1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

What I have done is to install Linux and compare its performance with XP running on Windows in as fair a way as I can?

What does your log.txt say your CPU MHz are?

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

What does your log.txt say your CPU MHz are?

What? It's an old i7 which runs at 3.8mhz with 4.0mhz boost. It has 4 cores and 4 extra core thingies? Its an i7 4790. It's one that is locked and cannot be overclocked. It never goes above 60 degrees because I have a very large cooler so the boost kicks in just fine. How each OS runs it is up to the OS. Not my problem to sort out.

PS. Both log text files say 3.6mhz. Exactly the same. 

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by jarmstro

21 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

What? It's an old i7 which runs at 3.8mhz with 4.0mhz boost.

That's not how modern CPUs work, they balance power on demand, it may be capable of 3.8-4GHz, but Linux will generally target low power consumption by default unless you tell it otherwise with tuned or cpupower

[msparks@localhost X-Plane 11]$ cpupower frequency-info 
...
  hardware limits: 2.20 GHz - 4.50 GHz
  available frequency steps:  4.50 GHz, 2.80 GHz, 2.20 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative ondemand userspace powersave performance schedutil
...
  current CPU frequency: 4.49 GHz (asserted by call to kernel)

I'm set on performance which is the full 4.5GHz all the time (AMD CPUs are really gentle on power consumption anyway), but when I first installed this system it it was at 2.8GHz

21 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

PS. Both log text files say 3.6mhz.

So not 4Ghz then, not even 3.8.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by mSparks

36 minutes ago, mSparks said:

So not 4Ghz then, not even 3.8.

No. It runs at 3.8ghz and boosts to 4 when needed according to task manager and CPUID.  3.6 is just the base lowest frequency. But who cares? It is what it is.  If Linux can't do something as simple as fully utilising the performance of the installed CPU then words fail me and I'm done with it.  Not my problem. Even if it was running at 1ghz it would make no difference to the test I have carried out. What part of the sentence 'there is practically no difference in the performance of X-Plane running in Windows compared to Linux' do you not understand?

Do you seriously expect me to have to enter code into a terminal in order to get the OS to work properly???

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by jarmstro

20 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

No. It runs at 3.8ghz

Not according to

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

PS. Both log text files say 3.6mhz.

CPU frequency is variable for both OS's, depending on the power configuration

20 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

If Linux can't do something as simple as fully utilising the performance of the installed CPU then words fail me and I'm done with it.

I already linked you the tuned instructions, its a setting in the OS. might as well complain Windows can't run Xplane in safe mode......

Linux is typically used in huge buildings with 10s of thousands of machines in, the major concern there is power consumption (and the cooling required when machines are running at full tilt)

Windows is more or less identical, there you set that in "power and sleep", but linux defaults tend to favour much lower power consumption

For either for Xplane you'll want the machine in performance mode rather than "editing word documents" mode.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by mSparks

4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Not according to

Well according to Windows and CPUID and another monitor I have it runs at 3.8ghz and boosts to 4 when needed. I really do not care and it is irrelevant. And so what? What's your point? Even if I have an old and slow CPU, no matter what its speed is, how does it change what I have found to be the case? Both operating systems were using the same old CPU? Are you saying Ubuntu can only cope with current CPU's? Is mine too old for Ubuntu?  I honestly would like to have had the huge increase in FPS that I was expecting but just have not seen it.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Well according to Windows and CPUID and another monitor I have it runs at 3.8ghz and boosts to 4 when needed.

sigh, good luck with that then.....

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

and it is irrelevant.

Alternatively, a machine running at 3.6GHz is significantly slower than an otherwise identical machine running at 4Ghz, but also uses much, much less power.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

what I have found

All you seem to have found so far is your GPU cant do more than 30fps at a resolution of 10240x5760, which says nothing about windows, linux or xplane, you could likely have found that by looking on the box the GPU came in, thats even beyond what nvidia themselves say its capable of

https://www.nvidia.com/en-eu/geforce/graphics-cards/rtx-2070/

Display Support:

7680x4320

 

 

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by mSparks

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

If I'm getting 40 FPS in Windows I will get 43 FPS in Linux. However if I'm only getting 25 FPS in Windows I will only get 26 FPS in Linux.

If you had paid any attention in class when they were talking about percentage calculation you would know why this is 😂😋.

That is also the reason why saying "I got 10 more frames with the new patch" means only one thing - that you got an increase. But there is a whole universe of difference if you went from 15 to 25 fps or if you went from 100 to 110 fps.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Do you seriously expect me to have to enter code into a terminal in order to get the OS to work properly???

As proven, there is nothing to gain with Linux, only headaches figuring out which config files need hacking. And half of XP add-ons don't even work.  Due to 1% user base it must be Cancelled.

3 minutes ago, Greazer said:

As proven

Nothing has been proven, other than Nvidia GPUs can support a higher resolution than they list on their website, albiet at a terrible fps, which shouldn't be news to anyone anywhere.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by mSparks

5 minutes ago, Greazer said:

As proven, there is nothing to gain with Linux, only headaches figuring out which config files need hacking. And half of XP add-ons don't even work.  Due to 1% user base it must be Cancelled.

Everyone mark this in the calendar! I almost agree with Greazer! 😲

I think choices are fine and if the base program and plugins can be compiled to run on Linux with no extensive effort - fine. I do also like that Linux is free and a community effort. So yeah, if you are versed in the use of Linux, by all means go for it. But for Linux to have any measurable success with the general public it needs to overcome the obstacles (namely user interaction) that Windows overcame somewhere between Win 95 and Win 98...

Cheers, Jan

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by Janov

19 minutes ago, Janov said:

But for Linux to have any measurable success with the general public

its generally best for the general public who would otherwise configure their machines beyond what the hardware is capable of - and then complain it doesnt work (like configuring 4x aa at 1440p on a gpu only designed for 2x aa at 1440p)

to stick to games consoles.

which linux/bsd already dominates.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by mSparks

Well, technically speaking, a big percentage of users (if not the majority) is running X-Plane on a Linux based OS... 🙂

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by Murmur

34 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Well, technically speaking, a big percentage of users (if not the majority) is running X-Plane on a Linux based OS... 🙂

I am not sure how many folks are actually playing X-Plane on game consoles... 😐

Please close the thread now. Linux has use at startups, for coding apps, and back end hosting. It is not made for games, sims etc and never will be (well only for tech geeks).