A tool that could help evaluate BOB COD objectively

[nearmiss]

It would be interesting if we had some realistic ideas of how the BOB COD is being improved with some consistent basis of performance.

The WIN 7 utility included in Control Panel/All Control Panel Items/Peformance Information and Tools might be a good place to start.
All you have to do is click on Performance Information and Tools in the control panel to get a BaseScore with meaningful subscores.

If you capture that screen and then make a brief explanation of your evaluation of BOB COD performance in a posting. That might corroborate an ever improving BOB COD as related to various computer systems.

There are better tools, but these tools are a pretty good benchmark that is very accessible to Win7 users.


This posting has more information on the win7 tool:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24130

[Strike]

I guess we would have to have maybe three different graphic setups for each tester to benchmark on.

Say one with all max graphics, one with all low graphics and one with medium/high graphics (the average user).

That, posted together with system specs, win7 rating and some FPS max/min/avg readings and of course the developers taking the time to look through the reports may give us some better results in the future :)

[Orpheus]

Repost from the other thread:

Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz |7.5
Memory 4.00 GB |7.7
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series |6.9
Gaming Graphics 2811 MB Total available graphics memory |6.9
HD: 5.9

Overall (by lowest) 5.9.

CloD Performance:

Most settings medium, medium textures (could use high before last retail patch), 2x AA, true fullscreen @ 1920 x 1200, shadows & roads on, grass off, vsync on, SSAO & Ep filter off.

Without using Radeon Pro, fps is in the 10-20s over land with massive stuttering. With Radeon Pro, fps becomes a slightly more stable 25ish, most of the stutter has gone. 'Bubble' pop-in regardless of whether I use Radeon or not. Crossfire only works well with Radeon Pro and STILL has a massive performance degradation over time, to the extent that if you spend half an hour 'testing' different settings, it'll be a slideshow by the time you finish, making actual testing impossible.

[Ze-Jamz]

It would be interesting if we had some realistic ideas of how the BOB COD is being improved with some consistent basis of performance.

The WIN 7 utility included in Control Panel/All Control Panel Items/Peformance Information and Tools might be a good place to start.
All you have to do is click on Performance Information and Tools in the control panel to get a BaseScore with meaningful subscores.

If you capture that screen and then make a brief explanation of your evaluation of BOB COD performance in a posting. That might corroborate an ever improving BOB COD as related to various computer systems.

There are better tools, but these tools are a pretty good benchmark that is very accessible to Win7 users.


This posting has more information on the win7 tool:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24130

Have you even seen the massive thread regarding the Windows benchmark?..

dont even think to use that Win gimmic, all for a benchmark that is easy to use, free and accurate but not that one

[Novotny]

Sisoft Sandra is free and actually works; perhaps it might be a better tool?

[LoBiSoMeM]

This scores in Win 7 are useless. What we need is a benchmark padronized with INSIDE VIEW of the most demanding aircarft - regards speed and/or cockpit complexity - in a lot of stressfull situations.

With the results of this benchmark of PLAYABILITY, we can post our hardware and do comparsions, with results thats mean something. With actual benchmark, the stutterfest "The Black Death", with lots of changes in views, everybody will think thay CloD runs like crap even in high end rigs.

And simply will not believe in any testimonial that say the opposite. I know by experience...

[Orpheus]

There are better tools, but these tools are a pretty good benchmark that is very accessible to Win7 users.


Why don't you lot try doing something productive, like posting your results, rather than whine about it? Nearmiss is clearly aware (see quote) that there are other tools, but this is one nearly everyone has access to and doesn't require an extra program.

:-x

[baronWastelan]

This scores in Win 7 are useless. What we need is a benchmark padronized with INSIDE VIEW of the most demanding aircarft - regards speed and/or cockpit complexity - in a lot of stressfull situations.

With the results of this benchmark of PLAYABILITY, we can post our hardware and do comparsions, with results thats mean something. With actual benchmark, the stutterfest "The Black Death", with lots of changes in views, everybody will think thay CloD runs like crap even in high end rigs.

And simply will not believe in any testimonial that say the opposite. I know by experience...

1000% correct. Missy you should know better. tsk tsk tsk!

[Ze-Jamz]

Why don't you lot try doing something productive, like posting your results, rather than whine about it? Nearmiss is clearly aware (see quote) that there are other tools, but this is one nearly everyone has access to and doesn't require an extra program.

:-x

Please be quiet.

As long as everyone has access to it makes it OK?

It's not even close to being accepted as a benchmark, you start using that and your end up in a worse situation than we have now

[Orpheus]

Please be quiet.

We're not allowed to swear on this forum, so I'll leave you to guess what I'm thinking. Considering the great majority of modern PCs run Win7, a benchmark tool that is included, that doesn't require any extra software would at least give us a general indication of performance across a wide range of common system configs, and is far more likely to be used by the average forum reader as it doesn't require any extra effort. I don't think anyone is expecting it to be perfect, but it's a start.

