unigine.com/products/unigine/)Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic
<tbody>
FPS:
42.5



Scores:
1072



Min FPS:
23.4



Max FPS:
101.9


</tbody>
Hardware
<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011



Operating system:
Windows Vista (build 6002, Service Pack 2) 32bit



CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz



CPU flags:
3329MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT



GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 8.17.12.5896 2048Mb


</tbody>
Settings
<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11



Mode:
1280x1024 fullscreen



Shaders:
high



Textures:
high



Filter:
trilinear



Anisotropy:
4x



Occlusion:
enabled



Refraction:
enabled



Volumetric:
enabled



Tessellation:
normal


</tbody>

[kilo delta]

Seems to be working fine here, not sure about the GT8800 I can't remember if I'd already upgraded from it when I installed the Win 7 beta but I don't see why it wouldn't work you just won't be able to run anything above DX9 on it.

Not exactly...the 8800GT is a DX10 card :)

[falcon409]

I haven't found anywhere to compare results but the test walk-through ran very smoothly.
Yep, I'd say you're in great shape Roger. When I tried to add anti-aliasing to the mix, the walk-through just about went to a slide show. I know my system is marginal for "Flight", but take anti-aliasing out of the equation and the rest of the test went smoothly enough for me. I don't have a card that will handle Tessellation (NVidia 9600GT), but it is DXT11 compliant.

[ananda]

I havent found anywhere to compare results but the test walk-through ran very smoothly.


How does one print the results?

Never mind, I've found it.

George

[DarrenL]

My results. I'm ready I think, but I'll let others sort the bugs out first ;)


<tbody>
FPS:
36.2


Scores:
911


Min FPS:
8.1


Max FPS:
85.2

</tbody>

Hardware


<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011


Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit


CPU model:
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor


CPU flags:
3400MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT


GPU model:
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.892.0.0 1024Mb

</tbody>

Settings


<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11


Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen


Shaders:
high


Textures:
high


Filter:
trilinear


Anisotropy:
4x


Occlusion:
enabled


Refraction:
enabled


Volumetric:
enabled


Tessellation:
normal

</tbody>

[ananda]

No AA

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4324/noaai.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/noaai.jpg/)

8x AA


http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/654/8xaa.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/8xaa.jpg/)

[ananda]

I'll just have to hope that Flight is DX9 compatible :running:


Powered by Unigine Engine (http://unigine.com/products/unigine/)

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic


<TBODY>
FPS:

48.3



Scores:

1218



Min FPS:

30.5



Max FPS:

95.1


</TBODY>

Hardware


<TBODY>
Binary:

Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011



Operating system:

Windows XP (build 2600, Service Pack 3) 32bit



CPU model:

AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor



CPU flags:

2999MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT



GPU model:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 6.14.12.7533 2048Mb


</TBODY>

Settings


<TBODY>
Render:

direct3d9



Mode:

1920x1080 fullscreen



Shaders:

high



Textures:

high



Filter:

trilinear



Anisotropy:

4x



Occlusion:

enabled



Refraction:

enabled



Volumetric:

enabled



Tessellation:

disabled


</TBODY>

Unigine Corp. (http://unigine.com/) © 2005-2011

[warchild]

Welllll, i figured I may as well add mine too.. Cant make heads nor tails of what its telling me though in relation to whether i will be able to run future software or not.. Theres nothing that says what the numbers are actually saying..

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic
<tbody>
FPS:
35.7



Scores:
898



Min FPS:
22.7



Max FPS:
69.7


</tbody>
Hardware
<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011



Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit



CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz



CPU flags:
3001MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT



GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 8.17.12.8026 896Mb


</tbody>
Settings
<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11



Mode:
1600x900 fullscreen



Shaders:
high



Textures:
high



Filter:
trilinear



Anisotropy:
4x



Occlusion:
enabled



Refraction:
enabled



Volumetric:
enabled



Tessellation:
disabled

</tbody>

[TuFun]

Here's my results...

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/TwFun/Stuff/Heavennoaa.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/TwFun/Stuff/Heaven4xAA.jpg

8xAA was very clear... beautiful!

