Janov

To practice procedures with a desktop sim is certainly possible - but every action you take (like shutting off one hydraulic pump) must have the correct consequence...the famed "study level" fidelity. There aren´t many add-on aircraft out there that are so good...and even if they are, they probably have a slightly different configuration of systems from the plane you are studying for. I would not practice the actual landing touchdown with a desktop simulator - you can certainly practice that and get good enough to survive trying on the real plane, but just surviving isn´t what we aim for when flying expensive airliners 😉 But you can certainly practice the "choreography" that most procedures like a visual pattern or a low visibility circling approach have, when to reduce speed, when to extend flaps, your downwind timing, wind correction angles, things like that.

Yeah, I heard so! At any rate it is more of a "coming home" for me after 9 dark years on the A320 family. I flew the 744 for 6 years already and hope that some of that is still buried between my ears. Flying in X-Plane is more for getting pattern work down - procedures is something I wouldn´t trust a desktop sim on...quite yet (except for those models I built myself 😉 ) Cheers, Jan

Thanks for this! I will start my conversion to the 747-400/-800 in spring 2022 and I hope that I can already shape up for that with this model. The payware -800 I recently bought during a sale...seems to be not suitable for that 😐

Great! That is only about 6%!

You are effing kidding us, right?

At any rate - an improvement of 10 to 20% may be worth the hassle. It is a long way from the claims of mSparks, but it certainly is better than nothing. If you run at 18 fps (invalid low fps) a 10% boost would get you back into the legal range (19+ fps). However, if you run at 50fps, going to 55 may not be that big of a deal. Still - 20% would surprise me and would be a reason to look into trying Linux.

And in addition one must be VERY careful making comparisons with clouds in the scene - often these are random and in one session you may see a lot of them, in the next session there is a big "gap" in the clouds ahead and framerate goes up. One should always test with NO clouds, and if clouds are to be part of the test, always use a solid overcast, not a "scattered" or "broken" setting.

I must have missed it! Can you post your results again real quick? (I always tell people to search/read the whole thread but here even I am too lazy to go through 25 pages 😉)

I think no one is going to hold any result against you, either way. If the difference is substantial than great - people can think about installing Linux, if they want to go with the extra hassle. If the difference is neglible - and I think it is, otherwise you would have posted the result already - then mSparks will continue to claim that you "didn´t do it right", we will all roll our eyes at that and everything is just the way it was before. So you see, nothing to loose either way.

Didn´t you go through this whole process to validate the claims of mSparks that Linux is so much faster running X-Plane than Windows?

Next is a comparison of framerate between the same situation (sitting on a runway, no clouds, same setup, same view) with Windows and Linux.

So - what is your framerate like compared to Windows? Wasn´t this the whole purpose of this exercise?

Oh, I stand corrected, then. I must admit that I didn´t read every post word for word...🙄

Q.E.D. Maybe you didn´t suffer through this thread between Jarmstro and mSparks (which should LONG AGO have gone to private messaging) like the rest of us have, but so far we are not even yet at the "simply install from Steam" level - we are still at the "install a working OS" level 😂

Honestly? This is pathetic. Almost 20 pages of thread and that poor guy hasn´t even started X-Plane yet. Who needs any further proof? 🤣