Totally forgot to mention the superb ZIBO 737 mod, which has already been adapted to X-Plane 12. It is free and at least on par with the FBW A32NX. It does not change anything about my conclusion or recommendation though.
I know about this but am not sure if it has an A320 Cockpit. But I can give it a try. Technically we have the iniBuilds A310, too. But it sees very limited use in reality.
I think that the zibo is more on par or even above the par of the pmdg 737 due to the fact that it has an advanced effect with its own ground handling system. It also is faa regulated for commercial versions of xplane 11 and is used by some flight schools for systems and procedures training for the 737
You can fly your XP12 controlled Zibo 737 inside of MSFS. The Swann Sim channel, and friends have developed a software bridge, www.youtube.com/@swannsim4658
For me another big pro for xPlane is the replay system... I can't believe Asobo still has not implemented a proper working replay system. It's just so satisfying to watch your own landing from the passenger POV with all the control surfaces responding as they should.
@@faziolifairmont8125 i know of the replay system in msfs. It is far from complete though and Not nearly as good as the one in xplane. Thank you for the Tip though. :-)
@@finbark6870 I am amazed it's still not fully implemented yet. MSFS has had a replay function since at least FS2000, that's when I started simming. I'd also love the option to have the legacy key bindings back.
X-Plane was the leading simulator for a long time with a very small team of developers. But MS Flight Simulator 2020 is now the leading flight simulator due to huge investment and a dedicated development group. I'd love to see both organisations working together for the same cause, much like NASA and SpaceX.
@@BruhBruh-mk5yg I agree, maybe frost3113 forgot about the demise of FSX. I don't consider P3D competition either as that was a military training tool which could be purchased under a student license. Unless the honerable gentleman wants to put forward Flight or Dovetails Flight Simulator... I thought not. Case closed! 🤣
@Frost that’s incorrect, xplane11 was the best flight sim for years. Fsx and p3d have terrible textures and xplane has, and still has the most realistic physics. Depending what ur looking for, xplane could still very easily be significantly better. I currently run msfs because I 1) can run it and 2) prefer the textures. Apart from that xplane 12 and even 11 is better.
@Frost This has to be the most fanboyism response I've seen so far. There are many excellent aircraft modules, including free and default ones that have striking accuracy to their real world counterparts.
Yes, you are right I have both. XP12 is study level and I have used it for my ppl training. MSFS is great for graphics but I have 13 pereferials only 8 work in MSFS and I have to buy FSUIPC just to get 10 to work. XP12 all worked right out of the box. I have a 270d view with XP12, 6 1080p monitors and XP12 on two units w/o having to buy a additional license, an avg 75 fps. If I use MSFS on other machines I have to buy another license. If I use other monitors on one machine by opening windows my fps drops.When MSFS gets to XP12 study level then they will blow the doors off another other. But for now I have to use both one for real life IFR/PPL training brush up and the other for graphics VFR viewing..🥰😇
@@Chorizo727 This is such a troll and a huge ass lie. MSFS is great for flying and looking good but for flight realism oh hell no. The latest MSFS is not FAA approved X-plane and others are. saying "Real pilots use MSFS over xplane" is a god damn joke. If you got your pilots license and Airbus certification by using MSFS for the flight sim part, well who ever passed you should be fired and you shouldn't be fly anything. EDIT: Yes MSFS was at one point FAA approved the latest version is not. They went more arcade and nice looking graphics over flight realism. And there is nothing wrong with that. MSFS is amazing but it's a game and not designed to be used as a training tool.
Hi Yell. Really good comparison video, and thank you for that. I am totally with you when it comes to MSFS and the details and immersion coming into unknown areas or airports. The details differ and are very much worked on which brings global flying so much more fun. I also agree on the repetitive ground patterns we see in X-plane with the buildings and jagged roads which is the main reason I'm flying MSFS and not X12. For me the outside of the airplane is as important as the inside. Cheers.
I use XP 11 and 12 only. Toliss Airbusses, Flight Factor, Zibo, Hotstart, IXEG, Inibuilds, Rotate. Physics feel so much better. The whole appearance of MSFS reminds me of an Arcade or Lego game. Of course, Orthos and Simheaven are a must-have in X-Plane, otherwise it is ugly. To be honest, I use MSFS only for the Cessna 172 and Sightseeing.
I'm using XP11/12 mainly because of the aircraft add ons. There are so many extremly good ones like the Hot Start TBM and CL65 or the free zibomod 737 (which you didnt talk about in the video?) etc. Apart from that the camera system is much more intuativ in XP and the replay mode way better. However for new guys I would recommend MSFS for the reasons you have mentioned.
As a MS User who is very beginner like: very good opinion. I do love the stuff for graphics and a little bit for realism (i don't use all these systems more advanced simmers do). BUT THE LAST VIDEO I JUST WATCHED WAS EXACTLY ABOUT THAT LOUSY NON EXISTENT REPLAY MODE. ( I learned, my landing can't be replayed, i should have recorded it before, now i can't check my landing anymore. But smarter for next time.). Also, camera System is awkward yeah. Wonder how that is in XP.
"For new guys" . As a fsx veteran, I find this laughable. The fact that x plane is easy to use should the reason why beginners should start with x plane and not with msfs.
I really liked the point you made at the start. I have not played XP12 so I wouldn't presume to critique it from a technical flight model point of view but I know the feelings you were describing, wanting to explore and wanting to know what different weather events look like in different places because done well it is inspiring. I am lucky enough to live somewhere beautiful and even though I see it every day, the weather, the suns position and the time of year make it a revolving canvas and MSFS comes so close to replicating that for the whole world. It makes me think that in what Asobo have created they have really produced a major technological asset and I wonder what commercial value it has for other developers of other genres of software, everything from tactical warfare, driving, ships, it is a footprint than many games would be proud to use. I do reccomend other users look at some of the addons that introduce more purpose into msfs, not least because your mind will only take you to the places you know about whereas often the career addons will take you to places and let you see things you didn't know existed.
It's not Xplane12, it's pretty much xplane11.2 Cause xplane11 still shits all over this. And you people are paying for it. Paying for something that already exists. Xplane11.
Thnx for the comparison. That's what I was looking for without needing to buy XP12. I'll clearly stick with my fenix and a wonderful stable running msfs. It honestly became really usable in the past months. Also in VR.
As someone who solely flies on VATSIM, the main issue preventing me from switching from X-Plane to MSFS is the lack of high quality vanilla airports. Much like you mentioned, I don't want my list of destinations to be limited by how many payware sceneries I can afford. Second on the list is the lack of long range aircraft, especially long range Airbuses. I pray to god that Fenix develops a A350, A340 or A330 next, in that order. Lastly, it's a real shame that MSFS has such beautiful and varied weather, yet no properly implemented weather radar.
And X-plane airports are more detailed?? Most are garbage from what I see. MSFS can look good even at a little grass strip. Try that in X-plane. ha ha.
@@EncounterTC Yes. They might not have as many polygons, but they are much more accurate in X-Plane than in MSFS 2020. If you try to fly realistically in an online environment like VATSIM you need taxiways and gates to have the correct names and locations that they have in real life charts. X-Plane has a system where users can create their own freeware airports and send it to the developers, and if it is of good quality it is included in vanilla X-Plane. I know Asobo is working on a system like that, but it is not available yet. This means that in X-Plane, even a lot of small, obscure airports have been modeled by a human rather than an AI and are therefore very, very accurate. In MSFS 2020, a lot of bigger airports, without even mentioning smaller ones, are incorrectly modeled and therefore unusable for realistic flying unless you want to dish out money for a payware.
@@destroystheovik Thanks, you just answered a question for me, why it is that people are so concerned with airports in a sim and why there are so many available for purchase - flying is easy, taking off and landing is where the rubber meets the road in flying, ha ha, and of course you want the airport to be much as it is in real life, much more so than a city skyline, for example.
I actually also do it for pre flight or route practice purpose, practice landings on different conditions, practice possible aircraft failtures and i use xplane bc i find its physics and insturments more accurate. The garmin 1000 insturments usage Is different than the real thing in msfs. Xplane does everything by the book its better for accuracy but msfs is better for having fun and travelling around. And while comparing theese two we shouldnt ignore the fact that msfs is just a game while xplane is not only a game but also a simulation software that is being used in training simulators
Agree on the missing 319 in MSFS, however in the last couple of months two mods have popped up bringing mainly the whole FBW functionality to both the LVFR 319 and 321. This is changing the way those planes are behaving while keeping the bells and whistles of their models. Just have a look at Horizon mod and you will be probably fine until Fenix comes up with their variants.
I can't give up xplane over msfs. Default airport environment is more immersive, custom joystick profiles per aircraft is more powerful, camera system is superior with flybys and has more opportunity for better soundscape from the aircraft, ground handling is more accurate. Oh did I mention that airports are better,? Start she's stop of flight is just as important and plays a huge part in immersion.
Yeah man same , This guy mentioned that the graphics dont make or break the game for him ,and he got seduced by them so bad that forgot that Xplane's physics is much superior than in MSFS ,and for sure there are a ton of stuff which makes X-plane faaaaar superior than MSFS He mentioned that there are those same buildings everywhere in X-plane ,and he doesn't know that an Addon for Satellite scenery is already out there for X-plane. So basically it's his fault that he doesn't know bout this stuff coz he is mentally more of a gamer than a Flight simmer ,so MSFS's poor & Cartoony physics look more appealing to him lol
Agree with every word you're saying. There is so much more you can do with XPlane 11/12. I can't think of anything you can't customise, with literally hundreds of options at your fingertips. The many, many, menu interfaces are fantastic - everything is so intuitive. The flight dynamics and physicality's are superior to every other flight sim. And I absolutely LOVE the camera system with XPlane - and with Xcamera added it's all second to none. And then you've got replay, which is essential, surely! MSFS (which I do own on PC and Xbox) has got all the bells and whistles but, probably my biggest gripe IS that dreadful, clunky, camera interface...and NO proper, intuitive replay! I rest my case...for now.😃
As an actual pilot I prefer Plane. Much more configurable through menus, more realistic aerodynamics That’s BIG for me. Actually love XPlane weather, approaches to minimums, hand flying.
A big thing I noticed when comparing the Zibo 737 with the PDMG 737 for msfs, is that the Zibo handling is so much nicer and predictable. For the life of me, I never seem to be able to let the PDMG fly stable for longer than 30 seconds, trim it properly etc, I feel like I am constantly fighting the plane., it is just so wobbly and floaty all the time, the Zibo on the other does what I want it to, it reacts logically and predictably to my throttle inputs and Yoke movements. I have more experience in DCS, and the same thing applies there, the handling seems so more natural than in MSFS, although vastly different aircrafts... With Ortho and some other free add ons Xplane does not look terrible as well. If it develops further I see myself swithcing to Xplane 12 in the future.
Played XP and MSFS, both in 500+ hours. I can say the big reason why I still play XP is the flight model and control feels much better and direct. MSFS has a weird smoothing like feeling and takes away a bit of the fun. The camera system and replay system in XP is much intuitive and better, no argument needed.
Spot-On comparison! I tried to like XP12, and use both... I gave up eventually and MFS is now my one and only civil flightsim. I use IL-2 GB for teh excellent WW2 flight dynamics.