All I see is the OP trying to be helpful - if that's a problem for you, perhaps you should consider not acting like a spoiled child and grow up - or GTFO and leave this thread to people who actually want to help. There seems to be a regular retard-squad on this forum who believe that everything is Steam's fault; that anything later than Win XP isn't worth having, that refuse to use anything other than hyperlobby and complain at every effort to solve problems and frankly I'm sick and tired of it. If you want to stick with decade old rubbish that's your bag, but don't inflict it on the rest of us, or whine when you don't get your way.

[nearmiss]

The purpose is to give the developer some idea of how the patches are working for us with our individual system specs.

There are many tools available Open source. Maybe best, if there was some consensus on a tool everyone can use and discusses BOB COD performance issues.

The system spec isn't bad either, but it does require some further investigation by the developer to find issues.

I do see some some darn good video releases, which tells me everyone doesn't have the issues others describe as unworkable.

Some members keep on their whine, whle others are doing well with the COD. There are reasons for the differences. If there is some way to give the developers competent information, apart from whines, I am for that.

[Ze-Jamz]

As I said be quiet..

Again you obviously don't know what your talking about and have basically said the same thing again so il follow you...

Win7 gimmick benchmarking system will cause more issues than fixing them due to the way it diagnoses your hardware and gives priorities to certain combinations which have no real world meaning..

So please listen to what I said the first time, insult me all you like and if you think I'm whining well then...fair play I don't know what else to say.

Now run along and don't bother me again

[zoopyzook]

The purpose is to give the developer some idea of how the patches are working for us with our individual system specs.

There are many tools available Open source. Maybe best, if there was some consensus on a tool everyone can use and discusses BOB COD performance issues.

The system spec isn't bad either, but it does require some further investigation by the developer to find issues.

I do see some some darn good video releases, which tells me everyone doesn't have the issues others describe as unworkable.

Some members keep on their whine, whle others are doing well with the COD. There are reasons for the differences. If there is some way to give the developers competent information, apart from whines, I am for that.


Win 7 Experience index isn't really a benchmark why not try 3D Mark 11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dmark11/download/

This is the industry standard after-all

[Ze-Jamz]

Win 7 Experience index isn't really a benchmark why not try 3D Mark 11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dmark11/download/

This is the industry standard after-all

Or 3D Mark vantage as it doenst need such a high tech system to get half decent results, it allows you to test things easier amongst diff systems

3D mark 11 is cool and and a great program but for me it needs just a bit too much to run properly and get decent scores/running if you get me drift :)

[Orpheus]

As I said be quiet..

Again you obviously don't know what your talking about and have basically said the same thing again so il follow you...

Win7 gimmick benchmarking system will cause more issues than fixing them due to the way it diagnoses your hardware and gives priorities to certain combinations which have no real world meaning..

So please listen to what I said the first time, insult me all you like and if you think I'm whining well then...fair play I don't know what else to say.

Now run along and don't bother me again


I give up - there's no reasoning with chumps. All the OP was trying to do was be helpful, if you wanna puke all over that go right ahead.

[zoopyzook]

Or 3D Mark vantage as it doenst need such a high tech system to get half decent results, it allows you to test things easier amongst diff systems

3D mark 11 is cool and and a great program but for me it needs just a bit too much to run properly and get decent scores/running if you get me drift :)

but for an accurate test we all need to be singing off the same hymn sheet.

I can get awesome scores with 3DMark 05 :grin:

[ATAG_Dutch]

but for an accurate test we all need to be singing off the same hymn sheet.

I can get awesome scores with 3DMark 05 :grin:

Anyone tried 4BKevin 62?

Sorry, it's that beer again.:(

[Ze-Jamz]

I give up - there's no reasoning with chumps. All the OP was trying to do was be helpful, if you wanna puke all over that go right ahead.

You still here?

[Ze-Jamz]

but for an accurate test we all need to be singing off the same hymn sheet.

I can get awesome scores with 3DMark 05 :grin:

Lol, 3d mark5 was a good benchmark program too..

Heaven is a good free easy to use program, you tried that?

[Orpheus]

You still here?

Apparently so. So far I'm the only person that's actually contributed to the thread instead of whining because you all prefer a different benchmark.

Thought of trying that? You know, contributing? No, of course not.

[zoopyzook]

Anyone tried 4BKevin 62?

Sorry, it's that beer again.:(


:shudder: Kevin is actually my RL name :eek:

[ATAG_Dutch]

:shudder: Kevin is actually my RL name :eek:

Sorry mate, pure coincidence. Kevin's a bloke I know in my local who is an unbelivable pain in the derriere, just sprang to mind when reading the thread.

[Ze-Jamz]

Apparently so. So far I'm the only person that's actually contributed to the thread instead of whining because you all prefer a different benchmark.