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/TwFun/Stuff/Heaven8xAA.jpg

[falcon409]

Welllll, i figured I may as well add mine too.. Cant make heads nor tails of what its telling me though in relation to whether i will be able to run future software or not.. Theres nothing that says what the numbers are actually saying..
Pam, it's just letting you know, by virtue of the numbers (FPS mostly) and the setup you ran with (DXT11, Tessellation available, Anti-aliasing), that if the demo ran smoothly, or close to it, then Flight, in it's release form, should run well on your system. If your Vid Card isn't DXT11 capable, you don't have the option of Tessellation on your card and anti-aliasing brings the demo to it's knees (like mine did), then you'll be looking at an upgrade of, at the very least, your Graphics Card.

[Butcherbird17]

I see everyone is running with ansio set at 4x. If you run your vidcard setting at 8x anti-a and 16x ansio shouldn't you
run the benchmark at the same settings? I also would like to know if anyone is also overclocking their GPU (vid card)
or is it running at clock speeds?

Joe

[limjack]

Looks like I am right on the line as always


Powered by Unigine Engine (http://unigine.com/products/unigine/)

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic


<tbody>
FPS:

27.0



Scores:

679



Min FPS:

13.4



Max FPS:

56.7


</tbody>



Hardware


<tbody>
Binary:

Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011



Operating system:

Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit



CPU model:

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz



CPU flags:

2400MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT



GPU model:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 8.17.12.5896 1024Mb


</tbody>



Settings


<tbody>
Render:

direct3d11



Mode:

1920x1200 fullscreen



Shaders:

high



Textures:

high



Filter:

trilinear



Anisotropy:

4x



Occlusion:

enabled



Refraction:

enabled



Volumetric:

enabled



Tessellation:

normal


</tbody>

[DarrenL]

I see everyone is running with ansio set at 4x. If you run your vidcard setting at 8x anti-a and 16x ansio shouldn't you
run the benchmark at the same settings? I also would like to know if anyone is also overclocking their GPU (vid card)
or is it running at clock speeds?

Joe

Firstly, not overclocking here (never have never will) :)

Secondly as an ATi user I was recommended to use in game settings on the gfx card control centre and the in game Ansiotropic settings have no number it's just on or off, so I have no idea if it's 2x 4x or 8x.

[mal998]

My understanding is that my GTX 295 OC does not take advantage of DX11 or Tessellation.

Does anyone know exactly which cards are required to run both?

[Ferry_vO]

My understanding is that my GTX 295 OC does not take advantage of DX11 or Tessellation.

Does anyone know exactly which cards are required to run both?

The nVidia 4xx and 5xx series should all be able to run Dx11. (I know my 560Ti is!)

[vora]

Thanks for the HU, Ed.
That's exactly why SOH is my premier forum for all things FSX.

TL,DR: my rig seems to be ready for ..... Hawaii?

(I had to scale back my overclocking due to recent cooling problems :icon_lol:)

Powered by Unigine Engine (http://unigine.com/products/unigine/)

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic


<tbody>
FPS:
40.0


Scores:
1007


Min FPS:
21.2


Max FPS:
77.7

</tbody>


Hardware


<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011


Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit


CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz


CPU flags:
3200MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT


GPU model:
AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series 8.821.0.0 2048Mb

</tbody>


Settings


<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11


Mode:
1280x1024 8xAA fullscreen


Shaders:
high


Textures:
high


Filter:
trilinear


Anisotropy:
8x


Occlusion:
enabled


Refraction:
enabled


Volumetric:
enabled


Tessellation:
normal

</tbody>

[DarrenL]

Noticed I had a low min FPS (8.1) on the original run which looked odd compared to others so ran again. Now 17.1 min, Something must have happened during the benchmark, an update or something to slow it perhaps.


<tbody>
FPS:
36.3



Scores:
914



Min FPS:
17.1



Max FPS:
85.2


</tbody>
Hardware
<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011



Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit



CPU model:
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor



CPU flags:
3400MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT



GPU model:
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.892.0.0 1024Mb


</tbody>
Settings
<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11



Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen



Shaders:
high



Textures:
high



Filter:
trilinear



Anisotropy:
4x



Occlusion:
enabled



Refraction:
enabled



Volumetric:
enabled



Tessellation:
normal


</tbody>

[Kiwikat]

<tbody>
FPS:
29.2


Scores:
737


Min FPS:
9.7


Max FPS:
54.9

</tbody>

Hardware


<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011


Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit


CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz


CPU flags:
3612MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 HTT


GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 8.17.12.7533 1024Mb

</tbody>

Settings


<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11


Mode:
1680x1050 4xAA fullscreen


Shaders:
high


Textures:
high


Filter:
trilinear


Anisotropy:
8x


Occlusion:
enabled


Refraction:
enabled


Volumetric:
enabled


Tessellation:
disabled



</tbody>



<tbody>
FPS:
32.2


Scores:
810


Min FPS:
13.4


Max FPS:
60.6

</tbody>

Settings


<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11


Mode:
1680x1050 2xAA fullscreen


Shaders:
high


Textures:
high


Filter:
trilinear


Anisotropy:
8x


Occlusion:
enabled


Refraction:
enabled


Volumetric:
enabled


Tessellation:
disabled



</tbody>


The first one is with 4x AA, what I normally use, and the second is with 2x AA. Looks like I'm going to have to upgrade to a DX11 card if I have any hope of running Flight.

[TuFun]

8xAA 16x Anisotropy

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/TwFun/Stuff/Heaven8xAA16x.jpg

[falcon409]

I guess I might as well post mine, as anemic as it is, lol:

[Gibbage]

I honestly would not use this benchmark for how Flight will work on your PC. Its geared to FPS shooters and they are worlds away from sims in how they work. Shooters only need to simulate about 1 city block of area so they can concentrate details into a small area. Flight Sims typically cover VAST ammount of area, sometimes encompasing the entire globe!!!

Has it even been confirmed that Flight will support DX11?

[falcon409]

. . . . . .Has it even been confirmed that Flight will support DX11?
Nope, according to the article, it was just what they assumed would be a likely progression, since any release wouldn't be forthcoming and late 2012 seemed like a logical target, DXT11 seemed a good guess I assume. Given that even DXT10 was a wash based on early "fantasy" expectations, maybe we shouldn't be too excited about anything they expect "11" will do, lol.:salute:

[olaf1924]

Butcherbird I overclocked my asus 460gtx from 675 900 1350 to 945 1890 2120 and my score went from 947 to 1128 and from a high of 94fps to a high of 112 fps.

[Gibbage]

Nope, according to the article, it was just what they assumed would be a likely progression, since any release wouldn't be forthcoming and late 2012 seemed like a logical target, DXT11 seemed a good guess I assume. Given that even DXT10 was a wash based on early "fantasy" expectations, maybe we shouldn't be too excited about anything they expect "11" will do, lol.:salute:

So in otherwords, then entire thread is more about hardware envy then anything hay? ;) :salute::icon_lol:

If I recall from reading what was officially released, performance is one of there main goals for Flight. Making it hardware intensive just shrinks there possible market. On the otherhand, having lots of nice eye candy also sells. Its a tight balancing act, but we will see what way things tip once Flight is out hay?

I personally would LOVE to see ground tessilation, but I doubt we will see tessilation on the aircraft. Models need to be build VERY VERY spacifically in order to use tessilation and it can be a big pain. Thats why you dont see it very often in games. To even think about doing it on something as complex as an aircraft gives me nightmares!

There are also lots of things you can do with water using tessilation, like real waves and water deformation from boats and float planes! The way aircraft react and interact with water in FSX leaves MUCH to be desired. I would love to see the Seabee carving up waves in Hawaii!!! Maybe even step taxi it onto the beach Ala James Bond in "The Man with the Golden Gun"!!!

Sorry. Drooling a bit too much here. Carry on!

[Francois]

For 'realism' I play Assassin's Creed games and won't hold my breath for Flight yet. :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: The entire discussion is kinda 'mute' since nothing is known about Flight yet, and I don't expect it to be anytime soon either.

