Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
X-PLANE 12 vs Microsoft Flight Simulator - HOW WILL THE DEFAULT SCENERY STACK UP?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2022
- 🔥🔥🔥 Need a new Flight Sim PC? Check out the new line of Aus Flight Simmer PC:apexpartner.ap...
Big Thanks to our friends over at JUST FLIGHT for supporting the channel. geni.us/JUSTFL...
Enhance Your Simulations Experience with Softly: geni.us/SoFly
(Use Discount ausflightsimmer20off for 20% off)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to be a pilot?:
✈️ GoFly Online:
✈️ Go behind the scenes: • GoFly Outbound: Visiti...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🔥🔥🔥Support this channel🔥🔥🔥
❤️Support Me (Best Way - Watching content) / @ausflightsimmer
❤️Buy a Aus Flight Simmer Merch - aus-flight-sim...
❤️Donate Directly, Tip Jar: streamlabs.com...
❤️Join as a member: / @ausflightsimmer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSTAGRAM ✈️✈️ / ausflightsimmer
DISCORD ✈️✈️ / discord
MERCH ✈️✈️ aus-flight-sim...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#MSFS #microsoftflightsimulator #ausflightsimmer #XPlane12 #XP
In XP12, it really kills the immersion when the buildings are flickering at you. I have been holding off on buying XP11, since XP12 was so close to arrival when I started using MSFS in 11/21. Now that XP12 has been released, and I purchased it, I feel rather disappointed in it, even though XP11 is included. It seems that XP12 is just a slight upgrade from XP11. And I find that landing the 172 in XP11/12 is much easier to "butter" it than in the new flight modeled MSFS2020 172. I have had a PPL since 1979, flying 152/172's. Haven't flown IRL since 1981 though. It was too expensive for me to stay current when I was in my 20's. But as far as 172 flight models, I feel that MSFS2020 is truer to what I experienced while flying a real 172. But neither truly captures the feeling of wind flowing over the flight control surfaces, and the wind buffeting that occurs while landing. Both sims just seem to be too easy to land, compared to IRL. Maybe it's because I'm not concerned about dying from a failed landing. And now that I have the time, and can afford to start flying again, I was diagnosed with glaucoma shortly after retiring. Flight surgeon diagnosed it and put the kibosh on me ever flying again IRL. So, this is the only way for me to "fly" again. So I used the money not spent on recertification to build a pretty fair sim of my own. 12700k; 308ti; Boeing TCA yoke; TPR pedals; Bravo Throttle; TrackIr; GT Omega cockpit, with 3440x1440 Ultra Wide.
I fly X-Plane 11 because I have an M1 Mac. And I haven't purchased X-Plane 12 because even though they say it has native silicon support, the simulator runs like crap on Macs, no matter if you have base M1, M1 Pro or M1 Max.
Do you know that you bought a Beta?
Bro in resume, xp 12 sucks compared to MFS2020, i was an xp users for years, tried mfs 3 days ago and i jist deleted xp, just by the things you can do jn mfs it beats xp in. Any way posisble
@@gunlover5147if you want good physics, then Xplane 12 does not suck, although if you don’t care about physics then yes, MSFS is somewhat better,
Xplane 11 is like a remastered MSFS X.
Msfs hands down in the city. Great video Shane. Still undecided on XP 12 I have a feeling it would end up cast to one side and I’d go back to MSFS very quickly. Out of the box..MSFS delivers far beyond XP12 on visuals.
Thanks for the comment OneWez13, cheers
I was shocked at the city scape how bad the scenery in xplanes is AND the performance is FAR worse
If you want good scenery, there is not way around Ortho in XP 11/12. Default textures are ugly.
Also, many airliners and addons are not working as of now in XP 12. I would wait 3 months.
But the ground and flight physics are way better in XP. If that is appealing to you, you will be happy.
@@maltimoto Physics stopped being an argument for XP when good planes started to come out for MSFS, especially when the plane behavior is 99% dependant on the addon developer and MSFS still keeps improving its physics, or that the difference is minimal since you won't feel any of them without a feedback simulator, regarding wind, thermals behavior MSFS did a better job that xp11 did out of the box and even with active sky enabled it still falls behind.
Do you use MSFS 'out of the box', no addons at all?
MSFS hands down on the scenery.
Xplane 12 hands down best flight model.
Lighting model is also better in XP12. It's just a shame the AA is still so janky.
Also hoped for more from XP12. I am all for competition, but it seems that MSFS will play in its own class now.
Sad to see XP12 fall away. LR rested on their laurels for too long.
sad to see it fade away? do you want a flight simulator or a screenshot generator?
@@officialdjgoozescenery is a big part of the sim and why most people fly. There is a niche group of people who only care about flight characteristics, but it's not the majority as seen by xp12 sales.
Did anyone notice XPs autogen in New York City? XP12 reminds me of Microsoft Flight Simulator X with the autogen scenery. Especially with the river going thru the field at 4:26.
