16 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Did you install the proprietary NV drivers? Out of box open source drivers in Ubuntu won't work.

Do the textures stay blurry if you drop the texture slider a notch and then restart?

High end GPUs are now at 12G+ VRAM. When I max textures out, I see 10+ consumed in regular usage. Given you have 8 (NV notoriously shorts VRAM over the past few years), this might be an artifact of tuning VRAM usage in the beta (still). If this is the case, Linux probably won't help either. Agreed that you might need to stay w/ 11 for now.

Another question is if XP is the only program running on the system. Looks like you have plenty of system RAM installed, but need to also make sure it isn't fighting other programs for RAM.

Thank you for your comments on what yo saw and read......
Yes, I have the latest Nvidia driver installed also in Ubuntu (version 520.76 that is), but that was not enough apparently......
With the help of Paul (pterosaur) however I was able to install XP12 now under Ubuntu 22.04 and start the program, so far without any glitches.

Apparently it is also happy with my 8 GB of VRAM.   But also the Windows-Version did not complain or give any hints on memory problems. The only serious competitor for RAM (I have 32GB installed) is the Opera browser with quite a number of open pages, but this never has been a problem.

However, I can report a certain success this afternoon, because all tests I have done under Linux now give me a pleasant and flawless picture and that means I do not even need Windows any more, at least not for XP12 or XP11 (and MSFS is nothing that will pull be out in front of the little screen - I can happily live without it).

So still it is not 100% clear where the "bug" is located... could be my windows 10 setup altogether, or the Windows version of the XP12 program. But so many others using that without my blurry screen experience, I fear it is something inside my own setup and will be VERY difficult to locate and narrow down.

 

But for the time being I am a happy XP12 user again and can enjoy the nice things offered by that latest version of my favorite sim.

 

Have a great weekend all!
Juergen

1 hour ago, UKflyer said:

The scenery is nowhere as good as MSFS, i have completed a flight in MSFS then loaded up the same flight in XP12, but closed it down a minute or so later - the scenery is very dull after MSFS.

If you are referring to default XP12 scenery I would agree with you.  I should have clarified I am using ortho scenery at ZL17 everywhere with ZL18 around airports. I have SimHeaven X-World and Global Forests 2 installed. I also have removed AI roads using the X-Roads app.

I don't consider MSFS a poor simulator, but for VFR flying I personally feel XP12 with add-ons has made a jump forward with the new lighting.  

I also use the Live traffic plugin, which does the same job as PSXT in MSFS.  However, LiveTraffic does not suffer from jerky AI traffic or the traffic disappearing when close to the users aircraft.

 

1 hour ago, UKflyer said:

The scenery is nowhere as good as MSFS, i have completed a flight in MSFS then loaded up the same flight in XP12, but closed it down a minute or so later - the scenery is very dull after MSFS.

If you are referring to default XP12 scenery I would agree with you.  I should have clarified I am using ortho scenery at ZL17 everywhere with ZL18 around airports. I have SimHeaven X-World and Global Forests 2 installed. I also have removed AI roads using the X-Roads app.

I don't consider MSFS a poor simulator, but for VFR flying I personally feel XP12 with add-ons has made a jump forward with the new lighting.  

I also use the Live traffic plugin, which does the same job as PSXT in MSFS.  However, LiveTraffic does not suffer from jerky AI traffic or the traffic disappearing when close to the users aircraft.

 

1 hour ago, UKflyer said:

The scenery is nowhere as good as MSFS, i have completed a flight in MSFS then loaded up the same flight in XP12, but closed it down a minute or so later - the scenery is very dull after MSFS.

If you are referring to default XP12 scenery I would agree with you.  I should have clarified I am using ortho scenery at ZL17 everywhere with ZL18 around airports. I have SimHeaven X-World and Global Forests 2 installed. I also have removed AI roads using the X-Roads app.

I don't consider MSFS a poor simulator, but for VFR flying I personally feel XP12 with add-ons has made a jump forward with the new lighting.  

I also use the Live traffic plugin, which does the same job as PSXT in MSFS.  However, LiveTraffic does not suffer from jerky AI traffic or the traffic disappearing when close to the users aircraft.

45 minutes ago, Murmur said:

 

47 minutes ago, Murmur said:

It is very true, default XP12 scenery is nowhere near MSFS's one.

