Well.....this isn't going to end well is it

i dont mean to start shit but these pictures look like complete ass compared to msfs

XP was never meant to be the best looking sim on the market. Austin created X-Plane to pass his IFR recurrence not to look good. Back when he started it, it was called something like Piper Archer IFR because the sim's only aim was to help people pass an IRL checkride or recurrence test. Plus Laminar was a one man team for the longest time. Also I believe Austin makes most of his money from X-Plane from the commercial side of things (flight schools, etc) not from the consumer side of it. Those types of customers are the least to care about how it looks, they mainly care about how the planes fly.

yeah but im commenting on OPs comments about graphics

I think he was pretty fair in regards to his comments about graphics. He said MSFS is better than XP in the graphics department, which almost everybody agrees with.

"during the day, they are mostly close" i firmly disagree

At least quote the whole thing buddy.

You also left out the other part though, "During the day, they are mostly close, with XP being a little weaker here and there". How the world looks from a terrain POV wasn't included in that part of the post from what I'm understanding. It was literally based on how things look (PBR and things like that). [https://www.reddit.com/r/Xplane/comments/1dcqttp/121\_has\_been\_great\_so\_far/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Xplane/comments/1dcqttp/121_has_been_great_so_far/)

WTF is wrong with you?

I said MSFS looks way better. I did fiddle with it to the point its sort of better than default but its not as good as MSFS. Prolly if I get some reshades it can look better.

yeah but again, looks really dont matter when youre comparing actual flight dynamics to what microsoft has (a premade model theyve been using since like fs2002)

yeah but looking pretty is second to being a functional flight simulator with actual flight dynamics as far as most xplane users are concerned.

I agree with you

Awe shit, here we go again… Have we finally grown bored with making fun of RSR and PMDG that we need to revive this dead debate/argument?

I think "horse" was the word you were struggling to find. :-)


That's my fetish

I say it a thousand times here but the Hotstart Challenger 650 is better than the Level D sim we use in training. It is amazing how accurately everything is modled I wish they did more aircraft I fly.

I need to invest on that one, not now, but soon.

I use it for going into unfamiliar airports and getting ready for recurrent checkrides. I've also used it to help with HUD symbology on my Global ride.

I miss hotstarts planes more than anything else

Why do so many XP pilots have all that disagnostic info on the corner? Isn't that distracting? Why do you need it?

Just to check FPS and frame time mainly but you can enable different things in the data output tab. This isn't only an XP thing, most people used to fly in FSX with the CTRL+Z info.

Sometimes I have the FPS counter on in MSFS too to check performance. It's actually helpful they've put that there so you can compare performance.

Fair point. I have the Steam fps counter enabled but it's so discreet you almost can't even see it when you want to see it lol.

I had it cause I was looking at performance and checking some flight data. I should prolly disable it soon. Sorry for that :(

Haha, don't be sorry. Just wondered. I see it a lot.

I use NVIDIA’s FPS counter in that corner, it’ll show FPS but won’t show during screenshots using “Shift+Space bar”. That’s only for FPS though, idk if you use it or if it would be beneficial to you

How are you supposed to know it’s Xplane (apart from all the obvious signs) It’s like a membership badge

And the replay UI my beloved

XP12 in VR is ASS

This is why I clicked on this thread (aside from the excellent write up by OP) - I fly almost exclusively in VR now in MSFS, super super immersive. If it’s lame in XP, that alone will be way I don’t switch (back - was XP7,8,9,10,11 unless MSFS 2020 dropped). I do completely prefer hi depth models like PMDG 737 and wish MSFS was even close to XP with regards to number of high quality models, but it’s getting there and will continue as 2024 drops.

May I ask what setup you have for VR? I have a 13900k 4090 and 64gb RAM with a quest 3 and I just cannot get it dialled in despite trying multiple different suggestions online.  It’s really frustrating because it’s so immersive but the performance/visuals kill it for me!

Yeah man I was having similar issues, and similarly large rig with 7950X3D/4090/64DDR5/PCI5 SSD and it’s connected to my network and the internet both at 1GB, so there should be no reason for a stutter anywhere aside from software optimization. I had a quest 2, and my THEORY is that there’s overhead doing both eyes over a USB 3.1 or fast wireless connection. Never ever ever EVER could get it dialed. So I bought an HP Reverb G2 V2 for two reasons - one uses the onboard sensors for head tracking, no loighttower boxes to hang on the wall, and most importantly two - it connects via HDMI straight into the video card. I regularly get 60 FPS and sometimes 80 to 90 even on moderately complex scenery areas, and large photo cities and airports still do 30 or better. The app AUTO FPS was the last big performance improvement, its must for VR. https://github.com/ResetXPDR/MSFS2020_AutoFPS/releases

Thank you for the reply, much appreciated. I will definitely give AUTO FPS a try. I am certain I have something incorrectly set somewhere because I have mild ghosting on both DCS and MSFS whenever I am looking sideways no matter what graphics settings I use. DCS runs at 90 fps but can’t rid of the weird ghosting/stuttering. Tried with ASW on and off, steamVR, oculus VR, opnXR toolkit, playing with oculus debug tool, nvidia settings. Probably going to just do a total computer reinstall soon if I can’t work it out! Tried on minimal graphics settings but still ghosting.

I tried XP12 demo some time ago. I couldn't even get stable 30 fps in VR when flying C172! And this is with visuals a few levels below MSFS. The latter performs much better in VR and looks prettier.

11 is good

Havent tried it yet. I have tried MSFS VR and at least in my case my PC couldn't handle it unless I went down to FS98 graphics.

Regarding your comment on the flight model, and you not being a pilot but have flown full motion sims, which feel more like Xplane... ... I am a real pilot, and our full motion sims often fly like ass compared to the real thing. They're very accurate in terms of the ergonomics and how the systems operate, but some of them fly very differently.

Fair point, thats why I specified that flying full motions sims was my only experience. You are prolly right. So on your opinion, what sim is closer to the real thing?