It looks horrid. Pitiful.
i really wanted to be excited by XP12 but its difficult when MSFS still looks so amazing. thanks for the vid
MSFS does indeed look amazing. XP12 under an overcast with rain and haze/visibility effects is also amazing.
Buckle up fanboys, we're about to encounter turbulence:)
REAL
I use MSFS 2020 to explore the world from the air from the comfort of my home. Therefore the high quality of scenery that MSFS 2020 has is of utmost importance to me. I spent way too much time putting ortho into x-plane 11. Also I would like to know how much flying in x-plane or any other flight sim at home actually helps real world pilots. For a non-pilot like me sitting in a chair that never moves in any direction, I cannot for the life of me understand how people actually trick themselves into believing they are really flying. Also when I fly as a passenger I never think to myself ,"wow this is just like x-plane/msfs 2020 etc, those flight dynamics......" It is a totally different feeling! No airsickness, no smelly toilets, no turbulence, no Russian jets flying up scaring the hell out of you, no risk at all etc etc.
Your point deserves a heroes welcome
VR ... in MSFS it's literally mind-blowing how good it looks in VR. I'm a real-world PPL pilot, and okay nothing replaces the real thing, but that's an expensive hobby, and MSFS in VR goes a long way to fulfilling the flight bug when not in the air. I would have zero interest in either sim without it.
As a PPL holder I use it to practice responding to what the aircraft will do with different inputs and/or putting it into unsafe conditions. Otherwise, yea, never been able to make myself believe I'm flying.
That's where VR comes in Zapper :) It's a massive way of improving any sim. I've spent a lot of VR time in some older open cockpit planes in MSFS as well as as some GA planes in X-planes. It add so much to the immersion, especially if you have flown the same plane IRL.
You haven't tried VR yet have you
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Austin NEEDS to address the satellite scenery issue if he wants X-Plane to compete. As things stand right now, X-Plane will at best be a better option only for people that are very serious about real life flying and want to use the sim to train. Even so, MSFS is decent and promising in getting better in that area too. At least if you could get Ortho4XP as an integrated component of the X-Plane package, that way we could at least spent some time per flight, day or week as preffered, setting up an area to fly in with ortho in X-Plane as well. As it is now, getting the same quality of scenery takes A LOT more effort and whilst doable, it will definitely not be worth the hasle for most people that just want to have a good time. Austin, PLEASE give us an option, ANY option for satellite scenery built in to X-Plane 12.
Austin have stated that they don't intend to compete with MSFS on multiple occasions.
Regarding integrating Ortho4XP I don't see how that could be done. That software most likely break multiple EULAs when it integrate in to different services. It's not viable to integrate such a service in to a commercial product.
@@danielmartinsson899 Yea and I've heard Austin say this multiple times too, but I think not competing with MSFS will lead X-Plane down the P3D path, i.e. niche with a small market share, which would be sad. Competition is good. Also, what I was suggesting is that Austin creates his own integration, inspired by Ortho4XP, perhaps with a dash of xToolbox/xOrganizer. It could simply be a section of the menu that abstracts away actual sources of satellite imagery, i.e. leave it to the user to "set up" the connection strings. One time setup, integrated tool that allows downloads and easy management to a Ortho drive from within the sim itself. It would help and certainly make it more approacheable than the classic external million differet pieces of software way of doing it. But hey, that's just my opinion. Whilst I believe X-Plane will surivive just fine, I just don't think it will be relevant anymore. Again, it will go in the books as P3D has. Plenty still play it, and the sim is not bad or anything, it's just that MSFS is so much better that the market share is tiny. The same will happen to X-Plane if this isn't addressed and that would be sad to see.
@@danielmartinsson899 thats whenm it works the App REGUALRLY fails oh hour long renders!
I learnt how to use Ortho4XP in half an hour. I created Ortho for the whole of the England while I was asleep. I fly 90 percent of the time in Europe, so a weeks worth setting up ortho is no effort at all (if you set up ortho in XP11 then simply link to the ortho in XP11). We must remember XP12 is only a few days into its beta period. As such it does certain things amazingly well - the haze and lighting is arguable more realistic than MSFS. I use both sims and enjoy both, but XP12 is showing a very strong start. Problem is people focus on something that is bad and miss out on all the good stuff.
@@furyanwolf LR want create a niche product. They have no interest in being MSFS or replacing MSFS because such a product would not be XP anymore.
I work in IT as well. We create our own product and I get this question so often.
"Why don't you add this or that feature. It would let customers with this or that need use your product as well."
Sure we could, but it's not in our interest. We have defined a market share where we exist and attract customers with that need. We thrive in our market and we don't need anything else. If a customers want something else then they should buy that system.
Building extremely specific "hacks" for certain customers isn't in our interest either. It would be idiotic for LR to build something like that, especially when they (again) will help people to break the EULA in other products.