Retired RW pilot and instructor . 20 yrs with XP and 3 years with MFS. IMO, XP 12 and MFS are both brilliant, but infants with dirty diapers. In other words, both are pretty stinky at times, but in different areas. It really depends on what you fly, where you fly, and why you fly. I use Air Manager with 2 touchscreens so No mice in my cockpit. I fly VATSIM/Pilotedge and use RW STARS, SIDS, APPR. I am into Corporates and training in GA 172, DA62 twin, CirrusSR22. The MFS Longitude with WT G5000 is excellent, amazing really, works beautifully on my 4090 with 3x32" LG nano mons and 2 ASUS touchscreens. The perf is great on ULTRA. Scenery beautiful, but alas, I get constant Connection Lost errors in flight, even on flights I do over and over KLAX-KLAS. MFS internet dependency sucks. The offline modes are worse than XP. Their servers are flaky, IMO. I have no problem with my internet. 100% fiber and fast. They try to blame the user, but I have no problem with internet on anything except MFS. Usually over same areas of flight. Well, MFS 2024 just announced. Seems like XBOX Role playing fantasy gamer stuff might be their new focus, which has no appeal to RW pilots, VATSIM flyers etc. Time will tell. There is an economic opportunity cost to every direction a company takes. Hey, how bout a Microsoft Flight Sim PRO version? FAA approved BAATD etc. XP 12 has improved since last visit 3 mos ago. Perf is better in 1440p with 3 monitors and 2 touch. Needs lots of improvement here. No TAA or DLSS. Vulcan needs vast improvement to compete, but I think they will eventually. The new Macs are supposed to be getting great perf with 3 monitors in 1440 p. XP still has better and more mature aircraft, especially lower perf GA aircraft. Fly the DA62 in MFS and the Aerobask DA62 in XP12 for a good comparison. Aerobask=polished, MFS DA62=V1.0. The Cirrus in MFS is crap. In XP12 you have AFL172 study level or X-aviation CirrusSR22 study. No comparison. One can buy ortho scenery packs to make XP look much better, but still not as good as enviro, clouds, rain, in MFS. But acceptable IMO. In XP12, The silly looking mirror-like puddles all in a row on short final, got ta go. Austin I am talking to you!! Ha!! Do you want people to call XP "Puddles12"? Unless they plant corn in between rows of puddles. Ha XP has far superior and accurate ceilings for VATSIM ILS TDZE with RVR (no RVR system in MFS), and rabbit lights that you can't see from 20 miles (like laughable mfs). Much better Taxiway markings/signage in XP, but basically depends on DEV in MFS. XP12 has no annoying, ever-present, ramp jockeys waiting to park my 172 on some airport in the middle of nowhwere, like MFS. LOL Note Aerobask has Falcon 8 for XP12 out soon. Could be a big game changer. Has Honeywell touchscreen avionics which should work well, I hope, with Air Manager, eventually. The future is touchscreens, Clearly XP12 needs a stock, multi-aircraft G3000/5000, similar to XP multi-aircraft G1000. They will never compete if they don't get busy on this. WT G5000 is near perfect in MFS. Yeah, I wrote a book, and I could go on and on Please comment on things you like or dislike about both MFS and XP12. Please only make comparisons of which one is better if you use both extensively. Good Luck Visit my free website to see pictures of my DIY mobile simpit system. No reg necessary. AviationKnowledge org I welcome all opinions.
Msfs is very impressive, no doubt, I have both, I've been flying for 7 years in the real world, grounded pilot for 3 years, (hopefully I'll get back to the real cockpit soon) so that I have plenty of time to fly in my home cockpit... I won't say more than after each flight in Xplane 12 my brain, my memories of real flight experiences seem to match with XP12 more than MSFS (MSFS that I really like for many reasons by the way) However in terms of feeling/sensation of flying, imo I do really feel that Xplane 12 still offers me the immersion of flying, just the inertia of the birds makes the difference, the four essential forces as lift, drag, trust, weight are still way better than in MSFS so far... Knowing that MSFS has a huge potential to develop in this area for sure. I love flying VFR in MSFS especially with the study Milviz C310 for instance, also the turbulence due to buildings, reliefs, mountains in MSFS are much more realistic than in XP which doesn't really deal with that important feature so far... On the other side flying a MSFS C152 in TS (Thunderstorm) without no convective, no severe up/downdraft, without any kind of danger in bad weather conditions is totally unrealistic in MSFS, it doesn't give to users a real picture of the "danger in the sky" in the real life. Indeed, you really don't want to fly a PA28 or any light bird in dark CB for safety matters, XP11/12 recalls you how flying even a A330 in TS could be lethal, period! I know that msfs devs are working to implement realism in Real Weather, the weather is one the cornerstone in Aviation which we learn at the very first flight lessons in PPL (Private Pilot Licence)... My temporary conclusion is that Xplane still give me the best sensation of flying more than msfs despite the big time immersion that msfs provides in terms of visual aspects... Anyway all of this is enough for me to make that statement which could change "tomorrow" based on new msfs updates! Nice video by the way, fly safe!
I don't think that X-Plane is focusing for Graphics, but rather in the simulation. XP is a training tool but MSFS is... completely another thing, right
Yeah, you can see that from their inception. X-plane started off as a program to help with IFR procedure trainins so it has always been more concerned with simulation over looks. MSFS started as a game to showcase hardware, so visuals have been more the focus. MSFS enthusiasts will claim that Asobo has changed the game by using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) which is a definite improvement for the realistics of the game. But, whether it actually improves MSFS to have better similation is questionable. First, CFD requires more processing power than Blade Element Theory (what X-Plane has used as the basis for its simulator for a while) so while CFD can be more accurate than BET that depends on the resolution that both simulators run at. Second, while it is true that X-Plane uses BET at its core, it has diagnostics that indicate that isn't only thing being used for simulation and there are CFD-like elements. Meanwhile, X-Plane is definitely lagging behind MSFS in the visual department which really makes a difference for VFR flight. Austin Meyers (X-plane creator and CEO of Laminar Research) basically is being dragged, kicking and screaming, toward more visual improvements in X-Plane due to people seeing what Asobo has accomplished. He has made some statements that he will look into streaming terrain (but we will see how much pressure it takes for him to actually do it). The end result is, if you care more about flight procedures and training and less about visuals then X-plane is a good choice. If you are more VFR oriented or want to just enjoy flying different craft then MSFS is probably the better bet. Both have their own niches right now which likely won't change no matter how much each of them take on aspects of the other.
@@Tsudico Exactly! This comparison needs to stop. X-Plane is an FAA approved flight simulator solution. Indeed MSFS is very console game oriented. I don't think that this thing will ever be serious and approved to be used for academies. MSFS on PC, should actually dismiss all this XBox Game look and feel too. Now, is really the goal of Asobo to gamify flight simulation? I hope this will change someday for the PC world, but until then, I completely stopped using MSFS... I'm not into gaming in general, I love and value simulation seriosity. It is just quite frustrating to see that wrong perspectives (gaming perspectives) affect the serious FS community. The reason why I prefer XP (even Prepar3D!) over MSFS is that their are not in the game card. We should let the gaming world for general gamers, while us, we care about the simulation's advancement. They need to understand that XP is no way a game to be even compared with that MSFS Xbox Flight "Simulator".
@@vasiliosgrekousis8192 couldn't agree more. The guy making the videos comes across really well but the concept of this one is flawed. I've got quite a strong opinion having flown real planes more than once which handles (significantly) better but no point in declaring here. Austin isn't worried about how much brown ground is visible, it's really not what a pilot is focusing on either when taking off or landing......if after an emotional ride then sure....one can just use Google earth to see how places look if they need to. Do the multimillion simulators at Boeing or Airbus contain amazing graphics? No of course not, they're pretty rubbish. UI when it comes to setting up multiple peripherals and customisation (I'd put those way above graphics when it came to a simulator) is also dire in one of these pieces of software...
@tomcollingwood5300 exactly, when flying a jet at high altitudes, do you really care how the ground looks? It's the real simulation thats important .P3d and xplane are certified for flight training and still in use today in many full motion simulation. Msfs , I have it too, will always be a game..
As someone who flew various aircraft, and both of those sims (as well as DCS) I'm gonna say, there's a big reason i have 3 Sims and fly them all. To say which is best is extremely subjective. Those looking purely for graphics, realism or action, are gonna give 3 different answers, but each is great in their own right.
Msfs look beautiful on daytime. But Xplane12 is ahead of msfs when you fly at night. The light looks som good in Xplane 12. I like both sims in different ways
Night flying is the only flying to do in XP12 - the scenery is so ugly, you won't want to see it at daytime! 😁 I say that as a long term XP user. XP11 was my main (and only) sim for about 6 years, til MSFS came out. But I am so disappointed in the lack of progreaa that XP12 represented. The worse thing about XP12 is that it still has antialiasing technology from 15 years ago. No TAA. No DLSS. Jsut resource-hungry MS and SS, that still result in awful jagged textures. XP was never going to win on ground details, but if they had implemented modern, efficient AA/AF, the gap could have been a lot smaller than it is.
Don't forget to mention those roads. All of the ortho magic in the world isn't going to fix those horrible roads. Too straight and crisp, not natural at all. That is why I choose to fly XP at night or in bad weather. I don't want to have to look at the ground scenery. MSFS looks good, really good in fact, not going to lie, but it lacks that feeling of flight and moving air. I left XP10 behind long ago, but after two + years of the MSFS flight dynamics and terrible ground handling , I've updated to XP12 for mostly IFR and I'm sticker shocked at the add on prices and unfortunately, it seems we need an add on for nearly everything to make it look or function better visually. The X-Plane ecosystem is not doing itself any favors when it comes to future growth and market share. I would argue it is going backwards and losing users which is too bad because it is hands down the better flight model, but the dismal graphics, ancient rendering technology and high costs are not helping their cause a bit. Austin needs to abandon that whole "Plausible World" nonsense and get with the times. Streaming high res ortho and photogrammetry is the only path forward.@@droge192
A330 does not have 737 fmc (speaking about clichés), it's actually the default XP FMC (and the old one at it). It would be absolutely fantastic to have the 737 FMC, at least that's something I know very well and is not so limited as the default one. The skin is very similar to a 737 FMC (maybe the FMS 2584/A1) but functionally? Nowhere near. About weather, yes I do enjoy Avatar clouds in MSFS but I don't mind the more "real" ones in XP. Besides, live weather is touch and go in both sims. Night flying is the same with the notable better experience in XP (I usually do night ops cargo flights). Ground in airliners? Meh, don't care. VFR, no contest (provided you have the decent aka bought airplanes in MSFS) here. Framerate is almost the same for me but is a bit slow in FBW compared with Zibo (just to compare two of the best free addons). Sounds basically the same for default planes (aka shit) with the notable exception of the A330 in XP which I find very good. My specs Ryzen 7 5900X, NV3080TI, 32GB RAM. I play both in 4K. I'd say both will stay on my drives but boy oh boy, installation of MSFS is all over my computer unlike the neat XP one folder hierarchy. I despise MS for this.
From my POV (and the POV of some real Airbus pilots that tested both addons), Toliss still kills Fenix in terms of systems and flight model/envelopes. I mean, Fenix still doesn't have custom engine power envelopes for CFM. IAE is not even included with the Fenix. Not going even to mention that Fenix kills the FPS pretty hard, while Toliss is really light on performance, so I can fly in native 72fps in VR, while in MSFS I struggle to fly even at 36fps with Fenix. Yes, you can do flights from A to B pretty nicely in Fenix, but for me the addon is more a demonstration how to properly do 3D model, textures, EFB, and audio for the addon, than the actual simulation of the systems.
"Yes, you can do flights from A to B pretty nicely in Fenix, but for me the addon is more a demonstration how to properly do 3D model, textures, EFB, and audio for the addon, than the actual simulation of the systems" this is then actually your opinion than for some of real airbus pilots the fenix is the asbolut best for a representive airbus experience in a desktop simulator
@@peter-mv5gk well, I was talking to a couple of real world A319/320 pilots, and they don't agree. I could even introduce one here to join the discussion, but not sure he has RUclips account.
@@Pe11ePD no i believe you (: but like i said...your comment that you can just do flights from a to b and thats what the fenix is good for but not more (kind of) is even by real airbus pilots seen completely different..that why its pretty much your own assumption but not an actual factual
Very smart commentary. I never went back to MS Flight Sim 2020 after trying DCS World 2 years ago. The lack of damage model in MS Flight Sim kills the immersion. Why bother looking right and left when taxing to the runway when you go straight through other planes and vehicles. In DCS World, you can bend the tire, pop the tire, have all kinds of damages and this makes all the difference when it comes to immersion and adrenaline. I just enjoy flying in DCS World. MS Flight Sim seems like a glorified Google Earth Simulator. MS 2024, they added character creation. This is where their priorities are now In DCS World, I messed up my landing in Mirage M2000C and I could not drop my external fuel tank after refueling and taking off. This is cool!
You also should add the TU154 to the list of freeware aircraft for XP. The developer, Felis, recently gifted it to the community after it has been a good payware product. Of you like the retro soviel style, it might eben be better than the Zibo 737. Not a known plane though, I want to spread some interest into the addon
Unfortunately, the Tu-154 is completely broken in X-plane 12. I tried to update it myself for XP12, but there were several things I couldn't get working properly. It's a fantastic aircraft in XP-11 though.
Also, when you mentioned that flying airplanes in XP12 seems easier because they are more responsive, means it's way more closer to the real world behavior. Most of the real world pilots will tell you straight away that real airplanes are easier to fly, do to direct control, linear sensitivity, infinite resolution on the flight stick/yoke, seat of pants feel, etc, and actually X-Plane 11/12 can mimic that thought the physics/flight model. I still didn't experienced that in MSFS, as of yet, maybe, just maybe 20% in PMDG 737. Still way off.
I tried using MSFS but I keep going back to X-Plane. The flight dynamics and ground handling are unmatched, even though MSFS looks better and has better performance.
May be because XP is more a game than a simulator actually and that's why you find it easier. That bullshit about dynamics as to come to an end. It's just perot speak from people who doesn't fly in real. Frankly I don't use XP but I'm a pilot in real life so I can confirm that all the narrative about unreal flight dynamics in MSFS is just bullshit from XP lovers.
There is a reason why X-Plane is FAA certified, and not MSFS. I think since MSFS got realeased everyone got the "graphics virus", where looks are more important than the realism. Things that for example doesn't get told is that X-plane for example also simulates wake turbulence or even runway conditions that can change the landings drastically. I think MSFS is great for VFR flying. But looking specifically at IFR, I would always choose X-Plane or even P3D.
@@angelodominique9253 1st, I don't have a lot of time to fly in real life I am planning to do it sometime in the future. 2nd thing, simulators are so much more than just a program, it's just a shame how MSFS is portraying aviation. Asobo only cares about the amount of money they make. When you look at for example Laminar Research or Lockheed Martin they care about the experience and the amount of knowledge you can apply in the simulator. I really don't care if people play a game such as MSFS, but don't tell me it's "realistic".
@angelodominique9253 why, why can't people have a different opinion from you? Simulators are training augmentation softwares. And as such any pilot or aviation enthusiast will tell you that xplane is just so much better, plus flying a real plane costs a lot more than simulating realistic flight in a home sim or on a flight training device. Xplane is certified for FAA approved training, and that's a bigger draw for a lot of people who use these things the way that they were meant to be used.
And I still fly p3d today v5 3. And xp12 too. Msfs flies like a toy and looks too barbielike. You're right, everyone goes gaga over graphics but my main focus on a sim are accurate airliner flight dynamics and real world procedure. Xp12 and p3d hits it every time in that area. I use airliner flights xp12 and p3d, msfs for vfr, casual flying. I have most of the jet addons on msfs, 737, fenix, fbw etc, but now they collect dust!!
That's because eye candy to a novice is sugar to a baby. BUT, to those who actually fly, and understand the difference between realistic flight dynamics and physics, and cartoonish crap, XP12 is unbeatable. Plus XP12 works with VR, MSFS does NOT. XP12 allows you to design your own plane and test it, MSFS does NOT. XP12 is approved for professional flight training, MSFS is NOT!!! There is really very little in MSFS OTHER than the eye candy. All toddlers love shiny colorful things...
@@AquaStevae Lol. I’ve been simming since fs2004 btw. Definitely agree that xplane has the better physics, and Laminar is definitely improving the visuals, but damn does MSFS look nice. Also has a growing selection of high fidelity add on aircraft.
Xplane actually feels much more natural in terms of Lighting. Lighting and sky colors are more realistically depicted and interact accordingly. You know when it's winter and you know it's summer by the lighting which oddly enough I dont feel is right in MSFS yes
I’m currently in the interim running XP 11 and 12 on a 24” iMac M1 with only 8gb, but rarely have an issue with running out of FR. The only complaint I have with XP 12 vs 11, is that most all the cockpits are really dark…to the point even with lights maxed out gauges are difficult to see due to darkness!
im using toliss a321 neo in 12 and no dark problems. ill have a spot in an airport but i can turn the lights on or turn up light brightness and problems solved. running at 1440p
It's hard to replicate the feeling of actual fight in any simulator, but I also believe X-Plane has a HUGE upper hand in flight model and first and third party systems simulation. I always feel more accomplished after an X-Plane flight and find myself employing my real world "flying brain" a lot more in X-Plane than in Microsoft Flight Sim. For casual simmers who want graphical fidelity and a decently modeled tubeliner in a sim (me a lot of the time) Microsoft Flight Sim is the obvious winner. Your mileage may vary. I wouldn't resort to declaring one sim better than the other.
For VRAM, the industry standard nowadays is 12GB (nvidia love 8GB for some reason, when even at 1080p Ultra some games exceed 8GB), and I would consider 16GB more futureproof.
I don't have either, but just the FSX, so my opinion is based on videos. It seems to me FS focuses more on the environment visuals than the aircraft dynamics. The focus should be the plane, and that's what x-Plane seems to do. I don't know if the head movement during the touchdown and brusque movements is a matter of settings, but x-Plane does it right when it locks your head to the plane's movement. Although the independent movement seems more modern, it doesn't make sense to simulate that when your head (and your body) is not actually feeling the gravitational forces. It makes no sense. Something else I noticed x-Plane seems to do better (because it focus on somulating the plane, not the scenery) is the sinking and bouncing when the plane lands. I don't know if that's a matter of setting either, but it looks so poorly simulated on FS. On some videos, a plane touching the ground looks like a toy. There's no feeling of heaviness, of weight.
@rchrd_sn You're absolutely correct about MSFS being more centered around entertainment/console customers. I fly general aviation in real life and can say there are so many things about Microsoft/Asobo's flight modeling that are way too simplified and truly irk me. Landing and takeoff is especially simplified and almost arcade like at times. Payware add-ons are significantly better than the default planes but tend to have their own quirks. X-Plane, while not as pretty, is more true to life in these regards. The developers of X-Plane are heavily involved in real world aviation and it shows when you dig in to what the physics engine is doing behind the scenes. I wonder how many of the Asobo developers have actually been behind the controls of a real aircraft before. All that said, I do enjoy loading up a MSFS flight and flying VFR around to see the gorgeous scenery. It's just a shame we can't have both worlds at the same time.
Very good review. Xplane is for simmers, and it wins at sim and content around it. FS2023 has what gamers need with a fair amount of SIM,ca step up to xplanes.
Because it's better. ONLY the eye candy in MSFS is better. They spent all that money, time and energy developing the ground textures, and totally forgot or didnt' care about the most important thing in a flight simulator, the actual flying.
I feel like Microsoft has put the focus on looks and not on realism. As someone with real GA pilot experience I prefer the "feel" of X-Plane over MSFS especially when it comes to ground handling. I think the Xbox console optimization had a big impact on realism as MSFS doesn't feel right in many instances. Neither can truly replicate the feel of an actual aircraft since there is no feedback or motion but the pressure required "feels" more accurate to me. The MSFS base airports are also garbage, especially at night. Most look nice for day flights but terrible at night. Another example is an airport like Denver (KDEN). The airport is known for its terminal that is has it's telltale peaks yet the base version of MSFS lacks that important detail. My last issue with MSFS is the accuracy of avionics such as the G1000. It's impossible to use for realistic IFR practice. X plane on the other hand is much more accurate and is actually useful for IFR practice. For looks MSFS generally comes out on top except for those airport issues / night time. For true simulator functionality X Plane is better.
Everyone has preferences but for me I planned to use MSFS and Xplane, but Xplane quickly got no use so it got uninstalled and now I only use MSFS. I personally find it a huge step up
I think performance is a main factor for me in these games, not forgetting realism! MSFS has a known bug that keeps telling your that you have low bandwidth. Annoying when you're trying to land and you get jitter! They're currently trying to fix it! I was disappointed that not many people had good to say about the FS B787! My favourite airliners on there are PMDG's 737 and FBM A320. Camptain Sim's 777-300er which is my favourite plane in real-life is disappointingly attrocious! It is just the default 747 with a beautiful 777 skin!
I'm a bit puzzled about the aircraft part on here when it comes to compare the vanilla airliners. I don't think that all default aircraft within MSFS are actually "bad", it's just the airliners released with the sim which are ;) Take the TBM 930 into account, especially with the G3000 avionics update coming now it's going to be really a good aircraft as well as the Premium Deluxe Longitude and the CJ4 which receive the same love right now. Also don't forget about the small aircraft like the C172 which already has an overhauled G1000 natively and the DHC-2 Beaver which is also great to fly. XP12 for sure has an impressive amount of aircraft but just a hand full is both visually and technically detailed enough - talking for the 737 for example there is a reason Zibo Mod exists like the FlyByWire mod on MSFS ;) However what actually IS better on XP when it comes to systems is failures - you can configure basically every failure you can imagine and on top you got hypoxia and smoke in cockpit simulation. That is currently lacking on MSFS but I think it will get there at some point. For the flight behavior I was able to get into a full motion A320 simulator at Lufthansa Training and compared it 1 on 1 with the FBW A320 - on my setup the flight behavior felt pretty close to the full motion version when it comes to roll rates and responsiveness. The A320 Neo ofc has more power so I won't compare that directly ;) When it comes to XP keep in mind that your hardware configuration might be interpreted different so you'd have to deal with the sensitivity settings/curves here to draw a conclusion between the Fenix and the Toliss. In the end both sims are desktop simulators which act close to each as both share a similar way to simulate flight (application of forces to millions of surface points technically). A plus on MSFS for me is that wind and thermals are actually simulated dynamically and interpreted from real world data (like updrafts are generated by stored energy from sunlight on dark surfaces and wind is deflected by both hills and clouds). On XP, while lacking this, more different surfaces are possible on aircraft - MSFS is limited to a basic aircraft design logically (fuselage + wings + horizontal stabilizers + vertical stabilizer = not even biplanes) while on XP you are, as a designer, not limited here (Rutan Boomerang? Fokker DR1? Yeah, go ahead!). This affects stall behavior but does only play a minor role in flying from A to B. So, which one is better? Both are in their own field ;) Some of the issues you pointed out on MSFS will be fixed down the road, like airport lighting (I got some information that the way lights are currently simulated will anyway be different in future, so maybe they wait for a bigger overhaul [cough, RTX, cough]). Also the "Aircraft and Avionics Updates" will take care about the default aircrafts issues and limitations. XP however will be better for experimental designed aircraft and won't care much about impressing with stunning visuals. The goal here is to provide especially compatibility between many different systems like MacOS, Linux and Windows. Microsoft obviously does not care about that :)
Yeah I basically mean airliners. I say that once but only very briefly. Love the MSFS TBM. My favorite "non-airliner". Used to do island hopping in that. This was about the most fun I had in any sim 😁
DFD is working on an a350 (freeware, same level of detail as FBW) currently development is a bit slow as many DFD devs are part of the FBWA380 team as well. They hope and plan to migrate a lot of the systems they create for the a 380 to the a350. Bluebird are working on a 757 and a 767. The 757 is (according to their about section on their website) due to release mid 2023 published by JustSim. The 767 as I understood is still pretty early in its dev cycle, I assume, though, that there's a couple of systems they can recycle which should accelerate the process a little bit... All in all Boeing lovers really a bit screwed in msfs currently but there's great projects on the horizon. And Airbus lovers have genuinely hit the jackpot. a fantastic payware a320ceo (with afaik the 19 and 21 variant planned) a really good freeware a320 neo and in the future brilliant a350s and a380s. (As an A333 lover I miss that as I would love to see a good FBW-level a333 but there's time and once the a320 and a380 by FBW are good, who knows what their path holds in store for us.