Thought of trying that? You know, contributing? No, of course not.

Ok numbnuts il be clear here...I gave my input saying the win7 benchmark tool is flawed so DON'T use it due to it causing a lot of BS from people that already have issues...you gave no input other than to come in here "puking" as you say all over my post...where was you input at that point?

If you bother to look I've added input you on the otherhand are in here bashing me...

Please stop wasting your time

[zoopyzook]

Ok numbnuts il be clear here...I gave my input saying the win7 benchmark tool is flawed so DON'T use it due to it causing a lot of BS from people that already have issues...you gave no input other than to come in here "puking" as you say all over my post...where was you input at that point?

If you bother to look I've added input you on the otherhand are in here bashing me...

Please stop wasting your time


I have to agree, win7 experience gives me a 7.6 on a 2 year old machine (apart from my GPU) so it can't be that accurate.

will follow with my 3DMark11 score when it finishes downloading

[Orpheus]

Ok numbnuts il be clear here...I gave my input saying the win7 benchmark tool is flawed so DON'T use it due to it causing a lot of BS from people that already have issues...you gave no input other than to come in here "puking" as you say all over my post...where was you input at that point?

If you bother to look I've added input you on the otherhand are in here bashing me...

Please stop wasting your time

Acutally I seem to remember you telling me to 'be quiet' as if I were some 8 year old with his hand in the cookie jar when all I asked was that people contribute to the benchmark idea, even if they disagree as to whether it's 'worth it' or not - because frankly neither of us know which benchmark would be more use to the developers. Since you felt it necessary to talk to me like a child, I have no problem returning the favour.

Since a forum moderator has asked for this I thought it was worth adding my results instead of complaining about his choice of benchmark - which is all you and everyone else in this thread has done. I don't consider that a 'contribution'. I'm done arguing this point with you, so just let it go and let the thread go back to being useful for those people who actually want to help instead of complain.


I have to agree, win7 experience gives me a 7.6 on a 2 year old machine (apart from my GPU) so it can't be that accurate.

will follow with my 3DMark11 score when it finishes downloading

Looking at your specs, you're running a pretty hefty rig, regardless of whether it's two years old or not. Seems pretty accurate to me.

[Thee_oddball]

but for an accurate test we all need to be singing off the same hymn sheet.

I can get awesome scores with 3DMark 05 :grin:if you want a real comparison then we will ALL have tobe running CLOD on FRESH installs of win7 with NOTHING else but the game installed and using the same tool.

S!

[Thee_oddball]

I have to agree, win7 experience gives me a 7.6 on a 2 year old machine (apart from my GPU) so it can't be that accurate.

will follow with my 3DMark11 score when it finishes downloading

you have a much better rig than i do and i get
6.9 cpu
7.4 mem
7.5 vid

Im happy with the score and performance but i wonder how it is rating my system.

S!

[zoopyzook]

3DMark11 score:

P6070 3DMarks

but apparently its telling me that my Drivers are out of date. :???:

[AARPRazorbacks]

6550




system:

MOBO- Gigabyte GA-EP45_UD3P.
CPU-Intel core Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz.
Ram 4GB.
PSU-(Duel power supply.
500 and 550 watt on the GPU.
550 watt on MOBO and SSD.
500 watt on HDD and CD/DVD player)
GPU-Video card GTX 470 1280 MB GDDR5.
Internal SSD- Crucial M4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive
Internal HD-Seagate Barracuda SATA2 1TB/TO 32MB 7200RPM.
External HD-Seagate USB2.00 500 GB 7200RPM.
OS-(Duel partition on Internal HDD.
Windows XP Pro 32bit.
Windows 7 PRO 64 bit.)


CFS3 and Expansions,FSX on XP 32 bit HDD-Seagate Barracuda SATA2 1TB/TO 32MB 7200RPM.
CLoD and RoF in W-7 Pro 64 bit HDD-Seagate Barracuda SATA2 1TB/TO 32MB 7200RPM.
CLoD and RoF in W-7 Pro 64 bit SSD- Crucial M4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive


MSWFF Pro 2.
2 saitek x52 throttles.
Saitek Pro Flight PZ35 Rudder Pedals
Monitor- HP-19, HP-24 or a VIZIO 42in screen.
Turtle Beach Gaming Headset and Mic.
TIR5.
Fraps.
Systems Windows 7 Experience Index rate of 6.7 base with SSD-- 5.9 base with HDD


With this score I'm able to fly CLod very well. I was able to fly CLod at base 5.9 HDD. Not as good as 6.7 base SDD but still very playable.

I use MS Windows 7 64 bit as a OS on my PC. CLod is MS Windows based.

We all are using MS Windows XP, Vista 64 bit or Windows 7 64 bit to play this sim.

Does MS know what there doing? I would think so!