It would be nice if my Toyota were a sports car as well as an airplane at the same time but then it wouldn't be a family car anymore.
To be honest if anyone was thrown few billion dollars and satilites anyone can make MS. I think this is the most underrated fact.
Scenery-wise no big problem for Xplane12 as there are freewares like ortho and sim heaven. With small frame damage. Also not to mention Scenery gatway allowing updated taxiways and terminals. With all these there is really no big difference between the two sims in my experience Scenery-wise (for those who whine thats all addons I doubt s you would not use any on MSs poor airports and in Xplane all that mentioned above is FREE so it is hard to call it so called 'addons' neither)
Airplane wise Xplane has free study level 737 and now about to have A333 and A220. In MS for 737 and A330 you have to pay. Not to mention Sceneries for unupdated airports and gsx which is all provided free in Xplane in acceptable level quality.
So in the general MS excels in gobal photo sceneries and Xplane does on the rest of the small details (Gear wheels touching surface, wind effects effects of terrain, lightings, sounds, physics, UI)
So as a user that has both. Wheres for GAs I would fly MS but with the IFRs or big jets I would use Xplane12
Definitely the Snow Capped Mountains on Milford Sound in MSFS looks better. At least to me.
It's orthos vs generic textures, ofc it will look better :)
cheers
What I don't understand in regard to the comments on these early release videos... No one was saying this s*** about XP12 when the preview videos were coming out. It looked exactly like this and everyone went "ooooo" "ahhhh" "MSFS is dead." You can see it on any XP12 video pre-early access. Then it comes out looking exactly like they've been showing us and now everyone cries about it. Austin called it too. He said when it comes out, 99.9% will only talk about the graphics. I guess the XP trolls were too hard on the MSFS people for the last 2 years. The tables have turned now.... But it shouldn't be this toxic. Most of this freak show don't have 0.02% of clue in what they are speaking about. Myself included.... 😏
What would have been interesting so see is how it compares without the MSFS Bing data and Photogrametry.
XPlane 12 does not use these features and MSFS can disable them and then we would see how the non sattelite textures and scenery compares to xplane.
However what is very noticable is the flickering due to the Anti Aliasing and the rather noisy picture of Xplane 12.
Thanks for the comment and checking out the video.
Why would you do that, its "out of the box"
it's like comparing a porsche with a cheap renault and also taking out the porsche engine because the renault doesn't have that...
You're racing against Usain Bolt but you bash his kneecaps before the start gun because you don't have his speed.
Going purely off the visuals, MSFS wins easily. The first of two areas where X-Plane might win is trees in the cities but it's hard to say from that angle. The second is some of the mountain textures but that could easily be that one area shown.
As always, it'll likely come down to what each individual wants from a sim.
I agree, thanks for checking out the video.
Honestly, New Zealand needs a world update at some point, but yeah MSFS does look nicer when it comes to the scenery
@@michaelknott4361 I was really disappointed when NZ didn't get an update with Australia.
I was hoping far better for X-Plane 12, I think they are too far behind as an overal package and MS and Asobo sem to have unlimited resources to develop FS2020. No way I'd ever go back to X-Plane.
Thank you for you comment.
If you concentrate on information that shows the poor parts of XP12, you will miss out on all the good stuff there is.
If I had the hard drive space, or two computers, I'd have both. I've used both for MANY, MANY years. It used to be that X-Plane won on smoothness of the gauges alone. But MSFS caught up. MSFS used to win on eye candy with ease, but it looks like Austin has made a lot of progress there too. (I ONLY fly GA aircraft, and now almost exclusively the Cessna 172, as that's all I would realistically fly in the real world.) For now, I'm sticking with MSFS, but I can understand why many will choose X-Plane. I don't see it as "either/or" except for my hard drive limitations.
For me it's not about drive space, it is about time space...
XP12 is way better in New York, msfs are just cardboard boxes with low res bing textures on them, it's a mess when you look up close.
Once I figured out that pretty scenery has to be streamed, and a internet is required in order to see it, I uninstalled MSFS, and bought X-Plane 12, Microsoft cut off the weather subscription to us still using FSX, I don't trust Microsoft, and the scenery in X-Plane 12 looks great to me, even the aircraft and Airports look amazing, the only thing that I don't like is the clouds, and that can easily be fixed, with higher resolution textures, but that may be resolved coming out of early access.
Good comparison if there is a comparison, great editing, thanks Shane
Thanks Zenon. Cheers
how spoilt are we to be simmers today. Xplane 12 looks pretty decent but man did Asobo set the standard high with MSFS2020.
I agree, not really anything to complain about these days. Thanks for checking out the video.
Very good comparison video between the two. Hopefully there are less CTDs with MSFS after SU10 is released.
Let's hope so Paul. Thank you.
