X-Plane 10 performance comparison Window vs. Linux

[J.P. 2]

Hi,I have taken the time to run a quick comparison of performance. As I have noticed before that X-Plane 9 runs much better under Linux than Windows, I decided to put X-Plane 10 to the test. The results where even more significant as they were with version 9.Windows Vista 64bit vs. Ubuntu 11.10 64bit!My sytem specs are:nForce 680i SLIIntel Core2Duo E6750 @2.67GHzNVidia 460GTX 768MB (latest drivers installed)4 Gigs of DDR2 G.Skill Ram (dual channel)My X-Plane is version 10.04 Beta 1My method: At first I wanted to use the save and load situation feature, but X-Plane under Vista wouldn't read the situation file created under Linux. I ballparked the weather and put the plane in the same area (not exact same airport though). I tuned settings under Linux to give goog performance and copy/pasted the preferences to my Vista installation, so settings are identical.These where my settings:(As mentioned, the weather settings where replicated out of memory for the Vista trial, but I am confident I got relatively close.)Here goes Windows Vista 64bit SP2:As you can see, my system struggles to hold 15 FPS. Overall, it was barely doable, with long (sometimes several seconds) pauses when actions, such as changing views, where taken. To get X-Plane 10 running smooth under Vista, while very possible, I do have to turn those settings way down. When it loaded the Aircraft at KSEA at first, it took almost one minute to open the menu (or do anything, as a matter of fact) as high density urban sceneries bogged frames down to less fingers I've got on one hand. It took 03 minutes and 45 seconds to load the sim under Windows. (Time from clicking the .exe to switch startup screen to cockpit view)And now prepare for some magic! Ubuntu 11.10 64bit:Wow! Rarely ever drops below 30 FPS. Very enjoyable performance with nice visuals. However, when going to KSEA (high density scenery) FPS will reside around 15 FPS. But, for some reason, the overall experience will still be smooth, with much less stuttering as compared to Windows when running at comparable FPS. If 15 FPS is to low for some, I do recommend lowering the detail distance when in certain areas, as changes in that particular setting are quick because it does not require X-Plane 10 to run its load-screen. The time (same criteria as above) to load the sim was 01 minute and 52 seconds.Conclusion: As performance for X-Plane 10 more than doubles with Linux compared to Windows and load time almost halves, I think it is safe to recommend Linux for anybody serious with X-Plane 10. I got me a relatively cheap, used Harddrive from ebay, put Linux (doesn't cost a dime) on that sucker and will likely never use X-Plane 10 again on Windows. As far as X-Plane 10 is concerned (for me at leat) the party only really starts when you use it with Linux.Hope this was helpful.Greets,- J.P.

Edited February 16, 2012 by J.P.

[jasonX 24]

Interesting.I use 32 bit linux and looking at some reported performances that some are getting I would have thought it would not run at all on my bottom of the range video card. However provided I keep my settings low I can even run it (not really acceptably) with clouds on 10% -20%. I intend to turn this figure down to about 5% cos I read somewhere the obvious difference seems to be only in the FPS.I do have a drive with windows XP on it lying around somewhere so when I have some spare time on my hands I'll install the drive and do a direct comparison test and see what I get. To be honest though my video card is really not suitable, and running XPX is borderline. I will be upgrading that in a month or so.Regards

Edited February 16, 2012 by jasonX

[J.P. 2]

Yes, clouds are a performance eating monster. I turned them down to 0% and it still looks nice (as seen in the pics) in my opinion. What video card do you use? Perhaps you could post some pics like I did (settings, scenes with fps output) to give linux users or X-Plane users in general more references.

[Comanche 417]

Sounds interesting. Ive alway wanted to try Linux, but I admit I know little to nothing about it. Were would one go about downloading it? I Would like to try it out and set up a dual boot between Linux and and Win 7. I would use Linux just for Xplane 10. Maybe more if I got use to it.Does Track Ir work in Linux? Rob

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

Does Track Ir work in Linux?

Yes, thanks to this excellent plugin:http://code.google.com/p/linux-track/@J.P. I'm a bit surprised there's so much difference. I didn't try myself; but are you sure you desactivated all effects which requires the GPU in each system ? That seems to make a big difference on my system, here Ubuntu 11.10 32 bits.Btw why didn't you chose the same airport ? Framerates can be very different even between neighbour airport if you happen to hit a bottleneck.