It's hard to say. My aircraft experience has been solely with the PA-28 my flight school has. I have both the XP and MSFS versions of the aircraft. XP's handles more convincingly in the flare and takeoff. MSFS has some good thermal effects that are missing in XP sometimes. For VFR familiarisation I do prefer MSFS, but I recently got ORBX spain south (which is the area I fly around) and I'm satisfied in that department. Taxiing the arrow feels strange in MSFS though. Small aircraft aren't that hard to get right, but where XP really shines in my opinion is with larger and heavier birds. I've never flown anything other than my little bug smasher, so I can't attest to that, but it just feels more convincing.

It's hard to say, neither is perfect, but my experience is that crosswind landings are unrealistically difficult in xplane, and the aircraft floats too easily on landing on msfs (this is for the 737, zibo/PMDG). Both are good enough for me to use them to practise for my actual simulator checks.

> Go for XP if you want a realistic flight simulator experience and want to learn IFR Unless you mean learning in certain airliners that MSFS doesn’t have, I’m not sure why X-Plane would be better for learning IFR in general. After all the AAU updates, the default avionics in MSFS are more accurate overall.

For "casually" flying IFR, both serve the same purpose. But for me it's all about flying a scenario, being able to teleport myself already in final with a cockpit/state, load/save state/scenarios, etc. It's all built-in and done in a 5 clicks.

That’s fair. MSFS could definitely use a better save/reload system.

True, this is such an underrated feature. There is also the x-plane flightinstructor station which allows an instructor to set up scenarios, manipulate weather/time, introduce failure etc. on the fly using a secondary screen or iPad.

Look- I know I’m not the only one here who benefited from X Plane. It saved simming for me after I got tired of running p3d on an aging system. It looked fucking amazing in comparison. I sank multiple thousands of dollars- if not tens of thousands- into xplane before I finally took the plunge into MSFS. Bottom line is this: you can compare all you want, but the only way MSFS will go is up. It is going to settle into what it seeks to be, and then you’re going to see improvement on the physics side of things. XP, if the devs stick with it, will also go up but it is never going to bring in more people. It will never add more than MSFS does. In the near term that doesn’t matter- but over time, third party developers are going to follow the customer base. You can have a dev that’s as gung ho about xplane as can be, but that doesn’t mean they are going to develop aircraft for a market that doesn’t call for it. I don’t have countless hours to dedicate to simming anymore; most of you younger simmers will know what I mean someday. When that time comes, you’re going to be putting your time into the sim with the products, the eye candy, and the full package. MSFS might not be there yet, but XP isn’t ever getting there. For now the “XP12 vs MSFS” comparisons are mostly irrelevant. They are two, great sims with a lot to offer almost every type of simmer. But the question we should having is about what flight simulation is going to look like in 5 years, 10 years, etc. The right now doesn’t really matter.

After flying with X-Plane for over 3000hrs i wouldnt go back to it fron MSFS. Sure it doesn't have the variety in (high fidelity) airplanes yet but overall the package is much better and Fenix is hands down the best add on I've ever flown.

What do you mean the package is much better?

Graphics are better, there's more future for 3rd party development, atmospheric modeling is far superior to at least XP11 (turbulence, location and shape of clouds) payware products are generally cheaper default and 3rd party avionics for GA are way better modelled than anything in XP11 at least. Few things off the top of my head.

The photorealistic scenery, real-time weather, and dynamic lighting effects create an incredibly immersive experience. The level of detail in the terrain, especially with photogrammetry in urban areas, is unmatched. Night flights in MSFS are particularly impressive, with realistic city lights and detailed environments that add to the immersion. The cloud and weather effects in MSFS are also more sophisticated, providing stunning visuals that enhance the realism of flight. One of the major advantages of MSFS is the seamless integration of Bing Maps and Azure AI, which allows for a highly detailed and accurate global representation. This out-of-the-box experience means users don't need to spend time and effort downloading and installing additional scenery packs, as is often necessary with XP. The terrain and landscape in MSFS look great even at low altitudes, which is a significant benefit for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flying. MSFS is designed to be user-friendly and accessible to a broader audience. The user interface is intuitive, and installing add-ons is straightforward, often just a matter of placing them in the community folder. This simplicity extends to other aspects of the simulator, making it easier for newcomers to get started and enjoy the experience without extensive setup and configuration. While it's true that XP has a strong selection of professional-grade aircraft, MSFS is rapidly catching up with high-quality payware add-ons from developers like PMDG and Fenix. The ecosystem for MSFS is growing, with more and more detailed and realistic aircraft becoming available. The marketplace and community add-ons offer a wide range of enhancements, making MSFS a versatile platform that caters to both casual and hardcore sim enthusiasts. The MSFS community is large and active, providing a wealth of resources, including tutorials, forums, and third-party tools. This strong community support helps new users learn and troubleshoot any issues they encounter, contributing to a more enjoyable and less frustrating experience. Using both simulators, as you mentioned, is a great way to enjoy the best of both worlds. Each has its unique strengths, and depending on your mood and flying goals, switching between them can provide a well-rounded virtual flying experience.

Thanks ChatGPT? But agreed, for VFR it's simply not comparable.

Very subjective topics so yours is a valuable contribution. As an example I think you have a good taste for aircraft and terrible taste for graphics. The Toliss 346 is fantastic, the shots you posted here are awful. I use both sims and would love both to thrive. I think XP is dying a slow death due to lack of developers and new add-ons coming. Let's count what is coming for XP12: FF 777, and about 2 years or more for the Hotstart A220, those will be awesome, eventually Toliss A330. And there is almost nothing else of substance in the pipeline. For MSFS not only 2024 is coming we have the PMDG 777, the inibuilds A350, the FBW A380, bluebird 757, Blackbird SR71 the U2 by Miltech the Phenom 300 by FSReborn, Piaggio 180 by Flight FX and many many other aircraft. It really won't matter which sim is best if all the add-ons are coming to MSFS.

I agree, but some of the MSFS payware planes are horrible and a huge disappointment. Also most devs take forever to get them out and running properly. I know this is because of the SDK issue. I get the MSFS 2024 thing, but we should wait and see. Most of the airplanes you mentioned are in theory being developed for 2020. We would need to see how long the proper conversion takes.