That sounds awesome. There is an A339 from Headwind and afaik Aerosofts A333 release is around the corner. msfsaddons.com/2023/04/13/aerosofts-a330-for-msfs-nearing-completion-release-likely-this-summer/
@@yellscreen3697 hm, we'll see about the aerosoft one.... I'm always careful when companies value a deadline over the state of their product. Aerosoft publishes great scenery and i think no-one expects study level (let's just use pmdg as a comparison, fenix with the prosim under the hood wouldn't be fair). The CRJ they did (haven't tried it) wasn't exactly praised for the highest attention to detail but it wasn't shamed to death either. I hope there's not going to be too many inop buttons and the mcdu to be working well, meaning supporting a full and detailed difsrip and fixinfo. As for the headwinds. yes, but I'm not a fan of the cockpit. I know the cockpit of the a33 and a32 are incredibly similar but there are some vast differences and I wouldn't feel like being in an a33 with the a32 cockpit^^ (I'm a bit weird like that :P) Naja man wird sehen. Denke mal FBW mit der A320 Erfahrung wäre schon n ziemlich guter Kandidat für nen klassischen a332/a333, da wäre das zeitintensivste dann sicher das 3dModeln^^
If Xplane had more (flyable) widebodies available I wouldn’t even look at other sims but sadly it doesn’t. The FF777 may change that for me however. I just can’t get over flying a plane that doesn’t respond as irl, that’s what it’s all about for me, therefore I don’t use MSFS.
XP11 user here, mostly flying the IXEG 733. Tried the A2A Comanche in MSFS and it is good, but the flight dynamics and landing physics leave me cold and numb, the sun feels dead and scripted compared to something like the SF260 in XP. That’s thing is alive and is a joy to fly and land. MSFS is strange, the aircraft have no mass or inertia. Bank left and right on attach and the millisecond you center the yoke, the back abruptly stops! Just doesn’t feel right. Had a few landings in the Comanche where I had a small bank and side slip and the aircraft doesn’t react, it just lands and rolls, where as in the SF260 you need to fly it all the time. MSFS is numb regarding feel.
I noticed the higher frames in XPlane 12 vs. MSFS. I suspect the processor makes the difference in XPlane 12. I can't even see 35 fps in XPlane 12 with a 3090ti and probably because the 10900k is the bottleneck. Would you agree?
Did not notice a high CPU load. Maybe an issue with the settings. Watch the LAX - SFO flight. I talk about the settings briefly and about anti-aliasing being an fps-killer. ruclips.net/video/jj76N62pv3U/видео.html
Xplane is classically cpu bound by mostly 1 core. It's runnung a the simulation in the background and that's hard to break up into multiple threads. You want high single core clock speeds for it.
I think the commonly overlooked item in ground textures is that you eventually download all those gigabyte of tiles to get the immersion of detail. I downloaded orthophotos once and get nearly the same realism for free in X-Plane.
I guess the real point here is you actually have to do that in advance of your flight - you cannot just hop to some region and start right away exploring in VFR like in MSFS in the same session. I also think that's a real downside of XP and they could have mitigated that by providing at least some API allowing streaming from a map source (like ArcGIS at least) from third party tools.
I used to hear from "real world pilots" on youtube that XPlane 11 had a very realistic flight model, but since 12 came I encountered some 'real; world pilots' saying it was garbage and totally unrealistic especially when you have a weather situation. I noticed that myself as well, XPlane 12 feels very "Arcady", plus the RTX 4090 performs like a GTX 870, so many issues I kinda want to ask for a refund, I hate wasting my money on trash!
X-Plane 11 still flies much more like Real World at this point than XP12. Xp12 has some issues somewhere. My XP11 setup looks WAY better than XP12 with the same add-ons and I get better FPS. :-)
@@EncounterTC Xplane12 is a total piece of shit. I saw real Airbus pilot simulate flight in tollis a320 and get real mad with how unrealistic the flight model was in hight altitude and a bit of wind
@@EncounterTC xplane 12 base more realistic flight model lol. Austrian said they where upgrading flight model especially for sea planes. Xplane is no longer getting updated anymore so I’m not sure what your talking about
The thing that's oftentimes not discussed enough in these comparison videos is flight modeling. While MSFS is very pretty, it doesn't hold a candle to X-Plane's physics. You immediately feel this when rolling down the runway. Planes feel like they're actually machines barreling down a runway on a less than perfect runway surface and this dynamism continues once you're in the air. DCS is also another absolutely fantastic sim that's gotten flight modeling down but, since it's more of a niche combat simulator, not really comparable to MSFS/X-Plane. I fly GA in real life and will say that, hands down, X-Plane feels more true to life. In comparison, MSFS, while decent, still feels somewhat simplified and cold. The A2A Comanche feels correct but, this is Accusim at work, not the Microsoft/Asobo flight modeling. Microsoft's current sim iteration is leaps and bounds ahead of what FSX/P3D was, however, it's still somewhat of a pretty face with a hollow shell. Hopefully MSFS2024 will bring better flight modeling instead of just graphics improvements because this is what sells a flight sim for me. I want to feel all the things I feel when flying in real life.
@@lvvett1 I own several. While they are fantastic in their own right, they still have their own simplifications in flight modeling. None of them seem to handle the ground/air transitions correctly and only a few of them can even be trimmed for manual flight correctly. I'm no fan boy of either sim and own both of them with plenty of add on included. I just want something that actually behaves like the real thing. Neither are perfect but X-Plane just does a better job, even with default planes, of getting the flight behavior more true to life.
Both sims are beautiful in their own ways but my reservation remains on how both can’t seem to reproduce ground behaviour. I’ve sat in the front end of a four seater aircraft and taxiing felt miles different from what I experience on both sims. The sense of drag and full control of the nose wheel are total as against the sims.
LatinVFR they jumped on the MSFS hype train, produced some half baked sh*t. I wouldn't compare them to Captainsim, but it goes into the same direction...
A friend of mine (recently retired Virgin captain) flew the PMDG 737-700, the Piper Seneca and Cessna 414 Chancellor in MSFS and couldn’t believe how realistic the flight model is; he said he could train airline pilots using it. I agree that X Plane was the best flight sim (and I’ve used it) but I think as an all-round simulator, MSFS has taken the lead and the gap will widen given the huge amount of resource that Microsoft Asobo has. If X Plane want to compete they need to team up with Google to offer the same level of graphics that MSFS has.
I've never flown a commercial jet or anything like that, but I've flown some small GA planes so I can speak to that. Msfs really does a good job with the way the plane interacts with the environment. Wind, turbulence, etc. It really makes it feel alive and realistic. I've never flown another sim that comes close.
Exactly as a private pilot msfs very true to life. As I’m training the 320 I’d only chose the fslabs or Fenix. These are the most realistic 320s in the simming industry I’ve heard from 320 captains.
allocated vram doesn't mean you actually need that much vram you only need more vram if you start paging (manifests as stuttering and frame drops), if that doesn't happen you are fine these vram overlays have done a lot of damage to peoples perception of how much you actually need
Of you give XP12 the same time MSFS needed to develop itself, XP12 will have a lot of things improved, like the A330 FMC which was announced to get a rework.
Agree. You can't drop the fact that MSFS has taken its time to get where it is today in terms of performance and stability. Hard to tell which one has more potential in the long term in this aspect. It appears that Asobo's product has the edge in VFR flying for a long time. I could be wrong there given the tools and scenery we've seen for XP in the past. For IFR and ease of use, it appears to be that XP is just amazing with their one folder hierarchy, camera modes, replay functionality and potential planes coming over from XP11. FlyJSim, Zibo were all so great in XP11. Not to forget that a couple of essential historic aircraft like the TU-154, 727, 737-200 are available at a very high quality in XP11. All those little windows in MSFS are pretty bad to handle. That reminds me a lot of MS WIndows' problems. And they always say the same about it: "There is so much different hardware we have to work with and the bugs are such Heisenbugs." Be it MS Windows or MSFS. Microsoft seem to repeat themselves there all too often. After all I enjoy having competition.
Excuse-me is X-Plane 12 being done by a new team? Xplane is being developed for more than a decade and it does what it does and will do what it can do but your argument makes no sense, if anything Xplane has years of development ahead of MSFS, at least know what you talking about, Xplane lacks the billions and backing from Microsoft, not time inn development, you two sound like you don't even know Xplane 11, or 10, or 9, 8...
@@kylewhite2985 Dude, you should know what you are talking about. Xplane 12 is a new flight sim with a lot of things reworked. As such, they developed a whole NEW flight model and a new weather engine. This means, almost all of the points mentioned in the video relate to these renewed engines. And by the way, MSFS has it's roots at least in FSX, made in 2006.
@@Flexflex744 xplane 11 and xplane 12 are much much closer together in terms of core similarities as opposed to fsx and fs2020. Each version of xplane closely iterates on the previous, while fs2020 is a flight sim that came out 14 years after FSX and still, it has a lot of work that could be done to polish it further. @Kyle White is right.
One big difference nobody talks about (well 3 actually). Xplane 12 loads on my PC in 8 seconds. MSFS loads with (cut-down) addons in 8 minutes. If I load all my addons, it's over 20 minutes. Sometimes, after waiting for that long load, MSFS will crash even just on the World map. Xplane seems more stable. I have Xplane 11 loaded on my second (Linux) PC in another room. It also will work on my Mac too. Littlenavmap works on all 3 platforms, but MSFS of course only works on Windows. I get better more consistent frame-rate on Xplane.
All these "passengers" rating a flight sim. "OOH, LOOK! OVER EXPOSED GROUND FEATURES MAKE THIS THE BEST FLIGHT SIM EVER". Hardly. The physics involved, especially on an IFR flight is and has always been superior on XPLANE. I own both and dont even use MSFS for instrument practice. Signed, actual pilot.
I have both but prefer xp12 for IFR. MSFS is for vfr on virtual reality only but it's became extremely laggy after some windows 11 update. So at the moment is like 90% x plane
Unfortunately as a former X-Plane flyer converted to MSFS there is no comparison. X-Plane 12 on ultra is MSFS on low settings, the Fenix A320 and the PMDG 737 were the final two nails in the coffin.
It depends on where one derives satisfaction from. In my Opinion MSFS is an absolute joy whenever you have to look out of the window, but it looks awful around airports that are not at the centre of a city. MSFS makes some airports outside a city including countryside airports look like they're in some kind of a rural settlement, and unless it is a third-party airport, it kills the immersion for me. Xplane 12 makes airports look immersive with well-laid out roads and cars running on them.
Yes it's staggering how good vanilla airports in for X-Plane 12. In MSFS you need a ton of add-ons. In my last two videos I talked about how much I like this "busy" world of X-Plane 12.
Unfortunately XPlane 12 can not compare with the flying characteristics of XPlane 11. XPlane 11 is by far more accurate when used for flight training. And it doesn’t even come close to the visual immersion of MSFS 2020. I have a pretty robust system and I get around 27 fps in XPlane 12, around 50 in XPlane 11 and in MSFS 2020 around 39. I’m going to keep it on my system hoping that it gets better but for now for training I will continue to use XPlane 11 and for visual immersion MSFS 2020
I agree that the performance is better in MSFS because it is more optimised (remember how bad it was at the start?). For the other things i disagree. First where did you get that from that XP11 was better than XP12 for flight training? That’s BS since XP12’s flightmodel has been improved and even takes into account the temperature density, missing in XP11. And for visuals generall speaking no one will deny that MSFS looks overall better. But i really had a few situations where my XP12 looked better than MSFS, mostly because the lighting can be so extremely realistic and we see better the topography and trees in the distance. Try for example taking of from LIMC on RWY 35L/R at 8h30 in the morning. That looked absolutely amazing. The biggest downfall for me in MSFS is the lack of inertia and that clouds doesn’t impact your aircraft at all. You can literally fly into a hurricane and nothing will happen.