Right, back to my FSX now, with my new GTX580 card..... now THAT's reality :jump:

[falcon409]

So in other words, the entire thread is more about hardware envy then anything hay? ;) :salute::icon_lol:. . . . . . .
Exactly, lol. It's long been understood that framerates above the low to mid-20's are indiscernible by the human eye, so while many are showing some impressive base FPS it's of little use in Flight Sim as my 18fps is probably just as smooth (to me) as someone else who is getting 40+. Gamers regularly see high fps because of the relatively small "active area" they find themselves in. With Flight Sim, the engine is displaying 40 or 50 miles of mesh, ground textures, autogen, clouds and other environmental "drags" on the system. A big difference.:salute:

[mal998]

For 'realism' I play Assassin's Creed games and won't hold my breath for Flight yet. :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: The entire discussion is kinda 'mute' since nothing is known about Flight yet, and I don't expect it to be anytime soon either.

Right, back to my FSX now, with my new GTX580 card..... now THAT's reality :jump:

Francois, how are you liking that 580? I've been thinking about upgrading from my 295. What kind of performance are you seeing? Is it worth the money?

[beana51]

Frame rates in video games................For me further confusion!...do wearing glasses,age ,pose a factor?..or is it what you see is what you get!
<tbody>





</tbody>
Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, “choppy” animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.
The first 3D first-person shooter game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Monster_Maze), had a frame rate of approximately 6 FPS, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 60 FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console shooters such as Halo 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3), are locked at 30 FPS maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3), can run well in excess of 100 FPS on sufficient hardware. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon what is currently happening at a given moment, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games.) When the computation of a frame consumes more time than is alloted between frames, the frame rate decreases.

A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rateswith players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DMark)) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. Even though the typical LCD monitors of today are locked at 60 FPS, making extremely high frame rates impossible to see in realtime, playthroughs of game “timedemos” at hundreds or thousands of FPS for benchmarking purposes are still common.

Beyond measurement and bragging rights, such exercises do have practical bearing in some cases. A certain amount of discarded “headroom” frames are beneficial for the elimination of uneven (“choppy” or “jumpy”) output, and to prevent FPS from plummeting during the intense sequences when players need smooth feedback most.
Aside from frame rate, a separate but related factor unique to interactive applications such as gaming is latency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_%28engineering%29). Excessive preprocessing can result in a noticeable delay between player commands and computer feedback, even when a full frame rate is maintained, often referred to as input lag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag).
Without realistic motion blurring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur), video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate. When a fast moving object is present on two consecutive frames, a gap between the images on the two frames contributes to a noticeable separation of the object and its afterimage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage) in the eye. Motion blurring mitigates this effect, since it tends to reduce the image gap when the two frames are strung together The effect of motion blurring is essentially superimposing multiple images of the fast-moving object on a single frame. Motion blurring makes the motion more fluid to the human eye, even as the image of the object becomes blurry on each individual frame.
A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit). This effect is known as micro stuttering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_stuttering).

[Francois]

Francois, how are you liking that 580? I've been thinking about upgrading from my 295. What kind of performance are you seeing? Is it worth the money?

Hi Mal, I like it much. No stutters, no lag as far as I can see. But, having said that, I was pretty content with my previous 280 GTX. I changed because my PC sorta 'gave up' and I was forced to buy a new one (this and photography/design being my profession). Since I was spending ,oney anyway I figured I might as well 'upgrade'. The 280 will go in an older PC, as soon as I get a new motherboard for it.

From what I've read the 580 is a very good card without being the most expensive. So far that seems to be correct.

[mal998]

Thanks Francois.