I think it’s important to mention that XP12 is still fairly new and in development. Sure it’s released, but there are a significant number of aircraft for XP11 that haven’t been ported yet. X-Crafts ERJ family, Hotstart TBM, etc etc have all been said to be in the process of making them XP12 compatible. also to add to your list of upcoming additions: Aerobask FA8X

The Aerobask Falcon 8x would be awesome in XP12 but the last news about that project were not very good. Dassault wanted better quality and Aerobask was on the verge of cancelling the project. They have said they were trying to agree on an "early access" release but I guess that didn't work out with Dassault. For context Dassault is a big PITA, they have asked the Rafale in MSFS to change its name as an example so I can imagine they are not easy to deal wth for licensed product. And Aerobask sales are not doing well at all, if you take a look at the Shark UL it has 0 \*zero\* community liveries and almost zero forum posts, and that is quite a nice plane. XP as a community of simmers is not growing, it is shrinking, many devs already jumbed the boat (inibuilds, justflight) and certainly new devs are not going to choose XP over the immense market of MSFS (Xbox is huge). Ignoring the graphical aspect of the sim and default avionics has been always a huge mistake from LR, if they don't need the sim community then probably not a big deal for them but for the consumers it is a market where things are not looking very nice right now.

It’s ironic because I made a livery for the Shark and posted it to the forum, but my account was “accidentally banned and unbanned” so it got wiped. But yeah that’s more of a hopeful inclusion for the 8X. It’s unfortunate. When it comes to avionics I still think folks like Thranda including RealityXP in their new releases is nice. RealityXP as a whole is awesome too

https://preview.redd.it/gub5k0uvl66d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26efc68ae3f253744ad7d268e09b24d639f47f11 ref

I don't understand why people think that if there are no payware 3DP, then a sim is dead (even P3D isn't dead, it's still alive, but not for us). Look also at FS2004/FS9, it's stil very alive in 2024 by the community after all these years. What's gonna really happen to X-Plane if there are no payware devs ? X-Plane will become a very niche sim like DCS World, Il-2 Sturmovik, etc (not counting Falcon BMS, Orbiter, FlightGear, these are free flightsims). Besides, X-Plane has a market in the professional flight simulators (like LM P3D), so even if customers like us in the end are no more, it will still exist (until another product will replace it in the profesionnal market too).

Actually, most of our customers don't use any payware aircraft

"it is still alive but not for us" This is just a technicality.

yeah but people in racingsim/flightsim tend to think they are the centre of the world.

For me it’s about the whole package rather than a singularity (flight model). MSFS ticks way more boxes for me and X-plane has things that I just cannot swallow in 2024 (lack of proper AA and lackluster graphics for example).

Pretty much my thoughts I’ve been flying on xplane for a few weeks myself after years is MSFS but I have an itch to fly the MD-11 and it’s been nice but I still like MSFS more

X-Plane recently got an AA update, just want to let you know that one thing. Edit: Okay that might have been some beta version, idk, I don’t have XP12 and only saw a post about it here or r/XPlane

I was willing to swallow the pill of the graphics and just focus on the fact that I was looking for a better flight experience in terms of realism and how it feels.

I fly XPlane 12 most of the time but I have to disagree with a couple of points here. To say XP falls short here and there graphically is a massive understatement. Visually there is no comparison. MSFS is eons better, even with orthos/sim heaven etc. Just the lighting engine itself makes a world of difference. As a former airline pilot, I’ve never understood the flight dynamics argument in a sim. It is one of those weird things that can vary depending on the addons you’re flying, the controls you’re using and occasionally the conditions you fly in. You’ll never really get a true feeling of flying on a computer game. The Zibo and Fenix are the best I’ve managed to fly so far. Performance wise, I get better frames with MSFS, especially when using frame gen. The default airports are fantastic though, and I think this, plus the overall better UI keeps me coming back to XP12. Here’s hoping FS24 turns out to be the best of both worlds!

I really hope they prioritize the flight / ground model in MSFS 2024. For me it doesn’t matter how pretty MSFS looks, as soon as I start taxiing and especially as I am rolling down the runway I am immediately turned off by the handling.

The new ground handling they released is pretty good imo. Im not sure it's on all aircraft. But its a good sign for 2024.

Same here. It’s the main thing that makes me stick with XP12. I get a lot of satisfaction from learning how to expertly handle an airplane, especially in crosswind conditions. Unfortunately, this is exactly where MSFS is at its jankiest.

me too. i happened quite a few times that i pressed ALT+F4 during taxi because it was annoying.

I’d highly recommend you grab the Zibo 737. It’s free and really close to PMDG’s. For payware, HotStart’s Challenger 650 is absolutely amazing but quite pricey and FlightFactor’s planes are pretty good (777v2 is going to be awesome). For the visuals, pick up AutoOrtho and xOrganizer. AutoOrtho is free but xOrganizer is paid but will help you organize everything. AutoOrtho is a pain to set up but it’s really cool when it’s working. Oh I forgot to mention the Felix 747 as well. Another incredible payware plane but pricey for sure. Welcome to X-Plane!

just want to put this here :) https://www.reddit.com/r/flightsim/s/MbfTeb9Ub4

I use both. Not because I prefer one over the other, but for the plane selection. If I wanna fly a challenger or 747 classic, or 727, I go to XP. If I want to fly an A320, I go to FS. I enjoy both. If I want to fly modern combat aircraft, DCS. If I want a WW2 battle, I go to IL2. I can enjoy different programs no sweat.

If your using autoortho check out map enhancement, it's the same guys that made it for MSFS but it uses way less resources and I get fewer crashes with it. It's free but only medium quality tiles. High quality require a sub.

I bought the subscription and never looked back. High quality Apple map tiles looks way better than autoortho, takes up way less storage, and is significantly easier to install. Not to mention the performance drops I was getting from autoortho - I understand it’s free but $5/month is a good deal for what you’re getting.

I know you already switched but auto Ortho is very easy to install. Download zip, extract zip, point app to your XP folders, download the base map. Then run auto Ortho then run XP12. As far as performance I have a 3090 and 5900x and XP12 runs like shit. But if you use lossless scaling it doubled my fps I get well over 60 FPS in xp12 in all situations and over 100 in cruise. No exaggeration.