If by posting my results of Windows 7 Experience Index helps the CLoD team make This sim more playable on more PC's.Then thats a good thing.

Windows Experience Index is already on Vista and 7 and being used by PC games and Hardware developers to help people know wither or not thy can use there product on there PC. If there hardware or software is MS windows base.

There was a poster on another flight sim forum ask what FPS he would get with his system in CLoD. I told him if he had Windows 7 Experience Index to run that. then post his Base score and I could tell him what to expect form CLoD on this system. That EZ.

[AndyJWest]

If by posting my results of Windows 7 Experience Index helps the CLoD team make This sim more playable on more PC.Then thats a good thing.

It doesn't, so it won't, so it isn't. ;)

Does MS know what there doing? I would think so!

They know what they are doing. So do we. Producing simplistic 'benchmarks' that tell the user little, but help MS make a profit. If they can persuade people that they need better hardware, they can be 90% sure that this will result in another sale of their OS - most people don't upgrade isolated components, but by a new PC - with Windows installed.

[Thee_oddball]

3D Mark score : 30845

[AARPRazorbacks]

It doesn't, so it won't, so it isn't. ;)



They know what they are doing. So do we. Producing simplistic 'benchmarks' that tell the user little, but help MS make a profit. If they can persuade people that they need better hardware, they can be 90% sure that this will result in another sale of their OS - most people don't upgrade isolated components, but by a new PC - with Windows installed.

Thy do not only run the test on MS hardware.;)

[AndyJWest]

Thy do not only run the test on MS hardware.;)

Read what I wrote - MS sell software. Please take your ridiculous pushing of this so called 'benchmark' elsewhere, and leave the discussion to people who know what they are talking about.

[AARPRazorbacks]

Read what I wrote - MS sell software. Please take your ridiculous pushing of this so called 'benchmark' elsewhere, and leave the discussion to people who know what they are talking about.

The thing is know one knows what your talking about.;)

Your to contradictory in what you say.:(

[AndyJWest]

Your to contradictory in what you say.

Are you illiterate, as well as ignorant - or just drunk?

[AARPRazorbacks]

Are you illiterate, as well as ignorant - or just drunk?

Why don't you goggle and find a report on how bad a tool by MS this is.

Most people take there PC to a shop to be upgraded.
With this tool thy know what hardware to upgrade with instead of some sales person that try and sell then things thay do not need. To run the new software thy are not able to run on there system.

What part of that do you not understand?

And I think you need to stop with the personal attacks.

[AndyJWest]

Goggle... to roll the eyes
See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goggle :rolleyes:

[Igo kyu]

I have a suspicion that there's an incompatibility between the latest hardware and CloD, the people who are complaining seem to have new gear, older gear seems to work better.

[AndyJWest]

I have a suspicion that there's an incompatibility between the latest hardware and CloD, the people who are complaining seem to have new gear, older gear seems to work better.

I suspect it is software (the drivers) rather than hardware that is the problem, though it does seem that some of the most recent hardware has problems. This isn't that surprising, as drivers for older hardware are likely to be more stable. CloD may be pushing new hardware further than most other applications do too. This should tend to resolve itself with time.

[Orpheus]

Are you illiterate, as well as ignorant - or just drunk?

Ever thought of the chance it might not be his first language? Or he could have typing difficulties? Take your arrogant sarcasm elsewhere - maybe a pedants forum, or somewhere like 4chan where your evident maturity will be a shining light among a sea of other pricks.


I despair of this 'community', I really do. This thread, which was meant to be helpful, has been destroyed by the usual trolls. Even a simple benchmark such as this could be useful, but no - the retard squad are out in full force. No wonder the developers don't communicate when even a simple request like this is met by accusations of pandering to Microsoft sales pitches, of all ridiculous accusations. There must be more tinfoil hats in here than a 9/11 conspiracy convention.

Whatever your objections, keep them in the original Win7 Index thread and bitch all you like about big scary MS and how terrible their benchmark is there. Leave this one for those of us who actually want to help, for crying out loud.

[Thee_oddball]

cmon guys....the ultimate benchmarks is this .."HEY i can play the game!"

S!

[AndyJWest]

Orpheus, how exactly do you think you are helping? Has Luthier asked people to post their Win 7 index scores? Nope. Do the specifications for the game include the index? Nope. I don't believe in 'conspiracies', but I do understand how marketing works. If you don't think that Microsoft has an interest in convincing you that you need new hardware, I'd suggest that your tinfoil hat is probably restricting blood flow to your brain...

[Orpheus]

Orpheus, how exactly do you think you are helping? Has Luthier asked people to post their Win 7 index scores? Nope. Do the specifications for the game include the index? Nope. I don't believe in 'conspiracies', but I do understand how marketing works. If you don't think that Microsoft has an interest in convincing you that you need new hardware, I'd suggest that your tinfoil hat is probably restricting blood flow to your brain...

