Just to add to the post above as I can't seem to edit it, some recent quotes from Linux users and the state of Eyefinity. I can get a lot more Max, don't really see the need, my point has been made.

I can speak about Eyefinity on Linux. With the open drivers in 11.10 Ubuntu, I actually have all three displays working properly (with the Cayman 69xx), and I can rearrange them as I like with the Ubuntu display manager without rebooting each time with Unity 3d. However, the fan/power management with the OSS drivers sucks (really noisy), and there's no OpenGL 3.2+ support.With the FGLRX drivers, I have quite the headache getting them working. First off, there's no support for Unity 3d with Eyefinity and catalyst. I have to use Unity2d or it will be a wonky experience (or just knock me back to log-in screen). If I disable compositing engine, and turn on the tear-free option, then I don't get any tearing like most other people claim to.As for setting up Eyefinity with the CCC, it is a royal pain. Using either 11.8 from the repos, or 11.9 from AMD, CCC almost always crashes when I make a monitor change if I don't load it from the terminal with "sudo amdcccle" - #####? If I launch it from the terminal, then it usually doesn't crash, but moving monitors around in the display config manager is a weird thing. Do not attempt to rearrange them as you would like to, as it will screw something up in your Xorg.conf. Here's how I can manipulate them: click on the down arrow on a monitor, and go to multi-display with multi-monitor with monitors: X & X(something like that), and just click it. When you do that, it will probably rearrange the ordering of the monitors it shows. Just click that over and over changing which monitor you do it from, until eventually you have it configured the way you want. -Geez.And for some reason, when I try and make a XBMC go full screen, it doesn't use the eyefinity resolution, and instead just changes my config to clone across three screens. But I can just use the windowed version and drag it across multiple monitors (that sucks). Also, no options for bezel correction like in Windows.

Still crap if you read any discussion of recent ATI cards and recent Catalyst drivers.Read this:http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...-HD-6770/page2And recent posts show bugs and regressions. I was considering an old card to test but there's constant bugs and AMD refuses even basic support for their cards. The worthlessness of compositing/compiz and desktop effects coupled with any time of video use when using these drivers just shows this. Also, if you use the open source drivers, you have no power management and have a major reduction in features and basic use.AMD doesn't support Linux. Even their Windows drivers are sketchy but at least they feel forced to work on things...It's a shame...I noticed no one replied to my post requesting more tests to supplement the typical benchmarks. I'm surprised... it would be interesting to have additional tests (testing for tearing, lagging, video play etc.).

Considering the reports of 'crappy AMD/ATI binary blob release sucks again' posts and the same sort of discussion in other linux distro forums seems to indicate either waste of funds or incompetence or indifference or maybe all three, if AMD spends more on Linux! It's been the same story in consecutive years!OSS drivers is good in terms of ideals and values but there are still limitations and only basic functionality for newer cards, anyway. If people care about power management, I think it's still lagging behind in support. At least, that's last I read or my impression.I think if I got an AMD/ATI card, it would be used and relatively cheap. I am not confident in the support.Also, the fact they don't support BSD and can't get more support with WINE developers seems to indicate something at least.

Oh, and after reading the 90+ pages of replies to the Youtube video you posted, it seems they used "hacked" drivers in this test, and never officially released.Glen

I liked the linux OS, but there was a little too much do-it-yourself for me.

That's what I love about it. It's like the hotrod in your garage that you're constantly tinkering with to maximize performance as opposed to the boring mini-van sitting in your driveway. I keep a Windows partition around for playing games that don't run or don't run well in Linux. Otherwise Linux is my primary operating system.

Yes, it is a lot of fun to mess around with, and in most cases works very well. I guess most importantly, it's free. Have a look at this article, this looks interesting, Android anyone. I prefer it over all the other OS's out there today. Xplane in Android...hmmm??http://androidcommunity.com/new-google-patent-point-toward-android-desktop-mode-20120222/Glen

Yes, it is a pain in the butt. I run a 3 monitor Eyefinity system. If Nvidia had a reasonable / viable option to run 3 monitors, I would buy the card faster than I could get my wallet out of my pocket, unfortunately they don't. When Nvidia offers a single card, 3 monitor solution, I will be the first to buy it. Forcing people to use 2 cards for 3 monitors is ridiculous these days.