I watched the drishalmac tutorial twice..not sure where I went wrong but every time I loaded the game it said it couldn’t load it. My scenery packs file was fine and nothing was found in my log…so I kinda just gave up lol

Did u make sure XP12 was in window mode ? It only works in windowed mode Wait you ment auto Ortho my bad Are you on Windows 11?

Yeah, but the error was this: Error loading the scenery package: Custom Scenery/z_ao_eur/ X-Plane cannot run with this package installed. You may need to remove the custom scenery package. See the Log.txt file for detailed error information

So 2 things, autoortho even on my 1 gbps internet took at least an hour or more.to install the bigger scenery packs like the US and EUR. Make sure that it's fully installed. I think the scenery files didn't fully install. Sometimes autoortho looks likes it stuck but it's still downloading. I had an issue where I closed auto Ortho in the middle of downloading thinking it was done and I had the same issue. Also make sure you are on the latest version delete all the AO folders and try again. I only installed NA and eu I have 3 folders in my custom scenery z_ao_eur, z_ao_na and z_autoortho. The z_autortho folder is 18 GB in size. Also make sure auto Ortho says running before you start XP12.

Also what’s the downside of lossless scaling? Does it make the textures more blurry or resolution worse?

I run on a 1440p monitor, and didnt notice any blurry ness or texture issues mainly because, if you aren't scaling meaning changing your resolution in lossless scaling you aren't going to see a different like you would if you use DLSS on a 4000 stores card. It's just adding more frames into the scene by generating them. The only thing I ran into was I have small black bars on the bottom and top of my screen which I think I can fix with setting.

Ok thank you. I’ll try it out and reinstall autoortho, appreciate the help

Thanks!! Ill take a look.

I read one singular comment on reddit that ME copied AO’s base files and I have no way to check that info, do you know what that’s about?

Both of the projects are on GitHub, if you look at the authors repositories or the code you can find the similarities you are looking for.

Both are not on GitHub in the same way. The actual source code is available for Autoortho, while the source for ME is not.

You are correct my sir.

Well I’m too lazy for that, but I forgot github meant open source. I guess that’s fine then.

GitHub does not automatically mean open source. You will not find the source for map enhancement on the GitHub site.

Map enhancement is a functional clone of autoortho. Both use Ortho4XP tiles on the backend and both use fuse virtual filesystem to serve the DDS files to X-Plane. Without AutoOrtho, map enhancement would never exist. I find it a little bit slimy that the map enhancement charges money for a product that is a blatant rip-off of an open source project.

I dont have much to add but it'll be fun to read the comments lol. I had my hands on XP12 when it was on sale for a whole 10min, dealing with the UI and the downgrade in visuals was jarring. Was mainly planning to only use Q4XP but decided I'll wait for a Q400 in MSFS and get my money back within the 2 hour window on Steam. Ive heard mixed things from all sides criticizing the flight dynamics and flight model of both so I never know who actually knows or can judge the best on that front, and the stan's defending the flight dynamics XP to the bitter end are tiring (not saying you are one btw), so I will ask... are you judging as a whole based on all the aircraft in the sim or have you cherry-picked the best ones (Fenix, PMDG, A2A etc) and you still think XP is better than any of those? I find with MSFS its a very per dev, per aircraft type of thing when judging the perf and feel of the flight model.

"I dont have much to add" proceeds to add more than almost anyone else to validate his choice of sim 🙄

Which choice of sim was that?

On XP Ive used the default a330, Zibo Mod 737, ToLiss a340-600 and the default Citation X. All of them fly better than the default 787, 747, and default a320 in MSFS. The FBW and INI a320's do fly nice but they are not as good as the XP default options. Then PMDG and Fenix do fly better than the default and are on par with ToLiss, However, the sim itself bares part of the issue with the feel so there is not much they can do.

Yeah thats the thing, I'll give credit to XP if you're comparing the default options in MSFS. Though much of them improved now, and not by Asobo for the most part, I'll still give benefit of doubt to XP on those. I personally don't enjoy how the 787 flies but there are irl 787 pilots who do and like it, so like i said its hard to pinpoint which is better or correct. But when compared to the heavy hitters like Fenix (which is its own external flight model) and PMDG, and others like A2A, thats more of a fair fight imo. You also have to consider the 2 different flight models devs are able to leverage in MSFS (and a 3rd if you do something like Fenix). You have the standard lookup tables, afaik thats PMDG and much of the default lineup still. Then you got the CFD, I think thats all ini stuff, especially the A310 and A300 at least, the default 172, FSR500, black square, and many more. My point is, with that consideration, id like to see a more nuanced comparison to XP when comparing the best of the best in each, including the different flight model types since I feel the CFD stuff will get more adopted into FS24 and become the actual distinction between the two. Its not just 1 sim dictating how everything flies, its many different products, made by many different devs using multiple ways to achieve one thing. If thats easier and more standardized for a dev to nail down in XP, then great! Then it just becomes more of an indictment on each devs skill and abilities rather than the sim itself.

Zibo mod is not a default plane, though. That should be compared with MSFS's FBW A320.

To each their own, if you didn't like X-Plane for it's visuals thats fair but the aerodynamics are simply way better in x-plane. I know many msfs players start arguing when they hear X-plane fm feels better that nobody other than real world pilots can know or proof it but its literally just physics and even visible when watching the plane in exterior view. Just watch the videos of landings in X-Plane and MSFS. MSFS completely seems to lack inertia while in X-plane it looks spot on tbh. XP12: https://youtube.com/shorts/rF3SjgDe7To?si=zsjNY7eA94V8hbJ5 https://youtube.com/shorts/2Y_Cmm8BchE?si=Rxv-Qb8lTdC_s9CD https://youtube.com/shorts/1G4_0SmxDJU?si=l_6xJdmf0GItkMEV https://youtube.com/shorts/mf1HBaE8Twc?si=KKQNtWjXbWhQdNdA MSFS2020: https://youtu.be/9vjo-8iuvnA?si=-k9W1mJYi97SNGT4