Well done in making this short and excellent video showcasing the differences in default scenery. Whilst it did not need proving, this certainly shows that there is no comparison; MSFS wins outright. I used to use X-Plane 11 until MSFS was launched and have not returned to it even though I had created several Terabytes of Ortho. I would not even think of buying X-Plane 12 which from what I have seen and heard, only provides minimal improvements that are not enough to justify purchase for an existing owner of X-Plane 11; maybe to a new user but even then it cannot compete with the scenery of MSFS. This is not really my humble opinion but more or less a fact that I see very few contradicting.
I have 1700 hours in MSFS and agree it is a great sim. Videos like this one don't do fair justice to XP12 and if you don't see what XP12 is capable of, you are missing out. The new lighting pipeline in XP12 is very good indeed, and with the excellent haze effects it arguably portrays the sky in a more realistic way than MSFS. I have just added the FREE SimHeaven World Europe addon to XP which greatly improves the default autogen. XP12 has a lot of potential, I'm just glad I can see the good things each sim offers, rather than having to be in either group that thinks their choice of sim is the best.
@@TheMrBitsy You make a good point Raymond but if one's most imprtaant aspect of a flight sim is the scenery then it is difficult to favour XP12. Whilst it may be argued that the flight model is marginally better in XP12, is this enough to choose it over MSFS? I do not think so but recognise that some people do but in my original message I am only talking about scenery and it would be difficult to favour XP on scenery, even with Ortho symbolically linked.
lol the building at 2:12 on the right that says xplane lool
I never noticed that. Thanks :)
@@AusFlightSimmer there's something i realized about the 2 sims as well, MSFS Streams the satellite Imagery and graphics as you fly in an area. You can have a rolling cache for so much GBs, but not the whole world. Meaning to have the best quality you need a decent internet connection, And depending on what Country you live in you might have a Bandwidth Limit per Month, so playing MSFS Will Drain your Monthly Internet usage you have by alot, The Streaming of the data is a good thing, other wise everyone would need like a petabyte of hardware space, But its also a bad thing because the need to be always connected online mostly,
X-plane 12 is a true flight simulator and not a ground scenery game like MSFS2020.
Uhhhh....no! MSFS offers the same great physics and flight dynamics along with mind blowing textures!!! Even if that were the case, it is a 10 year project and we are 2 years into it so we still have 8 more years to perfect MSFS and we constantly get new updates every week! Can you imagine where we're going to be in 8 years from now? Just look at the 2 year ride so far! And in the end lets all be realistic... Nobody wants to fly above cartoon land in New York City! We want it to look real and dirty and gritty not like nintendo...ie X-plane 12!!!
@@Foxtrot_EW I actually deactivated photogrammetry in MSFS because it looks horrible from the distance and kills the immersion. Its only good if you want to discover a city by overflying it.
x-plane looks like FSX but with good clouds and rain effects. gr8 comparison video buddy
HK, hello. Cheers Thanks for taking a look at the video.
It doesnt even come near the authenticity of the MS Flight Sim. Hard but true.
Cheers Michael.
Your comment clearly shows you have either not used XP12, or saw a couple of the poor things in an early beta and turned it off.
Im glad I watched this I was thinking about downloading X-plane cause it does offer a bigger library of planes, but seeing this video really made me think it over, the only way Id pull the trigger on X-plane 12 now is if they get a A220
Great video! I've invested a lot into MSFS plus I have XP 11. From the reviews I've seen, XP 12 doesn't seem improved (enough) over 11 to start putting money into it.
With MSFS continuing to make great improvements as they are, I 'll have to pass on 12 for now and stay with MSFS.
Hopefully the sim progress's over time.
MSFS still has the better ground textures, but XP 12 ain't horrible either.
I think this just goes to show how far msfs has come since X. This is leaps and bounds better than xp12, especially visually, which is what in mainly look for.
Thanks for Lydon, appreciate the taking the time to check out the video.
Great comparison vid mate, I know how much time and effort goes into these sorts of tests! Take care :)
Thank you, yeah they sure do. Thanks for stopping by.
@@AusFlightSimmer Always a pleasure bud
Hi Shane, another great video! Hope that working with RUclips is working out great for you and your family!
Thanks Mark, Appreciate the support. I will keep pumping out the content.
MSFS is hands down the best in terms of graphics. No doubt about it. anyone saying something else are blind. And frankly, other comparions have shown the dynamics to be comparable as well. I'm going with the best total experience. And that's coming from MSFS at the moment.
Without a doubt!!!
Depends what you mean by graphics. Each sim has its good and bad points, the secret is to try and fix the bad to compliment the good. MSFS global Bing satellite scenery is very good (in places). MSFS atmospheric lighting is also good, but XP12's is better. MSFS visibility effects are poor, XP12's are fantastic. MSFS clouds are very good, but some are embarrassingly bad - like the volcanic ash clouds we have all seen. XP12's clouds at some angles are embarrassingly bad, but many are astounding, especially considering the excellent lighting and haze/pollution effects.
*TL;DR (well, watch):* MSFS for realistic scenery, X-Plane for realistic flight physics.