 

Glen

The Nvidia GTX680 has 4 graphics ports

http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=02G-P4-2682-KR&family=GeForce%20600%20Series%20Family&sw=

Thank you for this test ! I stopped using Microsoft operating systems years ago, but I didn't think there's still such a huge difference for the performance. I expected something between 5% or 15% more FPS in GNU/Linux compared to Windows, you have 50% more FPS.Did you use the same settings in your Nvidia driver ? Are GNU/Linux OpenGL drivers better than Windows OpenGL drivers ?On my system, Core 2 / 8800GT, with custom sceneries, I'm often "locked" to VSync, 60 FPS:

I saw your post. I have a 750 mb 8800 GTX Nvidia Graphics Card. I am impressed with your frame rate using Linux. I am thinking of going to Linux. I would be interested to know what motherboard, and CPU you have. Also, how much ram memory do you have. I have an older computer using a dual core intel CPU and 32 bit Asus motherboard that is 6 years old. My CPU is 3.4 Ghz. I was thinking of building a newer computer, but wonder if I use Linux on my current computer, would I get 30 frame rates per second with very high x-plane resolution. Appreciate your input. Thank you.

Hi all, first post.

 

Apart from doing usual googling, I would like to give my 2 cents and hopefully someone can point out why XP10 in Linux is running slower than Win7.

 

I'll try to be as brief as I can.

 

I've just updated my PC for XP10. Now rocking a [email protected], SSD, 8GB-1600, GTX670, P8-Z77LX. With XP10 set to minimum settings and KSEA airport.

 

Windows 7 64bit (XP version 10.05) - Cockpit with panel was 100 fps and Linear Spot was about 130 fps.

 

I partitioned the SSD and installed Ubuntu 12.04 amd64. I also deleted the X-plane folder and reinstalled it within Linux (I'm new to linux and gave up on trying to find the windows installation from within the x-plane linux installer.)

 

Geforce driver 295 installed from the ubuntu software centre.

 

Ubuntu (XP version 10.10) - Cockpit about 75fps and Linear Spot about 100 fps.

 

I cant see using the updated version is going to make such a big difference.

 

Also, I am getting stuttering in Linux. I sorted core parking in windows and it ran sweet. People say they were getting a performance boost in Linux, I'm getting the opposite.

Hope someone can help boost linux performance. Otherwise this short lived love affair with Linux will be binned.

You can't compare 2 systems (Windows & Linux) using different versions of X-Plane (10.05r1 vs 10.10b1) and an old "295" driver. I'm using this driver PPA for Ubuntu (current version is 302.17):

 

https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+archive/x-updates/

 

On my system, I also noticed X-Plane 10.10b1's performance is not as good as in X-Plane 10.05r1.

 

Happy flying.

 

I would be interested to know what motherboard, and CPU you have. Also, how much ram memory do you have. I have an older computer using a dual core intel CPU and 32 bit Asus motherboard that is 6 years old. My CPU is 3.4 Ghz.

 

You'll find my PC's Specifications in my AVSIM profile. My PC is also getting old...

 

Also, I am getting stuttering in Linux. I sorted core parking in windows and it ran sweet. People say they were getting a performance boost in Linux, I'm getting the opposite.

Hope someone can help boost linux performance. Otherwise this short lived love affair with Linux will be binned.

 

Don't run with a compositing windows manager active. I have much worse performance with it, and even stuttering and 1 FPS at worst (Geforce GTX 680). Even Ubuntu 2D uses compositing. Just installed Lubuntu and performance is just great ! (install lubuntu-desktop, disconnect and reconnect under Lubuntu).