You really are mental aren't you? This has nothing to do with MS's interest in hardware sales - are you seriously suggesting that we are all unwitting (or even willing!) participants in some Microsoft conspiracy to get us all to buy new OS with our new hardware via misleading benchmarks? Do you realise how paranoid/inane/messed up that sounds? What would be the point of even releasing a benchmark to the public that didn't work, let alone including it with all new operating systems? Do you think that your windows process manager lies to you about how much CPU is being used, or what programs you're running? Or maybe that's all part of the conspiracy too?

Clearly you know jack about marketing, or you'd realise that releasing a program across literally hundreds of thousands of users worldwide isn't good marketing - it's just dumb. All the Win Index is, is an attempt to simplify benchmarking processes so even the casual users can understand it - not just mouthbreathing neckbeards in rooms filled with Linux books and dirty tissues.



Given that it was a forum moderator that posted the OP, I figured it had a reasonable chance of helping Luthier & Co. I've said this several times now: Even if you lot think it's wrong, or an evil marketing tool, or you're convinced that your benchmarking program is so much better - save it for the other thread. Leave this one for people who actually want to contribute their settings and results, or you're just sh*tting it up for the rest of us.

[Novotny]

What a bunch of cocknobs.

As recommended on the first page, use Sisoft Sandra.

The Rest of you: You kill this game. I Hope you are happy.

[Timberwolf]

Repost from the other thread:

Processor: 7.5
Memory 7.7
Graphics 6.9
Gaming Graphics 6.9
HD: 5.9

Overall (by lowest) 5.9.

CloD Performance:

Most settings medium, medium textures (could use high before last retail patch), 2x AA, true fullscreen @ 1920 x 1200, shadows & roads on, grass off, vsync on, SSAO & Ep filter off.

Without using Radeon Pro, fps is in the 10-20s over land with massive stuttering. With Radeon Pro, fps becomes a slightly more stable 25ish, most of the stutter has gone. 'Bubble' pop-in regardless of whether I use Radeon or not. Crossfire only works well with Radeon Pro and STILL has a massive performance degradation over time, to the extent that if you spend half an hour 'testing' different settings, it'll be a slideshow by the time you finish, making actual testing impossible.

The wins 7 test isn't up to what it should be ..you have a quad core and 2x 5770
I have 5.9 and half of what you have for a computer

[Timberwolf]

Most Test programs are not 100% due to the fact not everyone is a expert when it comes to computers Most likey people download the benchmark and run it and get a score and figure thats it and post it

When in fact they have other apps and processes open and running not knowing it effects your score Same with "bottlenecking" or conductivity of your connection host or how to set a high priority in process useage

Even having nortons, Firewall etc on in the back ground is a big process and will effect a score Under cooling Cpu, Gpu. same

Benchmarking websites if you take the time to read the post will tell you not to "just download and click" take the right steps

most of the problems i seen on here have been people with higher end computers And my own two cents is that dual core works, Quad core works, and mid ranged Video cards works But everything starts to drop off when you get into the ATI 6xxx series and Nvid 480 areas and AMD 6 core Intell i-5 / i-7
Maybe the game being 7 years in the making started as a duel / quad core base and added more is hard work ..don't know not a programmer just say it as i see it ..I still hear and see alot of 1946 in CLOD

[Timberwolf]

Why don't you goggle and find a report on how bad a tool by MS this is.

Most people take there PC to a shop to be upgraded.
With this tool thy know what hardware to upgrade with instead of some sales person that try and sell then things thay do not need. To run the new software thy are not able to run on there system.

What part of that do you not understand?

And I think you need to stop with the personal attacks.

I don't know why a person That wants a "gaming computer" would spend alot of money on something he knows nothing about. It wouldn't make sence to take your computer to a salesman to get upgraded with "things" you don't need and pay for them and then take your computer home and run a test..And if you read my above post you might think twice about your real score and the score you could have.

From my first computer to the one i have now I read alot, Weeded out the post of people saying buy this and that and learned to take my own computer apart and knew what was compadable with what and how to optimize what i was working with not just the hardware. There are many free tools on websites that are virise free (checked daily) That can show you everything that is on your computer in detail and the temps there running on aswell as driver updaters, net connecton optimizers and scan for proformance problems....To me running a Benchmark score without knowing your computer first is unwise Because your getting results from a program thats based on your computer software/hardware running clean

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1367486998.png

[Ze-Jamz]

Seriously I don't understand this thread at all, as it's been said a million times you cannot use win7 benchmark test as a viable way to make this game better for users..2 of the same machines would run this differently meaning it's a comnination of things that are causing problems..benchmarking will do little to help as already stated..

If you must use a BM program 3dMark Vantage or 11 would be adequate but I'm telling you now start a thread on that and get 50 people to test your better start a new forum cuz your need it..