2:04 and 2:07 is ok for me.. Nice video!
Cheers, Thanks
I prefer MSFS20 because of it looks. However, because of installation/update issues (I got a refund), I switched to XP12. Much easier to install/update. It does have really good flight simulation. You can download better 3rd party scenery to make it more acceptable. I have heard that the new MSFS24 will have a thinner client to make installing/updating better. We'll see. If you want more beautiful scenery, get MSFS. If you want a more simulation like flying experience (with all the complexity you would like)... get Xp12
Hands down MSFS 2020 is the winner...Xplane in the mountains the texture looks ok but the rest of Xplane looks like a more enhanced FSX from years ago.....MSFS 2020 WINNER!
Thanks for the comment, appreciate taking the time to check out the video.
X-Plane looks like a cartoon. It kills the immersion, and from what I've seen so far, the difference in flight models isn't that far apart anymore.
Xplane 12 looks like Xplane 11!
I love MSFS 2020 and looking at the video I think it wins the default scenery comparison. I assume though that there are 3rd party developers producing add on scenery for X-Plane too. To my mind though, X-Plane has one clear advantage, it is totally self-contained with 100% of the product on the user's hard drive. I sometimes wonder how many of the well published problems with MSFS are related to having to constantly access remote data.
MSFS 2020 is such a disappointment to me. It might look better than Xplane, but consider this: It comes at 4x the price tag and 7x more data, so obviously it will look better But the data is actually the problem. After legally purchasing it this year I discovered recently that the game basically deleted its own data Data which is already way too much and not everyone has uncapped wi-fi I cannot invest in a game that keeps losing its own data So for that reason I will now look into X plane 12
This is like comparing Switch VS PS5 graphics
It’s not ALL about the look though is it. X-Plane 12 flight modelling is far better!
It would be nice if in the future one joins the other. In my opinion, one completes the other. When I want to do a VFR flight I use FS and when I want to do an IFR flight I use xplane.
The only way Xplane will ever get in front again in the scenery front is if they partner with Google and use Google map data.
If you are someone that wants to fly all over the globe on every other flight, MSFS makes sense. If, like me, you fly mostly in certain areas then XP12 with ortho also makes sense.
Been simming since 1985 and have used pretty much all of them so not a fanboy… however it’s plainly obvious from your video that XP’s strength is not it’s scenery depiction. How does the flight models compare?
Hi Chris, I fly IRL. In my opinion they are on par now. XP used to be way in front. Asobo must of been placing a lot of work in this area.
@@AusFlightSimmer cheers Shane, I figured that might be the case given the amount of work Asobo put into MSFS. When I flew IRL I thought that XP was in front especially in the FSX days which improved quite a bit when MSFS 2020 arrived. Given the additional work I would assume that MSFS would be possibly in front now seeing the size of the Asobo team. Thanks for the comment 👍
I have both and for me, XP flight model feels much better. Especially on the ground. MSFS PMDG Fenix really suck on the ground, it doesnt feel like taxiiing a heavy airliner at all. XP is great here. In the air, MSFS is a little better but still feels very static or jumpy (PMDG). The good flight dynamics are the actual reason why I prefer XP.
You know, I won't lie. With all the hype surrounding X-Plane 12 and its release, I really thought it'd be much closer between the two. Visually, Microsoft Flight Simulator comes out on top, and it isn't even close. The graphics look far more realistic, and the game feels much smoother; in comparison, X-Plane's system seems a bit outdated. The only area here where it looked anywhere near as good as MSFS was that shot over New Zealand. I'm not sure what X-Plane 12 did with the mountains there, but they certainly popped out and provided an interesting contrast to the Microsoft version. I can't tell if they depict those mountains at a different time of year, but it certainly looked good.
All in all, though, Microsoft still trumps the X-Plane team. However, I ultimately cannot blame them there, since I doubt they have as big of a budget as Microsoft does. And besides, this is just the default version of both games: I'm looking at a thumbnail for another X-Plane 12 video in my recommended right now, with maxed out settings and all, and the game looks spectacular. Just as it was before with X-Plane 11 and FSX, I am certain that there are some features that X-Plane 12 and MSFS have which are unique to themselves, from the aircraft to the flight controls to the visuals.
My thinking is that X-Plane is on more of a budget than Microsoft generally is, so in terms of preference, I'd say it ultimately comes down to price and which one better suits you, the latter of which is another rabbit hole in and of itself. End of the day, this was a very good comparison between the two, and I wouldn't mind seeing you use X-Plane 12 some time (with mods and maxed settings of course :). 👍👍✈✈
You can't beat the legend MSFS, all they can hope to do is try to copy it, but MSFS was there first for a reason.
Cheers
XP12 and XP11 are the kind of games which need a lot of addon mods to actually make it look good. MSFS is the opposite, but what it lacks is the flying experience. XP12 is 10x more realistic when it comes to aerodynamics and flight characteristics. MSFS is just eye candy, with a little bit of simulation thrown in, if you can call it that even. Both are great, but for me I prefer MSFS just because when it comes down to it I want the immersion and MSFS gives me that.