[J.P. 2]

Rob,coming to Linux from Windows is a little bit like going from FSX to X-Plane. Takes a little bit of effort to get used to a different concept. However, current Linux distros are quite user friendly.A few tips I can give from my experience are:- Googling how to get stuff done will often lead to threads giving instructions for using the terminal (a command console) by typing instructions DOS-style. I did that at first, drove me mad. But anything you need to do can be done using the mouse as one would do it in Windows. I installed current NVidia drivers and X-Plane just by mouse-clicking.- Do a little research first. There are more Linux distros out there than I can count on two hands. However, I will recommend Ubuntu, as it is convenient to use. Haven't tried any other distros either though.- Download it, burn it to disc, boot from the disc. It will boot right from the DVD so you can try it before you go through the hassle of installing it.Get Ubuntu here: http://www.ubuntu.com/As for Track IR, I do not know. You should try it and let us know how it went, as I am curious myself :-)- J.P.

[J.P. 2]

but are you sure you desactivated all effects which requires the GPU in each system?

No, I used GPU effects galore in both tests.

Btw why didn't you chose the same airport ? Framerates can be very different even between neighbour airport if you happen to hit a bottleneck.

Due to personal convenience. As I said, I had trouble transfering the situation file. I would have had to exit windows, reboot Linux,... , find out which airport it was, shut down Linux,... you get the problem. Yes, using the same airport would have been optimal. However, after having compared a lot more than just what I've done in this particular test, I feel confident that the results posted are representative of the overall performance difference. Edited February 16, 2012 by J.P.

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

No, I used GPU effects galore in both tests.

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant did you deactivate the desktop effects in each OS (not the effects in X-plane)?For example, in Ubuntu, I never fly X-plane under Unity 3D desktop.I'll go 64 bits one of these days, after I've solved some scary hard disk issues.Anyway, I'm sure Linux has the advantage here, I was just surprised by the big difference. But as I said before, a big difference in FPS can be triggered by just going through a bottleneck or not. So, what's true on one system is not necessarily so on another.I'll do some test when I have time.

[jasonX 24]

An idea for anyone wanting to dip their toes in Linux is to simply buy a magazine from the newsagent with the DVD included that has the distro on they wish to try. Most can now run linux from the DVD without installation but of course a proper installation is the best way. Please please please read all the instructions and be sure of what you are doing first. Maybe even better to buy a 2nd HD and do a full install on that to be completely safe.Having said all that, I personally have had no issues in recent years on Linux installations.PS Unless you are computer savvy (and most here are), don't do it.

[J.P. 2]

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant did you deactivate the desktop effects in each OS (not the effects in X-plane)?For example, in Ubuntu, I never fly X-plane under Unity 3D desktop.

No, both OS'es in default konfiguration. Windows Aero and whatever Ubuntu does by default were active during the test. Overall, nothing fancy was done here. No tuning of either of the OS'es, no customization. Everything "out of the box". Edited February 17, 2012 by J.P.

[lodestar 186]

I don't know to much about vista, i newer used it. Can somebody confirm that X-Plane 10 works better on Linux vs Windows 7 64bits?

[MSFS Ralf 149]

I ran FSX and XP9 on my notebook under Vista. 1 year ago I stopped using FSX and found out about Linux Ubuntu. First I installed it as a dual boot system and got similar results. On my system the fps went 20-30% up. Half year ago I "made the switch" and use Ubuntu only.Ubuntu is a very stable OS, but not everything was easy for a WIN user since version 3.1. I had to learn many new things. The hardest was learning "Gimp" for painting, Paint Shop Pro is Win only. If you think about a change, don't underestimate the efforts. But if you want to learn how to "operate a new OS" and new software, go for it.

[lodestar 186]

Ok, that means i can try it as dual boot system first and see what happens with fps?I'm going to read something about linux right now, thank you

[qnh 70]

I installed Ubuntu yesterday as a dual boot, will be interested to see how it goes. Can anyone recommend a good linux virtual CD style utility? Oh and before anyone jumps and shouts pirate, I have purchased XP10.

[MdMax 233]

Hope this was helpful.

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: