20,741
edits
FlightGear benchmark: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7806
No edit summary |
m (http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7806) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
* maybe we really do need a benchmark .fgfsrc for proper comparison. [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16204&p=156440&hilit=benchmark#p156437] | |||
* Well, while ago, we talked about creating benchmarks in the form of custom aircraft-set.xml files, which would already contain all startup settings (resolution, bpp, shaders etc) [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16204&p=156440&hilit=benchmark#p156440] | |||
* This would allow us to share "benchmarks" in the form of aircraft, so that people could easily launch them using fgrun (or whatever GUI frontend they have) - still, it'd be possible to export benchmark results to XML. | |||
* Several people mentioned that they would like to have some form of "benchmark" to run FlightGear on various different platforms to see how it performs.I think the idea is not that bad, and that this might actually help troubleshoot some issues. Also, I do think that such a benchmark could probably be implemented directly in FlightGear, just by using Nasal scripting and some custom XML files. This would be pretty much related to the idea of "feature scaling" which was discussed in the other thread. [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7806#p75962] | |||
* One would only need a way to create a default situation (i.e. like a custom preferences.xml file) and a way to dynamically toggle FlightGear features on/off and tweak them at runtime. | |||
* This should be pretty straightforward to do, at least for those features (configuration properties) that are already using listeners or that are read every frame. This applies to most of the recent graphics additions (i.e. shaders), because these can be dynamically enabled, disabled and configured. | |||
* So a FlightGear benchmark would then only have to be run with common default settings (e.g. window resolution, color depth, startup airport, aircraft and environment settings) while a Nasal script could then be used to dynamically tune these settings. Reading internal counters (namely the framerate counter for the time being) would then give us an instrument to see how significant certain settings are. | |||
* In the beginning, the easiest way to have something like a benchmark in FlightGear would be to simply use static "situations" that are loaded from XML files, these would then override all local custom settings so that users can reliably compare their frame rates when running such "situations" on different machines. | |||
* The only problem is that FlightGear always makes the assumption that it is running some form of aircraft/vehicle, so any sort of "benchmark" needs to be provided as an aircraft. Also, one needs to override the global preferences.xml file because there is no way to use a different one. | |||
* having a number of benchmarks available could probably provide useful metrics to get FlightGear to run. For example, even the very simple file that I posted can already be used for troubleshooting: if a user is not able to run this with more than 100 fps, he is unlikely to be able to run FlightGear with default settings. | |||
* imagine we would create a bunch of additional "benchmarks" like this, each of those testing individual features of FlightGear (shaders, effects, particles, shadows, AI aircraft and so on), all of these could be useful to allow users to see if their system (and configuration) is able to run FlightGear or if it needs to be modified (software/hardware configuration). [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7806] | |||
* Maybe we could use the flight recorder to record a flight, so that more people could try the same flight, recreating your settings ? That would basically be a simple benchmark [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=19738&p=181625&hilit=benchmark#p181625] | * Maybe we could use the flight recorder to record a flight, so that more people could try the same flight, recreating your settings ? That would basically be a simple benchmark [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=19738&p=181625&hilit=benchmark#p181625] | ||
* Using a combination of prerecorded flights, the replay/flight recorder system and a Nasal script to change setting on the fly, it wouldn't necessarily be very difficult to create a simple benchmark framework. [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19202&p=177741&hilit=benchmark#p177741] | * Using a combination of prerecorded flights, the replay/flight recorder system and a Nasal script to change setting on the fly, it wouldn't necessarily be very difficult to create a simple benchmark framework. [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19202&p=177741&hilit=benchmark#p177741] | ||