@@frankbyte In my previous post I was generalizing my thoughts based on my flight experience with both of the XPlane simulators. I will be somewhat more specific with the hopes that I hopefully clarify my comment. I owe a Cirrus SR 22 Gen 6 and mostly use XP 11 for IFR approaches using the Torquesim flight model and RealSimGear components. When utilizing XP11 the maneuvers of the plane feel much more realistic than with the XP12.
@@josec4790 Thanks for the explanations. That’s interesting. You should absolutely write to Austin because i think it’s the same plane he owns as well. I think he will be very interested about your findings. But i guess you have to describe where exactly it behaves less realistically in XP12, like engine performance, stall-behaviour etc.
Absolutely agree. On like-for-like settings, I get 60 FPS in XP11 and 22 FPS in XP12. XP12 is miserable! Terrible antialiasing too, from 15 years ago. no DLSS. No TAA. awful.
One thing to remember, MSFS 2020 was a total failure on release. It was buggy, even the patch system failed. It was slow, bad graphics (stuttering) and really unusable for the first year and then some after release.
That's true, but now they managed to deal with most issues, how updates are checked and everything else so it's gaining momentum and getting better, lots of things added, i think in 2 more year time frame or more it will definitely surpass x plane
I think about it this way, msfs is for people that don't give a damn about the difference between platforms pc/ps/mobile, only visual experience matters to them ..as for xplane or other in depth flight system simulation is for people fascinated about tech and how things work or perform in different scenarios .. if we add combat into scene, msfs is done !
You are wrong here, mfs have high fidelity aircraft's also, like fenix and pmdg, mfs shines in avionics and how everything together works, while x plane have better physics, so saying its only visual total nonsense.
In your video, the amount of time and focus dedicated to commercial jets when there are so many other aircraft types that could have been given a mention was a bit irritating. I understand there is a large group of commercial jet enthusiasts but IMO just as many sim pilots like me, don't care about or fly the commercial airliners. With that in mind, major portions of video reviews like yours essentially exclude us. The above aside, I agree MSFS2020 is the clear leader overall but people with the funds should also consider supporting XPlane so Microsoft doesn't gain another software monopoly. I own both sims. Thank you for your time to create and post.
Can only speak for the real world A330-200, but this aircraft has a minimal input delay. First timers find themselves chasing the aircraft through over input, then over correction. The Xplane model seemed far too sensitive.
You can fly your XP12 controlled Zibo 737 - or an XP12 aircraft - inside of MSFS. The Swann Sim channel, and friends, have developed a software bridge, www.youtube.com/@swannsim4658 The XP12 >> MSFS bridge is still in Beta, there are a few bugs, but it combines the best of both worlds XP12 aircraft + MSFS scenery.
Up to 12-17GB in graphicly demanding airports ie... KJFK, KLAX, Tokyo, London, Paris, Frankfurt... Yes indeed Vram should be no less than 16GB for those that want all that Ultra settings 4K bling.
I have been flying x-plane since it's inception, I have flown FSX and MSFS as well. It seems 2 me that a lot of people care more about scenery than actually flying itself. I am a retired airline pilot, X-plane is definitely more aerodynamically accurate, not only one can change, modify and alter almost everything in x-plane, it is much easier to work with. Back in 1975 U.S broke eight time-to-altitude world records flying a F-15, I flew those eight flights and my time was 1-2 seconds off from the actual flight times. This is what I want from a simulator, good scenery is nice, but I wanna fly a Flight simulator not a Scenery simulator. Don't kill the messenger please!
You should have watched the video longer, he said mfs was for gamers until fenix a320 came out and followed by pmdg 737, now mfs for gamers and simmers.
XP at its core can be a non-internet dependent sim used from cd's. Therefore, the only fair comparison is xp with scenery addons and the stock 172 in each. Mfs will be subscription based in 1-2 years and will always be dendent on internet connection.
@@DownTheRabbit-Hole exactly. Most small commercial sim manufacturers use X-Plane as a basis for their Simulators, including the one at my local airport.
With all due respect I am not sure how you came to your conclusion. You say that X-Plane has many more and better planes which behave more realistically and has better night lighting, yet you favour MSFS because it is better to look out of the window and the clouds and weather look better. You make no allowance for the fact that X-Plane is only just out of beta and the clouds are the subject of constant improvement. I suggest that for most serious simmers scenery is fairly low on their priorities and there are a variety of ways in any case that this can be improved in X-Plane without having to be constantly online as you fly.
That's wrong: 1) I never said planes in X-Plane 12 behave more realistic - I said that between the Toliss and the LVFR the Toliss has the more realistic depiction of the A319 - 06:57 . And I also said that the in my opinion the Fenix is the best of the A320 family - 08:04 (weird that you didn't hear that) 2) I specifically said I cannot say anything about the realism of the flight model - 08:38 3) I never said that X-Plane has the better night lighting - only that X-Plane 12 has any light at all at night at vanilla airports. In the night flight video I said I still prefer MSFS for the flight - ruclips.net/video/pmJ6QbrBh-s/видео.html 4) I doubt that most people who have a flight sim installed on their PC are "serious simmers" or real world pilots who want to practice or whatever. (To those people I say: stick with X-Plane 11) I have to help these people make a purchase decision as well. And just btw there are so many real world pilots who stream and make videos who use MSFS (e.g. 320 Sim Pilot, 737NG Driver, V1-Simulations) 5) I like this pretend outrage of having to be online in the third decade of the 21st century
@@yellscreen3697 Again, with respect, I appreciate you did not say that X-Plane was more realistic, just that it was different. However since only one of the simulators has a commercial version suitable for pilot training then I think it does not take much imagination to decide which is more likely to be the most realistic
@@maltimoto Absolutely agree. Whenever you see so called objective comparisons it always comes down to the graphics and possibly the weather. It Technicolor terrain and flying over your house is so important then play the MSFS game but pleases don’t pretend it is an actual accurate simulation.
I think by "long-haul", we can assume he's also referring to wide-body. The BBJ is "long-haul" only by virtue of being light and having up to 9 auxiliary fuel tanks! It's not a true "long-haul" aircraft. You're right about the A310 though; partially - it only has a 6 hour endurance, which rules out most long-haul flying, and renders in "mid-haul".
Might have to go back to MSFS. X-Plane is a terrific sim. It really puts you through the paces of setting up flights. Very realistic... then it crashes. The worst part about X-Plane is you can't save flights. You go through all the procedures to set up a flight, which sometimes can take hours. Then... it crashes, and you have to start all over again - from scratch. In MSFS, saving is/ or was like hitting the PAUSE button. Exiting. Come back, and pick up where you left off. X-Plane is looking more and more like junk.
Thank you for speaking up, I can't hear the RUclips pilots praising the Fenix anymore. I am not a pilot but I think even as a passenger one can tell that Fenix physics are not as good as Toliss.
@@maltimoto then dont comment on what’s better if you havent fly them🤦🏻♂️ go watch V1 best real airbus pilot on youtube and gives unbiased opinions on airbuses.
xplane mobile on my iphone feels more realistic flying the planes than msfs, and i play msfs all day every day but still enjoy xplane mobile. i can even replay my flights on xplane mobile which i can't do on msfs. i do enjoy the msfs live group flights with general aviation planes that some youtubers host live. not sure how big the xplane 11/12 live sim flight popularity is, but its very big on msfs. flying with 50 people coast to coast on msfs live every night was amazing, regardless of the planes not feeling extremely realistic, the weather and scenery across usa was amazing in msfs. Need to combine xplane12, msfs, and GTA!!!😀
I have worked as an airline pilot since 98. I use only Xplane 11 in VR with the Toliss A320Neo and A321.Which is what i fly nowadays. I have trIed MSFS with the Fenix 320. The Xplane flight model is way better than MSFS, like 10x. Simulating the inertias of a medium jet is hard but Xplane tries nicely, MSFS is a toy in comparison. If you want eye candy go with MSFS.I understand that the "real" scenery is hard to argue with.
I have flown both and the camera and replay systems in Xplane are far better. I like the scenery and the Fenix and FBW planes in FS2020 - wish it's camera systems were better.
I agree, ground detail and accuracy is important and a reason to fly to destinations. I remember playing FS on my home built 486 years ago, and flew from London to Paris just to see the Eiffel Tower. I've had laptops ever since but 30 years later FS2020 has got me shopping around for a desktop again.
I've bought Alienware R13 for MSFS. After two days I got my refund and uninstalled MSFS. The main reason is the absence of seasons. It is always July in MSFS. I had been with MSFS for like 25 years but the Asobo work discouraged me. X-Plane is not perfect but more immersive. Aircraft modeling is much better. I took like a month to make a decent flight on Zibo Boeing 738. Not that MSFS is terrible. But X-Plane gave me a completely different experience.
It is like a sci-fi movie/series. What is more important: advanced CGI or a good story, great characters, and a realistic setting? We always want to get both. But it doesn't work this way. Better CGI is much more expensive. Thus, a product is aimed at a wider audience. And we get vanilla.
![X-Plane 12 vs. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020! [EARLY ACCESS] ► WHY I WON'T BE SWITCHING JUST YET 😬](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pA1SmGYLih8/mqdefault.jpg)
Totally forgot to mention the superb ZIBO 737 mod, which has already been adapted to X-Plane 12. It is free and at least on par with the FBW A32NX. It does not change anything about my conclusion or recommendation though.
Also - for MSFS, the free Headwinds A330 is a modified FBW A320 and gives you a quality long range airliner for free.
I know about this but am not sure if it has an A320 Cockpit. But I can give it a try.
Technically we have the iniBuilds A310, too. But it sees very limited use in reality.
I think that the zibo is more on par or even above the par of the pmdg 737 due to the fact that it has an advanced effect with its own ground handling system. It also is faa regulated for commercial versions of xplane 11 and is used by some flight schools for systems and procedures training for the 737
@@yellscreen3697 It has an A330 cockpit
You can fly your XP12 controlled Zibo 737 inside of MSFS. The Swann Sim channel, and friends have developed a software bridge, www.youtube.com/@swannsim4658
For me another big pro for xPlane is the replay system... I can't believe Asobo still has not implemented a proper working replay system. It's just so satisfying to watch your own landing from the passenger POV with all the control surfaces responding as they should.
i have found a replay expirimental enable toggle button in the expirimental page in the msfs settings though. check it out, and tell me if it helped.
@@faziolifairmont8125 i know of the replay system in msfs. It is far from complete though and Not nearly as good as the one in xplane. Thank you for the Tip though. :-)
@@finbark6870 luckely its still experimental. Maybe they are working on it.
@@finbark6870 I am amazed it's still not fully implemented yet. MSFS has had a replay function since at least FS2000, that's when I started simming. I'd also love the option to have the legacy key bindings back.
Let's not forget that FS 2020 doesn't have a working weather radar yet? After 2 plus years!..
X-Plane was the leading simulator for a long time with a very small team of developers. But MS Flight Simulator 2020 is now the leading flight simulator due to huge investment and a dedicated development group. I'd love to see both organisations working together for the same cause, much like NASA and SpaceX.
@Frost wym about that ? i do agree on the addon part but xplane basically was the lead simulator until mfs came out so idk what you’re talking about
@@BruhBruh-mk5yg I agree, maybe frost3113 forgot about the demise of FSX. I don't consider P3D competition either as that was a military training tool which could be purchased under a student license. Unless the honerable gentleman wants to put forward Flight or Dovetails Flight Simulator... I thought not. Case closed! 🤣
@Frost that’s incorrect, xplane11 was the best flight sim for years. Fsx and p3d have terrible textures and xplane has, and still has the most realistic physics. Depending what ur looking for, xplane could still very easily be significantly better. I currently run msfs because I
1) can run it
and
2) prefer the textures.