Insane some of the things in here and I honestly thought we were smarter than that

Il give you a clue too...it's called game code, it's called optimisation and lastly everysingle machine in here would probably have different programs running using resources and 1 resource on 1 machine would give you a different grade to the other machine with the same hardware..

Now please can we just forget about this topic now and take our tinpot foil things whatever it is you guys harp on about and help others in another way.

S

[mazex]

6550




system:

MOBO- Gigabyte GA-EP45_UD3P.
CPU-Intel core Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz.
Ram 4GB.
PSU-(Duel power supply.
500 and 550 watt on the GPU.
550 watt on MOBO and SSD.
500 watt on HDD and CD/DVD player)
GPU-Video card GTX 470 1280 MB GDDR5.
Internal SSD- Crucial M4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive
Internal HD-Seagate Barracuda SATA2 1TB/TO 32MB 7200RPM.
External HD-Seagate USB2.00 500 GB 7200RPM.
OS-(Duel partition on Internal HDD.
Windows XP Pro 32bit.
Windows 7 PRO 64 bit.)


CFS3 and Expansions,FSX on XP 32 bit HDD-Seagate Barracuda SATA2 1TB/TO 32MB 7200RPM.
CLoD and RoF in W-7 Pro 64 bit HDD-Seagate Barracuda SATA2 1TB/TO 32MB 7200RPM.
CLoD and RoF in W-7 Pro 64 bit SSD- Crucial M4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive


MSWFF Pro 2.
2 saitek x52 throttles.
Saitek Pro Flight PZ35 Rudder Pedals
Monitor- HP-19, HP-24 or a VIZIO 42in screen.
Turtle Beach Gaming Headset and Mic.
TIR5.
Fraps.
Systems Windows 7 Experience Index rate of 6.7 base with SSD-- 5.9 base with HDD


With this score I'm able to fly CLod very well. I was able to fly CLod at base 5.9 HDD. Not as good as 6.7 base SDD but still very playable.

I use MS Windows 7 64 bit as a OS on my PC. CLod is MS Windows based.

We all are using MS Windows XP, Vista 64 bit or Windows 7 64 bit to play this sim.

Does MS know what there doing? I would think so!

If by posting my results of Windows 7 Experience Index helps the CLoD team make This sim more playable on more PC's.Then thats a good thing.

Windows Experience Index is already on Vista and 7 and being used by PC games and Hardware developers to help people know wither or not thy can use there product on there PC. If there hardware or software is MS windows base.

There was a poster on another flight sim forum ask what FPS he would get with his system in CLoD. I told him if he had Windows 7 Experience Index to run that. then post his Base score and I could tell him what to expect form CLoD on this system. That EZ.

The original initiative in this thread is naturally good, the problem is that you get 7.8 in graphics score for your GTX470, and I get 7.9 for my GTX580. Then those cards must be almost exactly as fast? And my son gets 7.4 on his GTX275... That rig is my old one that was swapped to get CloD running ;) The new one has more than double average fps than the old one which the score does not show at all. A score of 7.4 on a scale to 7.9 must be good enough if a ring with 7.8 runs it great?

So - therefore I can conclude that the ones axing Windows Experience are right as it is to "crude" for high performance gaming - but the original initiative is right. I started a thread in the tech section where I tried to do a comparison between different combination on the same settings when I was upgrading, and if a lot of guys with different rigs did the exact same benchmark - in the actual game, we would get a small database where people could see how their rig would work in CloD, and the devs could see where there are problems with specific combinations?

My old thread while upgrading where I tried to get all settings the same etc and compare my old rig and my new one, with and interesting twist of having the new GTX580 in my old Core2Duo rig which gave almost nothing... Did not expect that myself!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=22448

The main problem is that when new patches arrive that improves performance, the old tests has to be re run... And that's where it gets tiresome. But if 25 of us regular posters here could rerun a test in "Black Death" with the exact same settings and resolution, I would be very interested to read that at least as a developer or buyer!

[Ze-Jamz]

That is all you would need to do to achieve a benchmark on specific hardware. My point is you would get different results on similar setups using the game as a benchmark due to it's performance issues which is obviously code related and how the engine handles that code.

I've tested this myself on 2 same computers, my old man has the same comp, even down to the case and cooling..the only thing different was the mouse ad keyboard and make of monitor (not resolution) and both produced different results with. +/- 10 Fps, so the only thing different would be programs running in BG though none were resource hogs..

People won't have barebone systems to run these sorts of tests so they wouldn't help in trying to isolate hardware issues..

You can benchmark your own system to determine what works best for you but to do any type of viable worthwhile benchmarking/testing whatever you want to call it would be futile giving:
A/ The way the games engine is handling code (to put it simply) Inc memory issues and even if that wasn't the case you woulnt.....
B/ Have a community with barebone systems willing to do such comprehensive tests

[nearmiss]

The reason I thought the Win7 performance test would help...