Can't even compare them. Xplane still looks a decade old. Maybe Xplane14 will catch up to the year 2020.
Cheers
Ha! So true!
Such ignorance!
@@TheMrBitsy Jump to 2:16 in the video, compare it to Manhattan X for FS2004/FSX and realize that Manhattan X (2009) has similar quality of of dated-looking textures in NYC as XP12: aerosoft-shop.com/shop-rd/bilder/screenshots/fsx/manhattanx/manhattan-x-(16).jpg
Hi really liked the comparison. However I have a question. When showing the split screen it is the left side of one screen and the right side of the other. Would it be possible to full screens of both side by side?
Ian, that’s possible. Cheers
In far 2018 I purchased X-Plane 11, to see the difference betweet Microsoft Flight Simulator: Deluxe Edition. I was impressed.
Now with all addons my X-Plane weight is 629GB, I know it's too much, but simulator looks better.
Don't think will upgrade to X-Plane 12, but interest to MFS2020.
I understand that some investments required on sceneries, but what about ''clouds'', ''headshake'', ''original planes''? Are they excellent? (better than Xenviro and other payware addons on XP11)
i have both sims. the ONLY problem with MSFS 2020 is there's no way to eliminate the cockpit view for my sim. Xplane 12 can but the scenery is terrible.
I've been flying some GA in XP12 during the weekend and I've had a lot of fun doing so. I added my old orthos from XP11 as well as the updated XP12 version of X-europe, that improved the experience a lot. It's sure great to be back in X-plane again. It's hard to explain but I just like the general feeling in X-plane better than any other sim.
The platform itself is also easy to handle in the case of sceneries, airplanes and other addons. It's fairly quick to start and the interface is minimalistic and quick to use.
I own basically every simulator out there but this is the platform I keep coming back to over and over.
I agree in 100%. I will only add, as a great advantage of XP - huge ease of own any "improvements" in the scenery graphics using WED and Ortho4XP. And the ability to create your own simple plugins (FlyWithLua). Everything in XP is a bit like building a mock-up of an electric train ;-).
When you take the time (sometimes a little $ ;-) ) to "tweak" XP, the simulation can look beautiful.
So you like worse graphics, worse performance and a a crappier flight model, right.....
@@1littlelee ??? :-/
x plane is like stuck in 2006
Thanks fort watching the video James.
3:38 yikes😬 I love xplane but as a next gen that’s not a good look there ngl
Thanks for checking out the video.
Let's be honest here: Xplane12 default scenery is no match to MSFS2020 default scenery.
Cheers Ed
...and default MSFS Bing imagery is no match for the ortho I have used.
@@TheMrBitsy let me ask you something, how many high resolution ortho tiles you've used to cover the entire planet? And how much of space in total on your hard drive?
@@ed.mil.5029 I don't want or need to cover the entire planet in ortho. Are you interested in how much ortho you have downloaded in MSFS?
MSFS lacks of XP12 lights and atmospheric depiction, XP12 lacks of MSFS scenes and details. I use both
Fs2020 for sure better planes ✈️ scenery + graphics fs2020 big win 🏆 x plane 12 looks rushed same textures not even close for competition for fs2020. Or tho I have to say fs2020 could have done better with tree textures unlike x plane trees 🌲.
In some ways, this isn't fair. X-Plane 12 is an early beta. So performance, such as flickering mentioned earlier, is not surprising. Comparing it to the initial release of MSFS would have been a better comparison. That said, MSFS always wins on scenery. Anyone who has flown both and is honest will tell you that. If your desire is to fly low and slow and to observe the scenery external from the airplane, MSFS is the way to go, period. If you want to remain in the cockpit and deal with study-level aircraft, flying x-plane 12 is still an excellent bang for the buck at only 60 dollars. Both sims' payware aircraft are better than what's included. Personally, I use both and like both. Although I've been using Microsoft since the Apple IIe days in the 80s, oh, vector graphics, I got hooked on x-plane 11 during the dry spell with FSX. Fly what you like. It's a flight sim, not the divine creator of the universe; you don't have to swear allegiance to either sim.
Flickering,Aliasing has been a big issue all the way from xp10 lol its the same basic rendering engine they never fixed it in 11 and believe it or not it's even worse in 12.
@@William_99640 Actually, it isn't the same engine. It was using OpenGL. It was rewritten in Vulkan/Metal with 11.50. X-Plane 12 is 100% Vulkan/Metal. OpenGL is completely removed.
Why Would you go wit X-Plane now their is so much Happening in MSFS is beyond me & this is Just the beginning for MSFS!!
Because the ground physics in MSFS are horrible, taxiiing feels like a toy plane. In the air it is better, but XP is still better here. If MSFS had better physics, XP would have a hard time.