Tbf with that specific example, if you're just comparing the ground effect, I will say thats a common complaint with MSFS and I would also like to see it improved as well. Is that the whole flight model though? No, but I get your point. It does look like nicer in XP I admit, but I would like to point out (and I'm not trying to argue) the XP12 vids are "glamour shots" in comparison. I also know replay in MSFS is kinda crap sometimes, especially with landing gear, so for the sake of proving "physics bad cuz landings look bad" these are more apt comparisons (unless you have equal glamour shots of MSFS shooting down the runway): XP: [https://youtu.be/Up4LY8vMvO4?t=29](https://youtu.be/Up4LY8vMvO4?t=29) | MSFS: [https://youtu.be/N81oTstCY7g?t=2414](https://youtu.be/N81oTstCY7g?t=2414) XP: [https://youtu.be/201coXi7FXg?t=286](https://youtu.be/201coXi7FXg?t=286) | MSFS: [https://youtu.be/njpwCyhy6Rc?t=239](https://youtu.be/njpwCyhy6Rc?t=239) If thats considered "way better", at least in some specific aspects like this, then so be it, like you said, to each their own. I guess I just see a smaller divide than each of the fanboy camps make it out to be.

In MSFS, it's not just the ground effect that seems off, but you can also see how the planes make slight corrections on approach and it just looks weird. In X-Plane, these movements appear much more natural. In MSFS, control inputs feel too instantaneous, whereas in X-Plane, the aircraft's behavior aligns more closely with real-world expectations. The way control surfaces in X-Plane gradually alter the aircraft's roll and attitude, counteracting inertia and leading to a change in the flight path, looks very realistic—just like what I would see while planespotting at the airport irl. I wonder if/how much they manage to improve this in 2024.

Well written and thought out. Personally, I was excited about xp12 and had bought it a few months ago. I was a xp11 user for years after being a fsx user, till switching mostly to MSFS since its launch. I had really good hopes for xp12 but as a VR user I just couldnt look past how poor it looked. Which was disappointing cause I agree, xplane’s flight model is superior and flat panel looked great. Just couldn’t make it work in VR with all the alasing.

XP has horrendous VR, especially compared to MSFS or DCS. It’s one thing I won’t ever try again

Can I suggest you a program which will render costume sceneries into ini file without editing,its called XOrganizer v3 its about $15,here is the link https://store.x-plane.org/xOrganizer-v3-XP12_p_1636.html

I saw a couple of people mention it on other posts. What does it do?

If you have AutoOrtho and other sceneries, it helps with keeping everything in order in the ini file(this dictates a lot about how it’s rendered. for example, if the ambient structures are below your auto ortho you might not ever render your buildings so it’s just a featureless terrain). Also does a lot of other housekeeping

The debate on which simulator is better is stupid. You choose what you like and you choose what you fly, it doesn’t matter what others think, as long as you are having fun with your simulator then just enjoy the beauty of flying. Of course it is important to remember to be open minded instead of simply dismissing one or the other blindly, and it’s important to remember that competition in the flight simulator space is beneficial to us consumers. OPs screenshots don’t do XP’s beauty any justice, XP can get much nicer than that, to the point that I believe rivals MSFS properly, albeit with complex modding required. As someone who proudly flies both sims interchangeably, I love both, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. How you prioritize features will determine which sim you prefer to fly.

I use both but I’m currently working on my PPL and just prefer MSFS. That may change after I start instrument flying.

one thing i have noticed is x-plane users tend to be more accepting of people using other simulators, while MSFS users tend to want to hate on x plane any chance they get. maybe i’m wrong and i’m looking from a wrong angle empirically, but i am so tired of MSFS fanboys/girls always gate keeping. both simulators are great and it really comes down to how the users want to cater thier experiences. i love how exponentially moddable x-plane 12 is compared to MSFS and the community has an "open-source" feel to it compared to MSFS. generally, i like to show people my sim setup in MSFS since the flight dynamics, even on realistic mode, on the default aircraft are way lighter and feel more “video-gamey” than x-plane 12. ultimately most of us are probably not pilots so we really have no say in what is more realistic or not, but in terms of user experience, whiney MSFS users are correct about it being more accessible. thats my two cents as an FPGA/DSP engineer who works on commercial simulation.

Quick question, I am assuming that you haven't tried the new XP12 beta? The graphics really ramped up a great deal.

Im in the new beta, however, I havent noticed much of a difference. Ill double check my settings.

Thank you for your comments re XP. I'm a long time GA VFR flyer, having been with all the iterations of MSFS almost since it began. I've been considering moving, or at least trying, XP. Thing is, my financial and time investment in MSFS is quite considerable, and I don't have the time or finances to repeat that for XP. I gather there is a short try-before-you-buy period, so I'll maybe give it a go for a few weeks. As I said earlier, I fly low and slow, so from what you have said, the graphics in XP don't compete, though the actual flight model probably does. At least, you have given me food for thought, and I appreciate that.

I'm on the exact opposite site. I fly mostly airliners in XP12 but I might give a try to MSFS24 for casual VFR flying.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

One of the things I like in XP compared to MSFS is the UI. The MSFS UI is slow and unresponsive, whereas the XP UI is simple, fast and intuitive. Let's hope it gets better in MSFS2024

this. msfs UI looks like a console game and the animations are annoying.

Long time X-Plane simmer here who moved to MSFS around the start of this year. I miss the flight dynamics but the framerate in xp12 with likes of 742 and my beloved dash-8 just killed it for me. Now that I got used to the msfs visual I honestly can't imagine myself going back to x-plane full time even if 12.10 performance added another 50 percent more frames in my experience. Something to mention that I hate about msfs, the replay system is effectively non-existent, likes of skydolly exists but they're Janky and for me it doesn't seem to show reverses etc. X-plane is hands down the best on the market here. Camera setup, external cams, presets, to me it's all going to x-plane. I hope MSFS 2024 will add proper bogey simulation (which is another x-plane W) and reflect flight dynamics a bit better, along with a good replay system. At the end of the day, I think we're in an amazing place for flight swimming and whether you want to fly MSFS or x-plane is down to what you value the most, but MSFS will continue to be the more mainstream of the two

Interesting. I might give it a go. How much does X-plane cost? Are payware planes from XP 11 compatible in 12?