Because it describes the hardware and gives a score with related system information.

This performance description along with the score can be a rough evaluation.

The 3DBenchmark is fine, but it is just a raw score with no data about the respective system specs.

A previous poster indicated he got passable performance with COD with a 5.9 score and better at 6+. The one final base score is not that helpful, but the subscores are.

The subscores are good information, because others reading his posting may realize from looking at his hardware a new video card may be all that separates them from a more playable COD.
After reviewing subscores from other users it may be easy to determine if your system is comparable, and possibly adequate based on that information.

In my on situation all my subscores are greater than 7 and my HDD data transfer rate is rated 5.9, therefore I know I will probably be fine with my system. I may need to change my HDD or get a virtual HDD.

I think there is value from the Vista Win7 performance tool when we compare our own scores with other users, and their system hardware. Especially, if their performance with BOB COD is competent.

Yes, I do believe there may be better tools. This is one most of us can access and share quickly.

[Ze-Jamz]

Ok 2 things:

I understand your point but this isn't just about an issue with 'what do I need to run this game properly' so everyone can see what they need to upgrade, it's also and mainly about performance of the actual game and the fact through their own admission isn't optimised so until we all know that IS the case I'm not sure how it would benefit anyone?

Put it this way, if by looking at someone score/setup etc I then determine and 'think' it's the HD5770 1gig i need to get my game running like 'his' THEN they decide to patch it which sorts out a massive issue/leak which would of seen my old GFX card work ok...id be a Lil pi**ed off.

Let's just hope they sort out that issue then further threads and ideas like this would be alot 'more' helpful to the community...the idea would be sound if the game was running how it is supposed to be and were trying to get an idea on what hardware everyone needs to run it to XX level but this isn't the case....yet

Also appologies to Orpheus while im posting...didn't mean to tell you to shut up dude, was having a bad night, week, actualy.....month come to think of it

*shakes the hand* :)

S

[nearmiss]

Ok 2 things:

I understand your point but this isn't just about an issue with 'what do I need to run this game properly' so everyone can see what they need to upgrade, it's also and mainly about performance of the actual game and the fact through their own admission isn't optimised so until we all know that IS the case I'm not sure how it would benefit anyone?

Put it this way, if by looking at someone score/setup etc I then determine and 'think' it's the HD5770 1gig i need to get my game running like 'his' THEN they decide to patch it which sorts out a massive issue/leak which would of seen my old GFX card work ok...id be a Lil pi**ed off.

Let's just hope they sort out that issue then further threads and ideas like this would be alot 'more' helpful to the community...the idea would be sound if the game was running how it is supposed to be and were trying to get an idea on what hardware everyone needs to run it to XX level but this isn't the case....yet

Also appologies to Orpheus while im posting...didn't mean to tell you to shut up dude, was having a bad night, week, actualy.....month come to think of it

*shakes the hand* :)

S

I appreciate having the information. I can make my own choices about what to do about it. That's one of the things I have a brain for... to evaluate information.

It's just a simple tool that might help someone get a feel for what they need, and provide some feedback to the dev that certain systems are lousy with the latest release or vs v.

In my own case, since I have a base score of 5.9 and all my subscores are above 7. I will probably first look into raising the one low subscore item, which is my HDD data transfer rate. In fact, I may do that without any preconceived notion of improving the BOB COD performance, but just the overall improvement of my system.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Please... It's 2011...

Do like Half-Life: self benchmark tool with upload of hardware specs over internet to the devs... Isn't so hard to do.

Or look at Resident Evil 5 benchmark... We have fixed and variable benchmark tools...

This topic, sorry to say, is near useless. This sim still in beta stage. Maybe it's time do devs assume that and invest some time in benchmark tools and uploading of user specs.

We are all beta testers now. And we pay to be beta testers, we are crazy. Give us good tools to do our job, not some poor fixed topic to report bugs.

[Orpheus]

Ok 2 things:

I understand your point but this isn't just about an issue with 'what do I need to run this game properly' so everyone can see what they need to upgrade, it's also and mainly about performance of the actual game and the fact through their own admission isn't optimised so until we all know that IS the case I'm not sure how it would benefit anyone?

Put it this way, if by looking at someone score/setup etc I then determine and 'think' it's the HD5770 1gig i need to get my game running like 'his' THEN they decide to patch it which sorts out a massive issue/leak which would of seen my old GFX card work ok...id be a Lil pi**ed off.

Let's just hope they sort out that issue then further threads and ideas like this would be alot 'more' helpful to the community...the idea would be sound if the game was running how it is supposed to be and were trying to get an idea on what hardware everyone needs to run it to XX level but this isn't the case....yet

Also appologies to Orpheus while im posting...didn't mean to tell you to shut up dude, was having a bad night, week, actualy.....month come to think of it

*shakes the hand* :)

S

That's quite alright mate, was a bit frustrated last night myself. Water under the bridge - we both want to help, just differ in our methods. Appreciate you taking the time to apologise, and for what it's worth I'm sorry too. :)

I do see your point re the actual game engine having issues that may or may not be solved with hardware replacement. The change in performance since release to current date exemplifies that side of your argument and I do agree that hardware is not the only issue affecting the game.