I only just saw this thread as there had been a new post to it. Very interesting that it runs better under linux to the extent that it does for some.

 

Given that it is multi platform I would expect it to favor one system a little more than another. Given that they develop it on a unix base it wouldn't surprise me to think that it's a bit more optimised for linux than win7.

 

50% is a bit off though. Linux is not a platform which is so much faster to provide that level of performance increase unless xplane favors it so much so that the coding for windows is not very good.

 

If it's coding issue then I look forward to see the optimisations come to windows.

 

There are plenty of games running on linux and windows that dont have such drastic differences in framerates to show it is not a linux/windows thing.

I'm wondering if the performance benefits of ubuntu would be noticeable if those who crow about it actually modified their windows startup so it is to optimised for flight siming? Fsx guys always fine tune the OS to stop unecessary apps running (which are included because the "general computing market" demands the valuable functionality they provide, ubuntu is not driven in this way to the same extent...its market is a very different niche). Turning them off in windows does make for a noticable performance increase in flight sim's. Id be interested in a comparison with ubuntu under those terms instead of all this nonesense im hearing here! I would wager the performance comparisons are not so different then!

 

Having said that, i love the open source community. the little men are forcing all these big software monopolies to rethink...or sink! It would seem that the selling of fsx source code and demise of microsoft flight is a classic example of how the open source developers can force change and win. Absolutely marvelous i say!

Fine tuning can also be done on GNU/Linux distros. Ubuntu with the Unity desktop will not give you the best performance. A classic GNOME desktop, Xfce (like in Xubuntu), LXDE (like in Lubuntu), or other desktops without effects are better. Just select your favorite desktop in your Software Manager and log-in with your new environment. Useless services can also be disabled.

 

Or would you try to run X-Plane on a desktop like this ? :lol:

 

You can also compare other native games like Quake 4 or FlightGear 2.8.

 

But in the coming months, I think we'll see more and more comparisons like this one, where Valve said Left 4 Dead 2 is better with GNU/Linux:

http://www.techspot.com/news/49630-valve-l4d2-runs-20-faster-on-ubuntu-than-windows-7.html

 

Most GNU/Linux distros are available for free, and it became easy to create a dual-boot setup. Install the latest stable proprietary graphic drivers in both operating systems, use the same settings (AA & AF & what you like), compare the details in the screen shots, then run your favorite benchmark.

 

At least, you should notice the advantages of a very fast file system that does not need a daily defrag.

 

Happy flying.

It would seem that the selling of fsx source code and demise of microsoft flight is a classic example of how the open source developers can force change and win.

speaking of nonsense...

that's an interesting find

X-Plane 10 runs a lot better under Linux if you run a less bloated version than Ubuntu.

The problems I see in the previous posts IMO can possibly be related to the fact that Ubuntu is bloated when installed with it's defaults. A much better option (if you don't want to tinker too much), is to install MINT which is based on Ununtu however has much less bloat on the initial install. I'm running Mint 13 and it is indeed a much faster and smoother X-Plane 10 experience than when running same in Windows 7 (dual boot). Setting up views etc is no different in Linux as it is in Windows as I do it all via the x-plane settings.

 

My system is an i5 A500 Toshiba laptop with an NVidia 330M video card and 4 Gb of RAM with a Cyborg FFB joystick.

Not a high end system by any means, and in Linux Mint 13 (64bit) I consistently get 30 - 70 fps depending on aircraft (I fly a lot of Carenado's aircraft and they tend to tax the system a wee bit) from the same airport. In Win 7 (64bit) I'm lucky to get 25 fps and it drops to a measely 9 fps over YBBN.

 

I still use Win 7 for x-plane 9.70 as I use REX-Plane and I also fly in Prepar3D. However, when I want smooth flying joy, I boot into Mint!

Really, give a less bloated Linux a go and you might have a transforming experience ...

 

Cheers

 

P.S. Sorry, didn't notice MdMax's post ... what he said! ;o)