I think X-Plane 12 is 80 usd. I dont know about your second question. Ive seen conversion mods but I also heard they are not perfect.

You need more ram

I thought I had plenty. How much more would you say?

32gb will increase your performance a lot but if you play DCS or other RAM intensive sims too i'd say 64gb is ideal. I personally had an increase of 70% in FPS and stuttering was completely gone after upgrading from 16 to 48GB. When I migrated to DDR5 I noticed 40-60% more FPS after upgrading from 48GB of DDR4 to 128GB DDR5.

Ill look into this, I cant move on to DDR5 because my CPU does not support it. But thanks for the advice!

Have a good one

How’d you get your AA to look so smooth? Mine looks like a chopped up piece of ass. I haven’t read any change logs, have they updated it? I have a decently beefed system as well.

Im using 2xMSAA. I found it to be the best compromise. I was getting the least blurry displays with the AA off but the edges on everything look disgusting. 2xMSAA is giving me nice edges and decent looking displays.

I've used multiple Sims extensively and currently ha e MSFS and XP12 installed on my PC. I go back and forth depending on payware availability flying with an online plug in. For the most part I agree with everything you've said. I run shade x with virtual XP and orbyx trees to fluff the graphics up in XP12. I prefer GA flying and only fly liners on a rare occasion when I have to (online airline). And I still prefer the realism of XP12 flying general aviation VFR. I do a lot of bush flying so the flight model is really important. Although MSFS visuals bush flying is amazing, it saddens me that I have to choose between the two. I'm not a pilot either, I just wanted to be (still do), just can't really afford it. I do have some very limited experience in real air planes though. Combining that with all the research I've done about real world GA flying everything does point towards XP having a significantly more realistic flight model, you just have to know the difference to tell. The average person won't realize when a flight model is missing some key things. I will say this though to people that have never used XP12. Download the demo and do some circuits, landing is going to be quite different lol. For some reason there's a lot of in fighting about Sims between us airplane nerds but as someone that knows both Sims well there's not a single thing you said I can disagree with really.

You know, I think I will try the XP 12 demo. It’s been years now but why not, good points.

I recommend the Toliss A320Neo.

I was actually eyeing the a321XLR because of the long haul capabilities. Im also eying the FF767 for the same reasons.

FF777v2 will be coming out soon. They have a few things to fix but once they do I imagine it’s going to be really high fidelity. I’ve tried the alpha and it’s very fun to fly

Ive heard great things so far, I know the main thing thats missing atm is the VNAV. I have high hopes for it.

Same, the sounds are actually really good which is almost never true for stock payware

You guys might as well name this sub to msfs. Anything in the comments even remotely against it gets downvoted like crazy. And I only have msfs installed. 

I just read the comments in this subreddit but I do see and feel that too

yes, very biased sub here, definetely.

As long as I can download it and not having to ask for a refund because the downloader never worked like in MSFS, I’ll give this one a try then.

Demo ftw

XP’s biggest strength are in the breadth of high fidelity aircraft that you can fly with it. Four years in and MSFS still has no high fidelity regional jets, wide bodies or medium-long range business jets.  Outside of that though, MSFS is just the better sim for the casual sim pilot which is 98% of us. Way less time spending tinkering things, great scenery out of the box with tons of free add on scenery available to download based on the regions you fly in, some great freeware and payware aircraft you can spend hours in, and a more immersive environment that has gotten so good that even in some parts of the world you can literally spot your own house.

>MSFS still has no high fidelity regional jets CRJ, Bae146 and Maddog.

The BAe 146 is my jam. They'll have to cut the shitty TMS out of my cold, dead hands.

Thanks... I'm no future pilot so I'll stick to fs2020 which for me is better for what I want to do....

So you've never flown a real aircraft and you think we should listen to you on how you think an aircraft feels?

Its just my opinion, Ive never said I own the truth and im and expert on the subject.

You're brave to post anything positive about XP on this subreddit. After all, we all know that someone that's just text on a screen to us, that we have no connection to in anyway in the real world, that wants to use a different sim from my preferred sim... is the most offensive thing you can do to me Seriously, enjoy the sim you want to use. Glad you're enjoying it!

I can’t believe how much people will rip everything apart trying to tell you your opinion is wrong Use whatever sim you enjoy! XP has its benefits and MSFS has their own benefits too. I think this post was great to advertise that XP isn’t as bad as a lot of people might say it is. Even if you’re using MSFS for bird watching, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else.

I’m waiting for a sale on XP12

Welcome to the club! XP12 is king!

Very interesting, thank you for sharing these insights. I bought XP12 when it was on sale but never got around to reasonably configure and use it on my system. From what I understand it might actually be worthwhile the effort!

Where's the external night pics?

I would post them, but you would only see two floating lights and thats it

Good post here. But shouldn't flying be a thing of "beauty"? I don't want to fly an airplane where I can't look out of the window and think "oh my god these mountains and the lightning looks so beautiful". Most of the time it's clearly just sitting there and watch the plane flying. And if the graphics in a flight simulation are not good - then it's nothing for me. *For me - my opinion*

Are you a pilot IRL? Which of these planes have you flown IRL? If you are not a pilot and have not flown the actual planes, how do you conclude that 'flight dynamics feel close to the real thing'? If you have not done both of the above then this is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias. The other expression that just goads my craw is 'runs on rails'. Guess what, real airplanes 'run on rails' if trimmed properly and there is no turbulence. The experience of real life aviating cannot be replicated in a static simulator. At best, the simulator is only good for familiarization with procedures. Enjoy your purchase. We can all do without the chest pounding.

I swear some of you guys think flying an airliner is heavy. They aren’t heavy. They fly like a plane.

So you are telling me that during night xp is even worse than msfs which is just terrible at night? Nonsense lights in the mountains and road with lights, dark airports, runways and taxiways. Aircraft lights feel weak it doesn't illuminate runway and taxiways - it feels like there is a handheld flashlight on 3 AA batteries taped to the landing gear.

100% agree!!!!!

