Hi SekeRob,
I thank you for your answer, but I cannot agree with your remark because, one year ago, with a broad project mix, the daily average contribution was higher than today.
Over the years, I observed that FA@H (in the past with Autodock) did not granted much credit in comparison to other projects.
During the last four months, with a FA@H - CEP2 only mix, I was on the above mentioned daily average: around 17'400.
1.5 years ago, I was at around 20'000 since it seems that HCMD2 was a little bit more generous.

IMHO, the low credit rate with MCM on Linux platform looks like missing optimisation.
Cheers,
Yves

I would say that the disparity between Vina and non-Vina is easy to understand when it comes to work done but what I have always found difficult to grasp is how same project calculations are arrived at.

MCM1 is said to be of varying length as the work is hard to predict when building a wu. Yep OK I get that and I therefore presume that all work is of a similar nature, but the "points claimed" part of same project wu's is all over the place and for the life of me I cannot understand how, even this part alone, is calculated.

By way of example let me show a couple of pics to illustrate:



This is sitting in pv and thus there is no need to mention points awarded but here the longer runtime has claimed less. WHY ??

The rig has been running for weeks so I would think that by now this single project has a handle on what it is capable of and can give it a points per hour figure to use when making a points claimed assessment.



This time more of same but with Valid results.

If I could only get a Logical answer as to why run longer, which in my book means "do more work" gets to claim less points then maybe I would be less annoyed with this system.

For all that points are a by-product of getting the work done it would be nice if whoever wrote the system could flesh out the thinking behind how it works.

Wishful thinking Rob. As long as the system is perceived by the users as being broken/wrong/not working properly/etc. etc. I feel you will be needing to be keeping on with the replies.

The simple answer would of course be " It's broken some and it will get fixed when there is time"

Nice task to give the research junior or whatever you call the Office junior in Scientific establishments

Time to poke again?
Runtime down (end of BETA's) and start short FAHV's -> credits go sky high:

for some recents valid wu's

CPU Time / Elapsed Time (hours) Claimed/ Granted BOINC Credit

time // points
3,57 / 3,95 170,9 / 186,1

3,59 / 3,99 178,1 / 181,5

7,20 / 7,20 268,4 / 225,1

7,19 / 7,19 245,2 / 190,8

4,45 / 4,45 168,3 / 117,2

i may not have understood well all what was explained in the previous posts
but i think MCM is not very generous on credit points
u see CPU Time and Elapsed Time equal and the big difference in claimed and granted points
sure i am making slow progress for a new badge...?

ps:sorry for the presentation, the last 2 columns are the pts