Thanks for checking out the video.
Also because xplane 12 , lighting and atmosphere are muvh more natural and more realistic , mfs only has the edge in scenery this is really great btw and a big edge as well as multiplayer
Great comparison video I’d give the edge to Microsoft for sure but some of the mountains looked better in X plane. On on beta 10 Xbox series X the other day there was the last update before the full release and it broke a lot of the graphics, scenery, etc.. Hopefully they get that fixed before they release it.
What were you looking at ! The mountains are melting ! Watch it again .
Thanks for the comment and checking out the video.
If X-plane could strike a deal with google maps and do what MSFS did that would be a different story. Google maps is far superior to bing. Until that happens MSFS all day.
It's not just about finding a data source. Google maps itself isn't a provider in that sense. It's a map service and they get their imagery from a wide range of different sources in different countries. Even different parts for the same town can come from different providers. This is true both for Google Maps as well for Bing Maps.
The images Asobo got from Bing is heavily edited to look fairly the same all over the planet. They have also put a lot of effort in to building an AI that look at every tile to find buildings and other stuff. That team alone is likely larger than what the entire LR team is. Then we have the infrastructure that is need to let the players stream the orthos to their computer. That's also a massive investment in itself.
LR is a small team, I don't see how they could fit such a thing on their roadmap.
Awesome Video Shane
Thanks Dave. Cheers
Question, were your graphics settings the same for both flight sims?
I am building a 6DOF platform for helicopters and have not decided between MSFS and XP12. This is a super comparison but I never realised there was so much difference graphically in the two simulators. Quite startling. One question though is can XP12 be brought any closer to MSFS with a hardware boost or payware scenery or is it just a fundamental limit?
Maybe spend some time looking at the development updates about the helicopter flight mechanics for MSFS.
@@AusFlightSimmer Yes, I will, thank you. I am a heli student pilot with a EC120B and decided when I started to learn that I would build a VR sim. The truth is that simulator design is so varied, fragmented and complex that by the time I have finished my sim (and I will) I will have spent x3 - x4 the time researching and building it than it took to actually learn to fly the real thing. Gosh everything is complex and nothing “Just works” particularly with motion platforms and compensation. But I am learning so many new things it’s all good!
What I need to do is buy two high spec rigs and put a sim on each.......if only!
I've been using MSFS forever. I started with MSFS 2000 and have bought every one since then. They all worked pretty much flawlessly. Now, after 4 years, msfs2020 is still a broken product. Mainly the disconnection of controls during a flight. Sometimes using the brakes during taxi the game will say You Crashed. Instead of fixing these and other issues with the game, asobo just keeps adding stupid 'game' features, such as dune (no doubt for the xbox crowd). They killed the Google Maps mod, which was a fantastic add on. Much more realistic looking than the default bing maps. And I can't leave out the silly twirling airplanes, vehicles, etc that appear at airports. MSFS2020 actually worked well it's first year or so. But has only gotten worse since and fixing things is not a priority to the devs. Currently, I doubt I'll buy msfs2024. I will however buy X-Plane 12.
Great Vid mate but can you do a comparison where you have Microsoft in true default switch of the online mode like Xplane12 has no online mode so run MSFS 2020 offline see what you get
Those Idaho circle farms doesn't make any sense with highways and rivers cutting across them. Absolutely ruins the game immersion.
Well I live in Idaho and I have to agree!
XP12 is in early beta. Laminar Research have already said ground scenery will be further developed.
Try optimizing for a bit..
XPlane 12 looks like FSX on steroids
Cheers Bosnian.
@@AusFlightSimmer Cheers
Msfs look better out the box with planes and scenery.
X plane 12 looks like MSFS X with graphic mods, MSFS 2020 is in another league that the X-plane devs never can compete with graphics wise.
MSFS is just in a league of its own rn, the visuals look so much better. Probably because the way the scenery reacts to the lighting
it just has more contrast, it's the simplest trick in the book, like how making music louder always makes it sound "better"
@@doltBmB lmao no,
It's obvious that msfs is the winner even before xplane 12 was released. I mean they do have satellite data. I think that xplane could have done a much better job, even if they had to somehow integrate ortho as a start, or something.
Thanks for the comment.
I highly doubt that we will see integrated orthos in XP. It's a feature way to big for such a small company.
Yes but they don't own Bing so there you go.
Very strange to say MSFS is the winner when just talking about satellite data. I have 1700 hours in MSFS and think it is a great sim, but the new lighting and haze is more realistic than MSFS. Rather than thinking in terms of winning, exploit what each sim does well and fine tune what it doesn't.
Wonderful video! I like them both.
Yay, thank you!
I like them both too! Except for X-plane 12...😉
You know it was always the tiny things that I loved about X-plane though I love MSFS. Like trains they move..the lights.. bridges. I know now but I use to wonder.. how can they get the trains right but not the land lol.
The land?