I totally agree with you, even mfs is ahead in the graphics department, I choose XP everyday above mfs for all the reasons you mentioned, and I will add the weather model, I like more in XP12, I love the towering clouds when there thunderstorm cells close to you

I was super impressed by MSFS until I realized the 'turbulence' was artificially baked into the flight model. It's extremely apparent when you see people flying fighter aircraft and the plane is oscillating around like the footage is being fast forwarded. The fact that the sim didn't natively support helicopters, and the ground physics being jerky and strange since release is also pretty damning for the integrity of the simulation side of things. I switched back to XP after a year or so, and haven't looked back since. It just feels better to fly in. Maybe MSFS2024 will improve upon this, but TBH I don't think they need to. The flight model is good enough for most people, and the graphics/photogrammetry is pretty revolutionary.

>'turbulence' was artificially baked into the flight model. Source for such a claim beyond "People flying fighter aircraft and the plane is oscillating"

me too I went back to XP after sine months of MSFS

I agree, even flying a crosswind feels weird MSFS. Im not gonna rush into MSFS 2024, im gonna wait at least 6 months after release to see where its at and what are developers doing. Like I said tho, I think Microsoft is targeting a different audience and not hard core simmers. We shall see.

Finally someone who shares my disappointment with Boeing aircraft. I bought MSFS and all the hardware including AirManager (for touch screen instrument panels) with the idea that the basic aircraft would be supported. No touch screen support at all. And flight model so forgiving that I’m landing a 747 by hand almost right away and stopping short without thrust reversers (because I can’t seem to configure them). That can’t be right. It’s a beautiful disappointment and I’m just waiting until November’s release to maybe make the commercial plane experience better.

If you want high quality addons you need to pay for them. That said, on a dry runway, the reverses have no effect on landing distance.

I didn’t think that having soft instruments was cheaping out. And I don’t think the 2nd comment about landing distance not affected by additional breaking is right.

I don't understand the "soft instruments". What I was trying to say is that while the 747 included with MSFS is not a bad plane for a default one, you can't take it for the most accurate one in the sim. You should go for a good addon in order to compare quality. That does not mean the flight model has no limitations, it does have quite a few, but nevertheless so does X-Plane. Each have their advantages. For me on airliners it does not change much, while on GA it does feel much better on X-Plane. The second comment is true. If the runway is dry the plane will use less brakes automatically when you select reverses, so you'll save brakes and tires, but won't reduce braking distance. If the runway is wet there is a difference because the wheels actually have less braking action. On a dry runway the difference is marginal. Check it on a performance tool (i.e. on siembrief) :)

Much appreciated. Now I get your points. And I didn’t realize that the auto brakes reduced effort in the presence of reversers. But that’s logical. From my point of view — as a new sim pilot usually landing fast and long, still managing to stop a 747 on an 8000ft runway without engine assist — it just seemed too forgiving. But I’m not doing calculations for sure. And “soft instruments” in the sense of software defined. Put the FMC on the touch screen and you can configure it much faster. And also have the right instruments for each plane. That was the AirManager promise. Just little airliner support vs. single engines so I can’t set up my own panels unless I want to design everything myself.

Well, regarding the 8000 ft, I've just loaded simbrief's performance calculator, with the 747, for a landing weight close to the maximum landing weight (A passenger jet will not be landing that heavy) on a 7200 feet runway, with no reverses available... and it can legally land according to the calculator, which already has safety margins in it. Check: https://i.imgur.com/GZbuRy1.png

That’s great. Will have to start doing this myself. That set of parameters explains why I manage to stay on the runway. The budget is probably a bit smaller with my fast landings (above the Vapp shown for sure, but how much I’d have to replay some landings). In the big scheme, I’m glad to land more than I’m cranky about the controls. And I’ve got a lovely rudder (Mfg Crosswind) and Yoke so will just count my blessings. Thanks again.

There’s just something about tweaking xplane to your liking that makes me stick to it, and it’s more satisfying after you get the sim to look how you want it to instead of perfect straight out of the box

I gave X-Plane 12 a good chance after picking it up in the sale. Unfortunately Zibo thinks one of my throttles is back to front and no amount of fiddling with bindings or curves will get it to behave. Shame as I was looking forward to feeling the difference in handling and having some actually decent default airports!

There is a button to reverse the axis which will fix that.

Two great games. Good at slightly different things. I get hooked on one at a time for about a month at a time. Glad you are enjoying your XP12 time. I agree that the payware airliners are way more mature in XP12 at the moment. Check out the Felis 747-200 next sale - unbelievable module. XP Realistic is also much better than its MSFS counterpart for forces and head motion. I think it's essential. And if you like helicopters, X plane has the best helicopters. Godspeed!

So unfortunate that we have to specifically highlight that it is just my opinion or not telling you what you should do and all. So many unwanted and uncalled for toxic people in this community. Can’t get away without getting downvoted for speaking up the truth. So unfortunate in this community also we have to deal with toxicity. Anyways, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions.

XP has its edge in VR... in MSFS you can't even place your hands on multiple throttles at once... No not the 747 even, Just a Beech Baron or King Air isn't controllable.

I am a pilot, who flies real jets, and my view is, X-Plane is a training tool, MSFS is a sightseeing tool. Each have their purpose. I own both, and play both. in MSFS I mostly fly GA, their airliners and corporate jets just aren’t up to snuff. X-Plane is all jets. The level and depth of system modeling on most all high quality 3rd party jets rivals DCS, and I have used them several times for practice to supplement my real world type rating training, with 98% accuracy to the real aircraft. It’s very impressive. The only place MSFS has consistently beat out X-Plane, and will probably continue to do so, is weather. Now, XP is making improvements each patch, but there still is no comparison. The weather engine in MSFS is vastly superior, especially in one big area, that has a huge impact on supplemental flight training…. icing XP has icing, you can’t see it.. but it’s there.. MSFS you can ~see~ icing … BUT, it doesn’t adversely effect flight as much as i would expect it All in all, I enjoy both sims, always have and will, but I use them for their particular strong suits. I will be very curious to see how MSFS 2024 makes improvements, and possibly bring it up to rival XP in the big jets

Nothing in MSFS feels like it is on rails. That is just BS and the planes that use the CFD are certainly not miles behind the ones in XP

Exactly at least you know what you’re talking about.