[bonefish]

Maybe this is a dumb question. What does the 32bit in "Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011" mean? Is there a "64bit"?
Don't bust my ass,
SEAN

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic


<tbody>
FPS:
33.3



Scores:
838


Min FPS:
18.7


Max FPS:
72.7

</tbody>

Hardware


<tbody>
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011


Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit


CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz


CPU flags:
2400MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT


GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 8.17.12.8562 1024Mb

</tbody>

Settings


<tbody>
Render:
direct3d11


Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen


Shaders:
high


Textures:
high


Filter:
trilinear


Anisotropy:
4x


Occlusion:
enabled


Refraction:
enabled


Volumetric:
enabled


Tessellation:
normal


</tbody>

[modelr]

Here is mine. First no AA, which actually looked beautiful on mine.
50911

8x AA. I noticed some very slight pixilation here, kind of like when mips are turned on high.

50912

[Barnes]

For 'realism' I play Assassin's Creed games and won't hold my breath for Flight yet. :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: The entire discussion is kinda 'mute' since nothing is known about Flight yet, and I don't expect it to be anytime soon either.

Right, back to my FSX now, with my new GTX580 card..... now THAT's reality :jump:

I too love Assisins creed and look forward to the new one out before Xmas :jump::jump::jump:

[Crusader]

50948Promise not to laugh too hard but I'll ask anyway .:icon_lol: Having never run a benchmark test before does Heaven Benchmark 2.5 do all the work or do I have to change a few things ? In the process of downloading it now . I should be ok running Win7 64bit on a Gigabyte board with a Q9650 3.0 OC'd to 3.6 . My ATI 1 gig fizzled out so Ted(Techc) recommended changing to the DDR3(I put in 8G's) and highly recommended the GeForce 560ti 1 gig card which I have really liked . If everything goes right , results to follow .

Rich

[LouP]

I ran one benchmark on my PC after my install of two SSDs and will not perform another. I read after that these benchmarks really shorten the life of an SSD as it does a lot of reads and writes to it while testing.

LouP

[mmann]

The day that I can add an aircraft or a scenery add-on to a benchmark will be the day that their score means anything at all to me. The only really useful Flight benchmark will be when you can install Microsoft Flight on your system.

[Francois]

The day that I can add an aircraft or a scenery add-on to a benchmark will be the day that their score means anything at all to me. The only really useful Flight benchmark will be when you can install Microsoft Flight on your system.

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

[Henry]

jeez i just installed fs2002 again the other day:running: on my laptopnow trying fsx my desktop is defunct9just like my mind]:applause:
H

[Crusader]

The day that I can add an aircraft or a scenery add-on to a benchmark will be the day that their score means anything at all to me. The only really useful Flight benchmark will be when you can install Microsoft Flight on your system.

Very well said . I never seriously worried about high FSP as long as it was smooth . When Flight is here and loaded I'll work the kinks out later !

Rich

[Francois]

jeez i just installed fs2002 again the other day:running: on my laptopnow trying fsx my desktop is defunct9just like my mind]:applause:
H

Good. Then you don't have to bother with this 'benchmark' ...... LOLOL !

[Overshoe]

To save time & effort I just took a magic marker and marked a number on my bench. :wavey:

[Roger]

To save time & effort I just took a magic marker and marked a number on my bench. :wavey:

Ha ha,
Tom as always:engel016:...but the walk-through on this benchmark is quite breathtaking and worth the watch!

[beana51]

Yes! Tom,yer Right On As Usual..Just like the old .."But he Got No Clothes On'".Ya .say it like it is!.....the elusive F/R.....The holy grail Of Flit. Simming!..We all see what we want,factor in,age,Glasses,and other stuff!,.The very quest for them becomes the entertainment in its self...Many "DOLLARS" ago I gave up on this pursuit..."If its not broke..LEAVE IT ALONE!! However,like the busy box it is...its Fun to enjoy!! Untill the ." holodeck"comes along??.Cheers...Vin!

[Bjoern]

I ran one benchmark on my PC after my install of two SSDs and will not perform another. I read after that these benchmarks really shorten the life of an SSD as it does a lot of reads and writes to it while testing.

Benchmarks for 3D cards just load their needed data into the Ram once when you start them, not continuously, or at least not in the magnitude you're describing.
You're probably thinking about HDD performance benchmarks, but well, read and write operations are an integral part of the benchmark routine. Still...the impact on SSD life expectancy is near zero as you don't have that tool running continuously.

[VCN-1]

Deleted.

VCN-1