Great video. But i think you may be missing the point slightly. But what do I know?
you have to be fair to compare the actual videos! with MSFS you should cut the connection to the Internet and then compare again! Next, let's also compare X-plane 12 with Ortho 4xp and MSFS! that would be fair in my opinion!
The comparison is out of the box, no mods were used.
So, in your mind a fair comparison is to test MSFS with no internet connection which is default and required and use X-Plane with Ortho's which is an addon and isn't default. Having an internet connection and access to satellite imagery is unfair? Splash mud on MSFS and make it look ugly and dirty while we pull every trick in the book to make X-Plane looks as nice as it can.
Sounds really fair.
I said "Ew" out loud when you first showed the x-plane NYC scenery in comparison lol
I use the simulator to engage in a flght expirience to the extent possible. To explore the world I use national geographic channel and youtube.
Who else is disappointed with xplane ground textures? They could have at least added new textures and more high res mountain texture etc.
Is the aliasing truly that bad in X-Plane 12? :o
It should be clear to everyone. Computer hardware does not perform well on this subject well. The features may differ here.
Thanks for checking out the video.
Xplane 12 has better lighting and looks more closer to reality. Scenery is better in msfs though
Are you blind?
@@mdc123-v2v Are you ? Don't be a pos.
If you want X-Plane to look like MSFS, you need hundreds of hard drives and thousands of dollars. And the flight model in neither of them is perfect. There's no competition.
Exactly, but still people are harping on the flight model here and the flight model there.
That's a massive exaggeration. One large disk will be sufficient for a long time.
I have an 8 TB drive and have Europe and parts of USA, Africa on it. XP ground physics are much better, XP flight physics are better in my opinion.
Have you perhaps any idea when X-Plane 12 will be available on Steam? That is when I will purchase the title.
Laminar Research said a few days ago: in a few days. Hm but I have the feeling that they delay it because they get only 70% on Steam, 30% is for Steam.
Have you already purchased MSFS 2020?
I preferred xplane over MSFS for NYC. MSFS looked blurry and dark. Xplane was clear and vibrant. Photogrammetry IMHO only looks good from a further distance. That said, MSFS looks better than xplane on any landscapes as there's clearly more variety, as its based on the real world.
It seems FS 2020 is real time scenery based on google ,so i smore real ,XP 12 like toys
I agree, both sims are great, if you want to do incredible VFR routes, Mfs is the way to go. For IFR routes and better flight dynamics, X plane is way better.
X-Plane 12 feels like a remaster of X-Plane 11
I am really happy with both sim
msfs looks very oversaturated but the scenery accuracy was very good
Im still sticking with XP
Thanks for the comment, and taking a look at the video.
Me too. I have Orthos and it looks good. Main reason is the flight physics and also the BSS soundsets are unmachted by Fenix/PMDG.
A true test would be to run MSFS2020 about two(2) weeks from official launch and the same with X-Plane 12-that is a fare comparison-what do you think....
It wouldn't look much different. This wasn't a video on performance. Just the default scenery. Thanks for the comment.
Mfs had many ctds and would not even run at that time , real world weather did not even work , theres people that had installs go corrupt in early beta thrn had to spend hours downloading mfs it was an absoloute mess , how do i know i had on gamepass JohnnG ,I totally agree , everyone knows mfs photogrammetry looks better even me has someone that prefer xplane , this is just recycling old news , stating the obvious and bashing xplane , one big strength of xplane it does turn to mush at 100ft or even ground level it stays sharp and defined and had all those issues
What would this be a “true test” of? I don’t think most consumers are comparing X-plane 12 now and “MSFS 2020 from 2 years ago”
X-Plane had years to get to where they are. Come on!
@@DC3Refom this must be an invidia problem . My system is AMD and the only ctd's I have had was because of addons that did not work with an update . I had zero problems with installs or updates . I am using the steam version
Yeah, I’m definitely going with Microsoft flight simulator
you normal shadows and that's it.
XPlane 12 is a nice update, It should have been a free update to XPlane 11. MSFS beats XPlane in just about every aspect. I don't see a reason to update my XPlane 11. I fly in MSFS 90% of the time.
@@IcyTorment Funny you guys say that even though real world FTDs often use Microsoft flight sim. Out of all my FTD training, none used x plane. I like x plane. Not saying it’s bad but that is an old excuse.
With better/higher xp12 settings (and probably a better gpu) you can get way better results in NYC. With my i9 9900k, rtx3090, 32Gb ram I can pretty well max out xp12 settings and the results are very good. Never going to be photo-realistic like msfs, but still very good, and much better than your vid shows imho. I have both sims as well as Aerofly fs2/fs4 and I enjoy them all. I just don't buy into the 'mine's best' camp like many seem to do.
i think the comparison and your comment highlight the barriers to getting the most out of Xplane. Not everyone has 3090 money lying around, so the fact the Aus can get that much fidelity out of MSFS with his specs speaks volumes about both titles.