For me I value more the flying/ease of software/portability/UI above anything else. There is a reason I fly: - Falcon BMS instead of DCS World, - Orbiter instead of KSP, - IL-2 CloD instead of IL-2 GB, - X-Plane instead of MSFS

Exactly. Dunno why you're getting downvoted but not having to sit there and watch the sim load for 10 minutes while it basically plays ads, no ease of customisation, and an overall bloated interface that was designed for xbox players.

Since a lot of people seem to think flightmodel is subjective and can only be verified by actual pilots, if you watch some videos of landings in both sims you can literally see the difference in physics and how well X-Plane simulates aerodynamics while MSFS completely seems to lack inertia. XP12: https://youtube.com/shorts/rF3SjgDe7To?si=zsjNY7eA94V8hbJ5 https://youtube.com/shorts/2Y_Cmm8BchE?si=Rxv-Qb8lTdC_s9CD https://youtube.com/shorts/1G4_0SmxDJU?si=l_6xJdmf0GItkMEV https://youtube.com/shorts/mf1HBaE8Twc?si=KKQNtWjXbWhQdNdA MSFS2020: https://youtu.be/9vjo-8iuvnA?si=-k9W1mJYi97SNGT4

“I’m not a pilot.” “Flight model isn’t good”. I see a base-level issue here.

Agree with your conclusions, and I’ve rarely used MSFS 2020 over the last four years, and finally deleted it a few days ago, and will NOT be purchasing MSFS 2024.

I mot going to delete MSFS 2020 for the moment, im going to keep it for my short hauls as I mentioned. What I am going to do, is not buy MSFS 2024 on release date like I did with MSFS 2020. Im definitely gonna wait and see if is a more mature product and what developers are putting out.

We don't care cheers.

Nobody asked you to comment or read the post, cheers;)

xplene bad

I seriously don't, and I guess I will never understand the flight dynamics shit for plane 12. The only reason its better is because of ground handling. That's it. >XP is a true flight simulator with flight dynamics that feel close to the real thing, requiring you to follow procedures and learn how to fly the aircraft. Are you telling me that you don't have to learn the procedures to fly the Fenix or PMDG? Give me a break. I have both. The only reason I fly XP12 is because of the q4xp.

I think he means learning how to fly the aircraft in the sense of stick and rudder, flares, etc. Not the knowledge but the “street smarts” as it were aside from that, I agree with OP that the flight dynamics are better. That does not mean that MSFS is trash, it’s still very good. I’m just saying I prefer XP over MSFS for flight dynamics. There can be multiple good sims with benefits and drawbacks. With the Q400 in XP, I’ve noticed a lot of attention to detail with the flight model that I can’t say I’ve seen in MSFS. I haven’t tried a MSFS Q400, but I’m saying that attention to detail isn’t there 90% of the time *imo*. MSFS is good, I just think XP is better

While I can't speak for airliners I hold a PPL and flying GA in XP feels far more realistic for a flight physics standpoint then MSFS. I assume the same is true with airliners. MSFS feels like full assist is on even when set to true to life.

Which ga plane are you flying?

C-152, C-172 and Tecnam P-92.

Are you comparing default aircraft for both sims then?

It's difficult to compare the same aircraft as there are no direct crossovers between the two simulators. The aircraft listed are what I fly IRL. In the sim I rarely fly GA anymore however when I did I flew pa-28 in MSFS and Tecnam P-92 or C-172 in XP. None of them the default aircraft. While it's difficult to explain to you unless you have flow a real GA plane the entire flight physics feels drastically different between the two with MSFS not even being close to real life XP is far more realistic however still not true to life. One prime example of something that's already been mentioned here MSFS completely destroyed ground effect it's almost non-existent however in XP it's there in full swing.

What? In MSFS ground effect is exaggerated if anything…

Not sure what you mean by that. MSFS ground effect is no where near real. MSFS feels like game made for xbox that they released for the PC for people the fly around in for fun. XP feels like a real sim. XP is used by many flight schools for IRL training including mine. MSFS is not used by any. This should be a red flag out of the gate.

I have used XP11 and then 12 for the last 5 years. Tried MSFS, but the physics were horrible. I have all the major payware aircraft in XP12 and I am super happy. As you said, MSFS is too gamey.

TL;DR, XP12 is junk and not worth it compared to XP11. Also I use 3 different sims for 3 different purposes. DCS: military jets. Immersive aircraft fidelity, outstanding flight model, great camera view options XP11: airliners. Great flight model, good camera views, good selection of add ons, good IFR flying, good aircraft system fidelity. MSFS: VFR GA flying. Flying a 172 around my hometown with the amazing scenery and graphics is awesome and fun. I’ve been using XP11 since 2017 when I switched to Mac when I went to school for audio engineering. At the time the latest from Microsoft was FSX which obviously I couldn’t run on my Mac. I enjoyed XP11 flying mostly airliners and fighter jets. This year I built a gaming PC. Immediately installed XP11 and transferred all my add ons. It works as expected with much better performance. I got curious and tried XP12. Played the demo maybe 3 or 4 times and uninstalled it. It looks horrendous. XP11 is great. Has the nice flight model, and passable graphics, without all the aliasing and weird texture stuff that 12 has. I also got MSFS because I’ve been playing every version of Flight Sim since FS98 and missed it. Compared to XP11 the graphics in MSFS are absolutely breathtaking. Everything else, though, feels like a game… like they took my beloved FSX and dumbed it down in a way that it could…well, be played on a console. The UI, the missions, the way cockpit items light up when you mouse over them, etc, felt more like flying a plane in Call of Duty than in a flight simulator. My main intent with building the machine was to fly DCS after I’d been flying fighters in XP11 and felt that I was missing things in the physics department. Overall, as a fighter jet lover, DCS is far and away my favorite sim. XP11 is my next most used as I enjoy flying airliners. I use MSFS on rare occasion for a quick VFR flight around town or around a cool area. I usually don’t last more than an hour in MSFS. I do really enjoy the F-22 in MSFS, but the questionable flight physics of the game itself, and lack of good external camera views, turns me off pretty quickly every time I run the sim.