Apart from that xplane 12 and even 11 is better.
@Frost This has to be the most fanboyism response I've seen so far. There are many excellent aircraft modules, including free and default ones that have striking accuracy to their real world counterparts.
X plane was always trash
Yes, you are right I have both. XP12 is study level and I have used it for my ppl training. MSFS is great for graphics but I have 13 pereferials only 8 work in MSFS and I have to buy FSUIPC just to get 10 to work. XP12 all worked right out of the box. I have a 270d view with XP12, 6 1080p monitors and XP12 on two units w/o having to buy a additional license, an avg 75 fps. If I use MSFS on other machines I have to buy another license. If I use other monitors on one machine by opening windows my fps drops.When MSFS gets to XP12 study level then they will blow the doors off another other. But for now I have to use both one for real life IFR/PPL training brush up and the other for graphics VFR viewing..🥰😇
for study level buy Fenix and PMDG
I used MSFS to help me earn my Airbus type rating. Real pilots use MSFS over xplane
@@Chorizo727 real pilots use what suits them, stop behaving like a 5 yo
@chorizo727 no they don't.
@@Chorizo727 This is such a troll and a huge ass lie. MSFS is great for flying and looking good but for flight realism oh hell no. The latest MSFS is not FAA approved X-plane and others are. saying "Real pilots use MSFS over xplane" is a god damn joke. If you got your pilots license and Airbus certification by using MSFS for the flight sim part, well who ever passed you should be fired and you shouldn't be fly anything.
EDIT: Yes MSFS was at one point FAA approved the latest version is not. They went more arcade and nice looking graphics over flight realism. And there is nothing wrong with that. MSFS is amazing but it's a game and not designed to be used as a training tool.
Hi Yell. Really good comparison video, and thank you for that. I am totally with you when it comes to MSFS and the details and immersion coming into unknown areas or airports. The details differ and are very much worked on which brings global flying so much more fun.
I also agree on the repetitive ground patterns we see in X-plane with the buildings and jagged roads which is the main reason I'm flying MSFS and not X12. For me the outside of the airplane is as important as the inside. Cheers.
I use XP 11 and 12 only. Toliss Airbusses, Flight Factor, Zibo, Hotstart, IXEG, Inibuilds, Rotate. Physics feel so much better. The whole appearance of MSFS reminds me of an Arcade or Lego game.
Of course, Orthos and Simheaven are a must-have in X-Plane, otherwise it is ugly. To be honest, I use MSFS only for the Cessna 172 and Sightseeing.
Interesting. The graphics in xplane reminds me of simcity 2000.
@@ehss192 out of box = XP < MSFS. with addons and mods = XP > MSFS
I'm using XP11/12 mainly because of the aircraft add ons. There are so many extremly good ones like the Hot Start TBM and CL65 or the free zibomod 737 (which you didnt talk about in the video?) etc. Apart from that the camera system is much more intuativ in XP and the replay mode way better. However for new guys I would recommend MSFS for the reasons you have mentioned.
facts
As a MS User who is very beginner like: very good opinion. I do love the stuff for graphics and a little bit for realism (i don't use all these systems more advanced simmers do).
BUT THE LAST VIDEO I JUST WATCHED WAS EXACTLY ABOUT THAT LOUSY NON EXISTENT REPLAY MODE. ( I learned, my landing can't be replayed, i should have recorded it before, now i can't check my landing anymore. But smarter for next time.).
Also, camera System is awkward yeah. Wonder how that is in XP.
so true, me too only using XP 11+12 with many payware aircraft and professional soundpacks
"For new guys" . As a fsx veteran, I find this laughable. The fact that x plane is easy to use should the reason why beginners should start with x plane and not with msfs.
I am new to flight sim. Can you please help with the link to download these free add-ons. Tha nks in advance 😊
I really liked the point you made at the start. I have not played XP12 so I wouldn't presume to critique it from a technical flight model point of view but I know the feelings you were describing, wanting to explore and wanting to know what different weather events look like in different places because done well it is inspiring.
I am lucky enough to live somewhere beautiful and even though I see it every day, the weather, the suns position and the time of year make it a revolving canvas and MSFS comes so close to replicating that for the whole world.
It makes me think that in what Asobo have created they have really produced a major technological asset and I wonder what commercial value it has for other developers of other genres of software, everything from tactical warfare, driving, ships, it is a footprint than many games would be proud to use.
I do reccomend other users look at some of the addons that introduce more purpose into msfs, not least because your mind will only take you to the places you know about whereas often the career addons will take you to places and let you see things you didn't know existed.
It's not Xplane12, it's pretty much xplane11.2
Cause xplane11 still shits all over this.
And you people are paying for it. Paying for something that already exists. Xplane11.
Thnx for the comparison. That's what I was looking for without needing to buy XP12. I'll clearly stick with my fenix and a wonderful stable running msfs. It honestly became really usable in the past months. Also in VR.
As someone who solely flies on VATSIM, the main issue preventing me from switching from X-Plane to MSFS is the lack of high quality vanilla airports. Much like you mentioned, I don't want my list of destinations to be limited by how many payware sceneries I can afford. Second on the list is the lack of long range aircraft, especially long range Airbuses. I pray to god that Fenix develops a A350, A340 or A330 next, in that order. Lastly, it's a real shame that MSFS has such beautiful and varied weather, yet no properly implemented weather radar.
Aerosoft is developing a study level A330-200/300
And X-plane airports are more detailed?? Most are garbage from what I see. MSFS can look good even at a little grass strip. Try that in X-plane. ha ha.
@@EncounterTC Yes. They might not have as many polygons, but they are much more accurate in X-Plane than in MSFS 2020. If you try to fly realistically in an online environment like VATSIM you need taxiways and gates to have the correct names and locations that they have in real life charts. X-Plane has a system where users can create their own freeware airports and send it to the developers, and if it is of good quality it is included in vanilla X-Plane. I know Asobo is working on a system like that, but it is not available yet. This means that in X-Plane, even a lot of small, obscure airports have been modeled by a human rather than an AI and are therefore very, very accurate. In MSFS 2020, a lot of bigger airports, without even mentioning smaller ones, are incorrectly modeled and therefore unusable for realistic flying unless you want to dish out money for a payware.
@@destroystheovik Thanks, you just answered a question for me, why it is that people are so concerned with airports in a sim and why there are so many available for purchase - flying is easy, taking off and landing is where the rubber meets the road in flying, ha ha, and of course you want the airport to be much as it is in real life, much more so than a city skyline, for example.
@@destroystheovik plenty of users on VATSIM are on default FSX ! To say can’t use VATSIM on MSFS due to scenery is a first world problem made up.
I don‘t care with one is better I play XP 12 and it is fun. We all play flight sim because it is fun
I actually also do it for pre flight or route practice purpose, practice landings on different conditions, practice possible aircraft failtures and i use xplane bc i find its physics and insturments more accurate. The garmin 1000 insturments usage
Is different than the real thing in msfs. Xplane does everything by the book its better for accuracy but msfs is better for having fun and travelling around.
And while comparing theese two we shouldnt ignore the fact that msfs is just a game while xplane is not only a game but also a simulation software that is being used in training simulators
No
So it is not funny when i see every time the ugly ground texture with xplane. 😂😂
@@angelodominique9253 there are ortho options to fix that.
Agree on the missing 319 in MSFS, however in the last couple of months two mods have popped up bringing mainly the whole FBW functionality to both the LVFR 319 and 321. This is changing the way those planes are behaving while keeping the bells and whistles of their models. Just have a look at Horizon mod and you will be probably fine until Fenix comes up with their variants.
I can't give up xplane over msfs. Default airport environment is more immersive, custom joystick profiles per aircraft is more powerful, camera system is superior with flybys and has more opportunity for better soundscape from the aircraft, ground handling is more accurate. Oh did I mention that airports are better,? Start she's stop of flight is just as important and plays a huge part in immersion.
Only kids play xplane
Yeah man same , This guy mentioned that the graphics dont make or break the game for him ,and he got seduced by them so bad that forgot that Xplane's physics is much superior than in MSFS ,and for sure there are a ton of stuff which makes X-plane faaaaar superior than MSFS
He mentioned that there are those same buildings everywhere in X-plane ,and he doesn't know that an Addon for Satellite scenery is already out there for X-plane. So basically it's his fault that he doesn't know bout this stuff coz he is mentally more of a gamer than a Flight simmer ,so MSFS's poor & Cartoony physics look more appealing to him lol
Agree with every word you're saying. There is so much more you can do with XPlane 11/12. I can't think of anything you can't customise, with literally hundreds of options at your fingertips. The many, many, menu interfaces are fantastic - everything is so intuitive. The flight dynamics and physicality's are superior to every other flight sim. And I absolutely LOVE the camera system with XPlane - and with Xcamera added it's all second to none. And then you've got replay, which is essential, surely!
MSFS (which I do own on PC and Xbox) has got all the bells and whistles but, probably my biggest gripe IS that dreadful, clunky, camera interface...and NO proper, intuitive replay!
I rest my case...for now.😃
MSFS is for kids who like graphics more and don't care about physics and XP is for real men who wants to wants to experience realistic physics.
@@chillegaming1837 exactly
As an actual pilot I prefer Plane. Much more configurable through menus, more realistic aerodynamics That’s BIG for me. Actually love XPlane weather, approaches to minimums, hand flying.
A big thing I noticed when comparing the Zibo 737 with the PDMG 737 for msfs, is that the Zibo handling is so much nicer and predictable. For the life of me, I never seem to be able to let the PDMG fly stable for longer than 30 seconds, trim it properly etc, I feel like I am constantly fighting the plane., it is just so wobbly and floaty all the time, the Zibo on the other does what I want it to, it reacts logically and predictably to my throttle inputs and Yoke movements. I have more experience in DCS, and the same thing applies there, the handling seems so more natural than in MSFS, although vastly different aircrafts... With Ortho and some other free add ons Xplane does not look terrible as well. If it develops further I see myself swithcing to Xplane 12 in the future.
PMDG taxiing is horrible, also the flight dynamics are better in Zibo. X-Plane payware aircraft are absolutely great when taxiing and hand flying.
Played XP and MSFS, both in 500+ hours. I can say the big reason why I still play XP is the flight model and control feels much better and direct. MSFS has a weird smoothing like feeling and takes away a bit of the fun. The camera system and replay system in XP is much intuitive and better, no argument needed.
Spot-On comparison! I tried to like XP12, and use both... I gave up eventually and MFS is now my one and only civil flightsim. I use IL-2 GB for teh excellent WW2 flight dynamics.
Retired RW pilot and instructor . 20 yrs with XP and 3 years with MFS. IMO, XP 12 and MFS are both brilliant, but infants with dirty diapers. In other words, both are pretty stinky at times, but in different areas. It really depends on what you fly, where you fly, and why you fly. I use Air Manager with 2 touchscreens so No mice in my cockpit. I fly VATSIM/Pilotedge and use RW STARS, SIDS, APPR. I am into Corporates and training in GA 172, DA62 twin, CirrusSR22.
The MFS Longitude with WT G5000 is excellent, amazing really, works beautifully on my 4090 with 3x32" LG nano mons and 2 ASUS touchscreens. The perf is great on ULTRA. Scenery beautiful, but alas, I get constant Connection Lost errors in flight, even on flights I do over and over KLAX-KLAS. MFS internet dependency sucks. The offline modes are worse than XP. Their servers are flaky, IMO. I have no problem with my internet. 100% fiber and fast. They try to blame the user, but I have no problem with internet on anything except MFS. Usually over same areas of flight.
Well, MFS 2024 just announced. Seems like XBOX Role playing fantasy gamer stuff might be their new focus, which has no appeal to RW pilots, VATSIM flyers etc. Time will tell. There is an economic opportunity cost to every direction a company takes. Hey, how bout a Microsoft Flight Sim PRO version? FAA approved BAATD etc.