Although, airport environment in XP is as good or better, and the clouds (still buggy in these early phases) look often better in XP12. The lighting also, often I find the XP12's one more realistic.

I have the opposite reaction when flying though. I find the flight itself in MSFS very dull, for a long series of reasons. I tried to get to like it, but I usually close it down very soon, while in XP12 I feel a lot more immersed for long periods.

i can't get enough of this tho .. a thing of beauty 👍

57 minutes ago, Scorpio47 said:

With the help of Paul (pterosaur) however I was able to install XP12 now under Ubuntu 22.04 and start the program, so far without any glitches.

That is good news. Were any adjustments needed for 22.04? I don't run Ubuntu but am curious if anything needed to be installed or if it worked right away?

 

58 minutes ago, Scorpio47 said:

Apparently it is also happy with my 8 GB of VRAM.

This is both good news and very amusing. I hadn't heard of this result before: going from blurry textures in win to sharp in Linux. But like you say, there are many possible variables at play. Some are also seeing a slight performance increase in Linux. 

2 hours ago, UKflyer said:

i can't get enough of this tho .. a thing of beauty 👍

No doubt, if one's priority is looking at the scenery, he should use MSFS.

In terms of clouds, both sims are hit and miss. For example, I prefer this:

To this:

 

16 minutes ago, Murmur said:

No doubt, if one's priority is looking at the scenery, he should use MSFS.

In terms of clouds, both sims are hit and miss. For example, I prefer this:

To this:

 

i think as we've learnt since XP12 release, both sims are hit and miss in alot of areas 🙂

3 hours ago, UKflyer said:

i can't get enough of this tho .. a thing of beauty 👍

 

Have you ever tried flying in VR?

2 hours ago, UKflyer said:

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

No doubt, if one's priority is looking at the scenery, he should use MSFS.

In terms of clouds, both sims are hit and miss. For example, I prefer this:

To this:

 

i think as we've learnt since XP12 release, both sims are hit and miss in alot of areas 🙂

The pictures above illustrate nicely how XP12 has made a jump forward in lighting realism.  Compare the second and third image.  The XP12 atmosphere is so good - haze, visibility and shading on the clouds.  The MSFS shot doesn't look bad, but the clouds have no shading and there is nothing in the atmosphere at all, no haze, unlimited visibility and ground that looks a little cartoony.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

there is nothing in the atmosphere at all, no haze, unlimited visibility

Some people - perhaps most... like it that way.

And thats fine. Its just needs taking into consideration when people report not being able to see the horizon as an XP bug.

MS still holds the crown in crazy bug reports tho:

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170418-00/?p=95985

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

9 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

there is nothing in the atmosphere at all, no haze, unlimited visibility

Some people - perhaps most... like it that way.

If that's what they want then great, good to have the choice.  I'll take the extra realism of the XP12 atmosphere.

11 hours ago, Murmur said:

No doubt, if one's priority is looking at the scenery, he should use MSFS.

I rather feel that should be re-phrased to 'If ones priority is worldwide streamed ortho, then MSFS will be the better choice.  However, if ones priority is higher quality ortho, XP12 will be the better choice'.

15 hours ago, UKflyer said:

The scenery is nowhere as good as MSFS, i have completed a flight in MSFS then loaded up the same flight in XP12, but closed it down a minute or so later - the scenery is very dull after MSFS.

An XPlane forum seems a strange place to post if you feel like that.

As far as default scenery is concerned, I may agree with you. However, with some ortho at a higher quality than MSFS is capable of, Simheaven and GlobalForest, XP12 is better than MSFS imho.

12 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The pictures above illustrate nicely how XP12 has made a jump forward in lighting realism.  Compare the second and third image.  The XP12 atmosphere is so good - haze, visibility and shading on the clouds.  The MSFS shot doesn't look bad, but the clouds have no shading and there is nothing in the atmosphere at all, no haze, unlimited visibility and ground that looks a little cartoony.

The clouds and their lighting looks very good indeed, but these are not the same cloud types (much thicker) as depicted in the MSFS shot, so can they really be compared ?

Concerning the atmosphere though, it would be fair to mention that MSFS currently suffers from a bug preventing the haze/visibility from being depicted correctly in real weather mode. It's still possible to get very nice results in manual weather mode though. Hopefully the bug will be sorted out at some point.

To get back on XP12, why is the ground so dark in these screenshot ? Is there some big cloud formations behing the point of view which are casting shadow on the visible ground ?