I think Nearmiss summed it up well. The subscores with attached hardware description are only a simple indication of rough performance, but even that is better than nothing and may help the devs - if it turns out that people with huge cpus are struggling while older cpus are doing fine, then it could indicate a problem in the way the game utilises multiple cores, or something like that. Either way, the information is useful. But the game engine itself needs a lot of improvement - hopefully this will help them do that. :)

@Timberwolf - the reason we both have 5.9 is simply that 5.9 is the highest hardware score for a non SSD hard disk, and the final score is always limited by the lowest rating. The final score is less relevant than the subscores (which only reach a theoretical maximum of 8, which explains why the jump from a GTX470 at 7.8 to a GTX 580 at 7.9, in mazex's case doesn't look like that big of a leap - the numbers just don't go any higher at the current time). It's not perfect, but it's a start, and because the hardware used is listed (in the complex view) we can at least get a rough idea of performance across a range of systems.

Good to see the thread calming down (mostly), and hopefully going back on topic. :)


This link from AARPRazorbacks has a little explanation in it, which might help:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=304878&postcount=58

[AndyJWest]

You really are mental aren't you? This has nothing to do with MS's interest in hardware sales - are you seriously suggesting that we are all unwitting (or even willing!) participants in some Microsoft conspiracy to get us all to buy new OS with our new hardware via misleading benchmarks? Do you realise how paranoid/inane/messed up that sounds? What would be the point of even releasing a benchmark to the public that didn't work, let alone including it with all new operating systems? Do you think that your windows process manager lies to you about how much CPU is being used, or what programs you're running? Or maybe that's all part of the conspiracy too?

Clearly you know jack about marketing, or you'd realise that releasing a program across literally hundreds of thousands of users worldwide isn't good marketing - it's just dumb. All the Win Index is, is an attempt to simplify benchmarking processes so even the casual users can understand it - not just mouthbreathing neckbeards in rooms filled with Linux books and dirty tissues.



Given that it was a forum moderator that posted the OP, I figured it had a reasonable chance of helping Luthier & Co. I've said this several times now: Even if you lot think it's wrong, or an evil marketing tool, or you're convinced that your benchmarking program is so much better - save it for the other thread. Leave this one for people who actually want to contribute their settings and results, or you're just sh*tting it up for the rest of us.


Orpheus,it has been repeatedly demonstrated (by people who understand computer hardware) that the benchmark is flawed - in my case for instance, it gave two widely-differing results for the same hardware. But rather than deal with the issues, people keep pushing the benchmark as some sort of useful parameter when it comes to determining if CloD will run, and then abusing anyone who questions its utility. As I have already pointed out, the CloD specifications make no mention of the benchmark, and the developers have never given any indication that they consider it valid. Yes, Nearmiss is a moderator - but that is no indication of any particular knowledge or qualifications when it comes to the issue. I think he is wrong, and so do many other posters, and his personal opinion isn't automatically 'right' because he is a moderator.

As for whether the benchmark is a marketing tool, I can see little reason for it to be much else - it offers no useful advice apart from "buy new hardware" and as I've already pointed out, it is in Microsoft's interest to do this.

Finally, your offensive personal remarks are to me an indication of exactly what is wrong with this forum. The loud-mouthed and ignorant drown out the reasoned and logical. What CloD needs most as a 'marketing tool' is a forum where purchasers having difficulties with the sim can ask for help, without being given useless advice, and without having to wade through reams of off-topic waffle. The benchmark will tell nobody anything remotely relevant about hardware problems that isn't better dealt with by asking for proper hardware specs - the first step in almost every hardware-related problem-solving process.

[Orpheus]

stuff..

Since Ze Jamz was decent enough to apologise, I will too - sorry if I offended you. However, the reasons for/against have been done to death in both this thread and the other one - we know you don't like it, and that's fair enough. Not everyone agrees with you, and your opinion is no more or less valid than any other - refusing to see the other side does you no service whatsoever.

I refuse to get into yet another argument over this, especially as this thread is taking a more positive turn, so let's just agree to disagree, and keep this thread on topic, ok? No need for any more

http://forums.mycotopia.net/attachments/general-discussions/203944d1294117181-thousands-dead-birds-fish-arkasas-tinfoilhat.png


;)

[nearmiss]

Link to Sisoft Sandra

http://www.sisoftware.net/

[Eckhart]

Can't get more than 20-25 FPS in COD with moderate settings...I mean I stopped playing around with it a month ago (get 60 FPS on average in ROF all maxed out)