XP 12 has improved since last visit 3 mos ago. Perf is better in 1440p with 3 monitors and 2 touch. Needs lots of improvement here. No TAA or DLSS. Vulcan needs vast improvement to compete, but I think they will eventually. The new Macs are supposed to be getting great perf with 3 monitors in 1440 p.
XP still has better and more mature aircraft, especially lower perf GA aircraft. Fly the DA62 in MFS and the Aerobask DA62 in XP12 for a good comparison. Aerobask=polished, MFS DA62=V1.0. The Cirrus in MFS is crap. In XP12 you have AFL172 study level or X-aviation CirrusSR22 study. No comparison. One can buy ortho scenery packs to make XP look much better, but still not as good as enviro, clouds, rain, in MFS. But acceptable IMO. In XP12, The silly looking mirror-like puddles all in a row on short final, got ta go. Austin I am talking to you!! Ha!! Do you want people to call XP "Puddles12"? Unless they plant corn in between rows of puddles. Ha
XP has far superior and accurate ceilings for VATSIM ILS TDZE with RVR (no RVR system in MFS), and rabbit lights that you can't see from 20 miles (like laughable mfs). Much better Taxiway markings/signage in XP, but basically depends on DEV in MFS. XP12 has no annoying, ever-present, ramp jockeys waiting to park my 172 on some airport in the middle of nowhwere, like MFS. LOL
Note Aerobask has Falcon 8 for XP12 out soon. Could be a big game changer. Has Honeywell touchscreen avionics which should work well, I hope, with Air Manager, eventually. The future is touchscreens,
Clearly XP12 needs a stock, multi-aircraft G3000/5000, similar to XP multi-aircraft G1000. They will never compete if they don't get busy on this. WT G5000 is near perfect in MFS.
Yeah, I wrote a book, and I could go on and on Please comment on things you like or dislike about both MFS and XP12. Please only make comparisons of which one is better if you use both extensively. Good Luck
Visit my free website to see pictures of my DIY mobile simpit system. No reg necessary. AviationKnowledge org I welcome all opinions.
Msfs is very impressive, no doubt, I have both, I've been flying for 7 years in the real world, grounded pilot for 3 years, (hopefully I'll get back to the real cockpit soon) so that I have plenty of time to fly in my home cockpit... I won't say more than after each flight in Xplane 12 my brain, my memories of real flight experiences seem to match with XP12 more than MSFS (MSFS that I really like for many reasons by the way)
However in terms of feeling/sensation of flying, imo I do really feel that Xplane 12 still offers me the immersion of flying, just the inertia of the birds makes the difference, the four essential forces as lift, drag, trust, weight are still way better than in MSFS so far... Knowing that MSFS has a huge potential to develop in this area for sure.
I love flying VFR in MSFS especially with the study Milviz C310 for instance, also the turbulence due to buildings, reliefs, mountains in MSFS are much more realistic than in XP which doesn't really deal with that important feature so far...
On the other side flying a MSFS C152 in TS (Thunderstorm) without no convective, no severe up/downdraft, without any kind of danger in bad weather conditions is totally unrealistic in MSFS, it doesn't give to users a real picture of the "danger in the sky" in the real life. Indeed, you really don't want to fly a PA28 or any light bird in dark CB for safety matters, XP11/12 recalls you how flying even a A330 in TS could be lethal, period!
I know that msfs devs are working to implement realism in Real Weather, the weather is one the cornerstone in Aviation which we learn at the very first flight lessons in PPL (Private Pilot Licence)...
My temporary conclusion is that Xplane still give me the best sensation of flying more than msfs despite the big time immersion that msfs provides in terms of visual aspects... Anyway all of this is enough for me to make that statement which could change "tomorrow" based on new msfs updates!
Nice video by the way, fly safe!
I don't think that X-Plane is focusing for Graphics, but rather in the simulation. XP is a training tool but MSFS is... completely another thing, right
Yeah, you can see that from their inception. X-plane started off as a program to help with IFR procedure trainins so it has always been more concerned with simulation over looks. MSFS started as a game to showcase hardware, so visuals have been more the focus.
MSFS enthusiasts will claim that Asobo has changed the game by using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) which is a definite improvement for the realistics of the game. But, whether it actually improves MSFS to have better similation is questionable. First, CFD requires more processing power than Blade Element Theory (what X-Plane has used as the basis for its simulator for a while) so while CFD can be more accurate than BET that depends on the resolution that both simulators run at. Second, while it is true that X-Plane uses BET at its core, it has diagnostics that indicate that isn't only thing being used for simulation and there are CFD-like elements.
Meanwhile, X-Plane is definitely lagging behind MSFS in the visual department which really makes a difference for VFR flight. Austin Meyers (X-plane creator and CEO of Laminar Research) basically is being dragged, kicking and screaming, toward more visual improvements in X-Plane due to people seeing what Asobo has accomplished. He has made some statements that he will look into streaming terrain (but we will see how much pressure it takes for him to actually do it).
The end result is, if you care more about flight procedures and training and less about visuals then X-plane is a good choice. If you are more VFR oriented or want to just enjoy flying different craft then MSFS is probably the better bet. Both have their own niches right now which likely won't change no matter how much each of them take on aspects of the other.
@@Tsudico Exactly! This comparison needs to stop. X-Plane is an FAA approved flight simulator solution. Indeed MSFS is very console game oriented. I don't think that this thing will ever be serious and approved to be used for academies. MSFS on PC, should actually dismiss all this XBox Game look and feel too.
Now, is really the goal of Asobo to gamify flight simulation? I hope this will change someday for the PC world, but until then, I completely stopped using MSFS... I'm not into gaming in general, I love and value simulation seriosity. It is just quite frustrating to see that wrong perspectives (gaming perspectives) affect the serious FS community. The reason why I prefer XP (even Prepar3D!) over MSFS is that their are not in the game card.
We should let the gaming world for general gamers, while us, we care about the simulation's advancement.
They need to understand that XP is no way a game to be even compared with that MSFS Xbox Flight "Simulator".
@@vasiliosgrekousis8192 couldn't agree more. The guy making the videos comes across really well but the concept of this one is flawed. I've got quite a strong opinion having flown real planes more than once which handles (significantly) better but no point in declaring here. Austin isn't worried about how much brown ground is visible, it's really not what a pilot is focusing on either when taking off or landing......if after an emotional ride then sure....one can just use Google earth to see how places look if they need to. Do the multimillion simulators at Boeing or Airbus contain amazing graphics? No of course not, they're pretty rubbish.
UI when it comes to setting up multiple peripherals and customisation (I'd put those way above graphics when it came to a simulator) is also dire in one of these pieces of software...
@tomcollingwood5300 exactly, when flying a jet at high altitudes, do you really care how the ground looks? It's the real simulation thats important .P3d and xplane are certified for flight training and still in use today in many full motion simulation.
Msfs , I have it too, will always be a game..
As someone who flew various aircraft, and both of those sims (as well as DCS) I'm gonna say, there's a big reason i have 3 Sims and fly them all. To say which is best is extremely subjective. Those looking purely for graphics, realism or action, are gonna give 3 different answers, but each is great in their own right.
Msfs look beautiful on daytime. But Xplane12 is ahead of msfs when you fly at night. The light looks som good in Xplane 12. I like both sims in different ways
Night flying is the only flying to do in XP12 - the scenery is so ugly, you won't want to see it at daytime! 😁 I say that as a long term XP user. XP11 was my main (and only) sim for about 6 years, til MSFS came out. But I am so disappointed in the lack of progreaa that XP12 represented. The worse thing about XP12 is that it still has antialiasing technology from 15 years ago. No TAA. No DLSS. Jsut resource-hungry MS and SS, that still result in awful jagged textures. XP was never going to win on ground details, but if they had implemented modern, efficient AA/AF, the gap could have been a lot smaller than it is.
Don't forget to mention those roads. All of the ortho magic in the world isn't going to fix those horrible roads. Too straight and crisp, not natural at all. That is why I choose to fly XP at night or in bad weather. I don't want to have to look at the ground scenery. MSFS looks good, really good in fact, not going to lie, but it lacks that feeling of flight and moving air. I left XP10 behind long ago, but after two + years of the MSFS flight dynamics and terrible ground handling , I've updated to XP12 for mostly IFR and I'm sticker shocked at the add on prices and unfortunately, it seems we need an add on for nearly everything to make it look or function better visually. The X-Plane ecosystem is not doing itself any favors when it comes to future growth and market share. I would argue it is going backwards and losing users which is too bad because it is hands down the better flight model, but the dismal graphics, ancient rendering technology and high costs are not helping their cause a bit. Austin needs to abandon that whole "Plausible World" nonsense and get with the times. Streaming high res ortho and photogrammetry is the only path forward.@@droge192
A330 does not have 737 fmc (speaking about clichés), it's actually the default XP FMC (and the old one at it). It would be absolutely fantastic to have the 737 FMC, at least that's something I know very well and is not so limited as the default one. The skin is very similar to a 737 FMC (maybe the FMS 2584/A1) but functionally? Nowhere near. About weather, yes I do enjoy Avatar clouds in MSFS but I don't mind the more "real" ones in XP. Besides, live weather is touch and go in both sims. Night flying is the same with the notable better experience in XP (I usually do night ops cargo flights). Ground in airliners? Meh, don't care. VFR, no contest (provided you have the decent aka bought airplanes in MSFS) here. Framerate is almost the same for me but is a bit slow in FBW compared with Zibo (just to compare two of the best free addons). Sounds basically the same for default planes (aka shit) with the notable exception of the A330 in XP which I find very good. My specs Ryzen 7 5900X, NV3080TI, 32GB RAM. I play both in 4K. I'd say both will stay on my drives but boy oh boy, installation of MSFS is all over my computer unlike the neat XP one folder hierarchy. I despise MS for this.
Just wait till you need to install all that ortho bud, your pc is gonna be fulllll. MSFS, you aint gotta install any of that nonsense
@@pilottech9141 Already have that ortho where I want to. 1TB SSD costs less than MSFS Premium itself. But at least I know where it is.
dont forget that the a330 is also having its own mcdu on later update
From my POV (and the POV of some real Airbus pilots that tested both addons), Toliss still kills Fenix in terms of systems and flight model/envelopes. I mean, Fenix still doesn't have custom engine power envelopes for CFM. IAE is not even included with the Fenix. Not going even to mention that Fenix kills the FPS pretty hard, while Toliss is really light on performance, so I can fly in native 72fps in VR, while in MSFS I struggle to fly even at 36fps with Fenix.
Yes, you can do flights from A to B pretty nicely in Fenix, but for me the addon is more a demonstration how to properly do 3D model, textures, EFB, and audio for the addon, than the actual simulation of the systems.
"Yes, you can do flights from A to B pretty nicely in Fenix, but for me the addon is more a demonstration how to properly do 3D model, textures, EFB, and audio for the addon, than the actual simulation of the systems"
this is then actually your opinion than for some of real airbus pilots the fenix is the asbolut best for a representive airbus experience in a desktop simulator
@@peter-mv5gk well, I was talking to a couple of real world A319/320 pilots, and they don't agree. I could even introduce one here to join the discussion, but not sure he has RUclips account.
@@Pe11ePD no i believe you (:
but like i said...your comment that you can just do flights from a to b and thats what the fenix is good for but not more (kind of) is even by real airbus pilots seen completely different..that why its pretty much your own assumption but not an actual factual
for example v1 simulations...
@@peter-mv5gk what about Blackbox711?ruclips.net/video/mb2V1Z4U-KE/видео.html
Very smart commentary. I never went back to MS Flight Sim 2020 after trying DCS World 2 years ago. The lack of damage model in MS Flight Sim kills the immersion. Why bother looking right and left when taxing to the runway when you go straight through other planes and vehicles. In DCS World, you can bend the tire, pop the tire, have all kinds of damages and this makes all the difference when it comes to immersion and adrenaline. I just enjoy flying in DCS World. MS Flight Sim seems like a glorified Google Earth Simulator. MS 2024, they added character creation. This is where their priorities are now In DCS World, I messed up my landing in Mirage M2000C and I could not drop my external fuel tank after refueling and taking off. This is cool!
You also should add the TU154 to the list of freeware aircraft for XP. The developer, Felis, recently gifted it to the community after it has been a good payware product. Of you like the retro soviel style, it might eben be better than the Zibo 737. Not a known plane though, I want to spread some interest into the addon
Where can i find it?
Unfortunately, the Tu-154 is completely broken in X-plane 12. I tried to update it myself for XP12, but there were several things I couldn't get working properly. It's a fantastic aircraft in XP-11 though.
Also, when you mentioned that flying airplanes in XP12 seems easier because they are more responsive, means it's way more closer to the real world behavior. Most of the real world pilots will tell you straight away that real airplanes are easier to fly, do to direct control, linear sensitivity, infinite resolution on the flight stick/yoke, seat of pants feel, etc, and actually X-Plane 11/12 can mimic that thought the physics/flight model. I still didn't experienced that in MSFS, as of yet, maybe, just maybe 20% in PMDG 737. Still way off.
I tried using MSFS but I keep going back to X-Plane. The flight dynamics and ground handling are unmatched, even though MSFS looks better and has better performance.
If your using the Fenix its not unmatched at all
I fly Airbuses in real life and Xplane has less realistic flight dynamics than MSFS.
May be because XP is more a game than a simulator actually and that's why you find it easier. That bullshit about dynamics as to come to an end. It's just perot speak from people who doesn't fly in real. Frankly I don't use XP but I'm a pilot in real life so I can confirm that all the narrative about unreal flight dynamics in MSFS is just bullshit from XP lovers.
@AnimatedChristmasCollector oh yeah, taking off at 120 knots with 50 knots tailwind (was having fun today) is extremely realistic, lmao
@@laurentsamson8927 true exactly
There is a reason why X-Plane is FAA certified, and not MSFS. I think since MSFS got realeased everyone got the "graphics virus", where looks are more important than the realism. Things that for example doesn't get told is that X-plane for example also simulates wake turbulence or even runway conditions that can change the landings drastically.
I think MSFS is great for VFR flying.
But looking specifically at IFR, I would always choose X-Plane or even P3D.
Why don t you fly with real aircraft every day when you need to feel such things. I m happy to have finally a Sim like msfs 2020
@@angelodominique9253 1st, I don't have a lot of time to fly in real life I am planning to do it sometime in the future.
2nd thing, simulators are so much more than just a program, it's just a shame how MSFS is portraying aviation. Asobo only cares about the amount of money they make.
When you look at for example Laminar Research or Lockheed Martin they care about the experience and the amount of knowledge you can apply in the simulator.
I really don't care if people play a game such as MSFS, but don't tell me it's "realistic".
@angelodominique9253 why, why can't people have a different opinion from you? Simulators are training augmentation softwares. And as such any pilot or aviation enthusiast will tell you that xplane is just so much better, plus flying a real plane costs a lot more than simulating realistic flight in a home sim or on a flight training device. Xplane is certified for FAA approved training, and that's a bigger draw for a lot of people who use these things the way that they were meant to be used.
And I still fly p3d today v5 3. And xp12 too. Msfs flies like a toy and looks too barbielike. You're right, everyone goes gaga over graphics but my main focus on a sim are accurate airliner flight dynamics and real world procedure. Xp12 and p3d hits it every time in that area. I use airliner flights xp12 and p3d, msfs for vfr, casual flying.
I have most of the jet addons on msfs, 737, fenix, fbw etc, but now they collect dust!!
@@chrisadish You know what I don't care if you fly even fs2004. You should just go back in the past.
For evaluating manual flying don’t start with an Airbus, you would need to totally disable the flight control computer. How do the 737s compare?
I use both sims. It is simple. MSFS for VFR, XP12 for IFR 😄
whats vfr and ifr? xD
@@SasukeUchiha-ks3rz Visual flight rules. Instrument flight rules.
That is an old saying and does not apply anymore.
@@johanjacobs9240 Not for me. That's your subjective opinion. Show me any Boeing for longhaul flights, not default or any mod in the MSFS.
@@SasukeUchiha-ks3rz why can't you be bothered to google such a simple question?
I don’t own any of the sims, but by just watching RUclips videos, MSFS gets me “wow”-ing consistently.
That's because eye candy to a novice is sugar to a baby. BUT, to those who actually fly, and understand the difference between realistic flight dynamics and physics, and cartoonish crap, XP12 is unbeatable. Plus XP12 works with VR, MSFS does NOT. XP12 allows you to design your own plane and test it, MSFS does NOT. XP12 is approved for professional flight training, MSFS is NOT!!! There is really very little in MSFS OTHER than the eye candy. All toddlers love shiny colorful things...
@@AquaStevae Lol. I’ve been simming since fs2004 btw. Definitely agree that xplane has the better physics, and Laminar is definitely improving the visuals, but damn does MSFS look nice. Also has a growing selection of high fidelity add on aircraft.
Xplane actually feels much more natural in terms of Lighting. Lighting and sky colors are more realistically depicted and interact accordingly. You know when it's winter and you know it's summer by the lighting which oddly enough I dont feel is right in MSFS yes
Completely agree.
I’m currently in the interim running XP 11 and 12 on a 24” iMac M1 with only 8gb, but rarely have an issue with running out of FR. The only complaint I have with XP 12 vs 11, is that most all the cockpits are really dark…to the point even with lights maxed out gauges are difficult to see due to darkness!
im using toliss a321 neo in 12 and no dark problems. ill have a spot in an airport but i can turn the lights on or turn up light brightness and problems solved. running at 1440p
I just flew Lisbon in MSFS and the bridge was flat? Do I need to select something to get realistic scenery?
It's hard to replicate the feeling of actual fight in any simulator, but I also believe X-Plane has a HUGE upper hand in flight model and first and third party systems simulation. I always feel more accomplished after an X-Plane flight and find myself employing my real world "flying brain" a lot more in X-Plane than in Microsoft Flight Sim. For casual simmers who want graphical fidelity and a decently modeled tubeliner in a sim (me a lot of the time) Microsoft Flight Sim is the obvious winner. Your mileage may vary. I wouldn't resort to declaring one sim better than the other.
I fly Airbuses in real life for an airline and MSFS’s planes definitely fly better than Xplane’s.
For VRAM, the industry standard nowadays is 12GB (nvidia love 8GB for some reason, when even at 1080p Ultra some games exceed 8GB), and I would consider 16GB more futureproof.
Gut gesprochen!🙃
I don't have either, but just the FSX, so my opinion is based on videos. It seems to me FS focuses more on the environment visuals than the aircraft dynamics. The focus should be the plane, and that's what x-Plane seems to do. I don't know if the head movement during the touchdown and brusque movements is a matter of settings, but x-Plane does it right when it locks your head to the plane's movement.
Although the independent movement seems more modern, it doesn't make sense to simulate that when your head (and your body) is not actually feeling the gravitational forces. It makes no sense.
Something else I noticed x-Plane seems to do better (because it focus on somulating the plane, not the scenery) is the sinking and bouncing when the plane lands. I don't know if that's a matter of setting either, but it looks so poorly simulated on FS. On some videos, a plane touching the ground looks like a toy. There's no feeling of heaviness, of weight.
@rchrd_sn You're absolutely correct about MSFS being more centered around entertainment/console customers. I fly general aviation in real life and can say there are so many things about Microsoft/Asobo's flight modeling that are way too simplified and truly irk me. Landing and takeoff is especially simplified and almost arcade like at times. Payware add-ons are significantly better than the default planes but tend to have their own quirks.
X-Plane, while not as pretty, is more true to life in these regards. The developers of X-Plane are heavily involved in real world aviation and it shows when you dig in to what the physics engine is doing behind the scenes. I wonder how many of the Asobo developers have actually been behind the controls of a real aircraft before.
All that said, I do enjoy loading up a MSFS flight and flying VFR around to see the gorgeous scenery. It's just a shame we can't have both worlds at the same time.
@ceilaz7861 🤔
@@robbyyant6213 Good to know. Thank you for the info!
Very good review. Xplane is for simmers, and it wins at sim and content around it. FS2023 has what gamers need with a fair amount of SIM,ca step up to xplanes.
Eine richtige und dennoch faire Gegenüberstellung. LG
I still fly xplane 11 and I have all three. I just get the feeling of flying in vr on xplane vs ms. Don’t ask me why.
Because it's better. ONLY the eye candy in MSFS is better. They spent all that money, time and energy developing the ground textures, and totally forgot or didnt' care about the most important thing in a flight simulator, the actual flying.
I feel like Microsoft has put the focus on looks and not on realism. As someone with real GA pilot experience I prefer the "feel" of X-Plane over MSFS especially when it comes to ground handling. I think the Xbox console optimization had a big impact on realism as MSFS doesn't feel right in many instances. Neither can truly replicate the feel of an actual aircraft since there is no feedback or motion but the pressure required "feels" more accurate to me.
The MSFS base airports are also garbage, especially at night. Most look nice for day flights but terrible at night. Another example is an airport like Denver (KDEN). The airport is known for its terminal that is has it's telltale peaks yet the base version of MSFS lacks that important detail.
My last issue with MSFS is the accuracy of avionics such as the G1000. It's impossible to use for realistic IFR practice. X plane on the other hand is much more accurate and is actually useful for IFR practice. For looks MSFS generally comes out on top except for those airport issues / night time. For true simulator functionality X Plane is better.
Everyone has preferences but for me I planned to use MSFS and Xplane, but Xplane quickly got no use so it got uninstalled and now I only use MSFS. I personally find it a huge step up
I think performance is a main factor for me in these games, not forgetting realism! MSFS has a known bug that keeps telling your that you have low bandwidth. Annoying when you're trying to land and you get jitter! They're currently trying to fix it!
I was disappointed that not many people had good to say about the FS B787! My favourite airliners on there are PMDG's 737 and FBM A320. Camptain Sim's 777-300er which is my favourite plane in real-life is disappointingly attrocious! It is just the default 747 with a beautiful 777 skin!
I'm a bit puzzled about the aircraft part on here when it comes to compare the vanilla airliners. I don't think that all default aircraft within MSFS are actually "bad", it's just the airliners released with the sim which are ;)
Take the TBM 930 into account, especially with the G3000 avionics update coming now it's going to be really a good aircraft as well as the Premium Deluxe Longitude and the CJ4 which receive the same love right now. Also don't forget about the small aircraft like the C172 which already has an overhauled G1000 natively and the DHC-2 Beaver which is also great to fly. XP12 for sure has an impressive amount of aircraft but just a hand full is both visually and technically detailed enough - talking for the 737 for example there is a reason Zibo Mod exists like the FlyByWire mod on MSFS ;)
However what actually IS better on XP when it comes to systems is failures - you can configure basically every failure you can imagine and on top you got hypoxia and smoke in cockpit simulation. That is currently lacking on MSFS but I think it will get there at some point.
For the flight behavior I was able to get into a full motion A320 simulator at Lufthansa Training and compared it 1 on 1 with the FBW A320 - on my setup the flight behavior felt pretty close to the full motion version when it comes to roll rates and responsiveness. The A320 Neo ofc has more power so I won't compare that directly ;) When it comes to XP keep in mind that your hardware configuration might be interpreted different so you'd have to deal with the sensitivity settings/curves here to draw a conclusion between the Fenix and the Toliss.
In the end both sims are desktop simulators which act close to each as both share a similar way to simulate flight (application of forces to millions of surface points technically). A plus on MSFS for me is that wind and thermals are actually simulated dynamically and interpreted from real world data (like updrafts are generated by stored energy from sunlight on dark surfaces and wind is deflected by both hills and clouds).
On XP, while lacking this, more different surfaces are possible on aircraft - MSFS is limited to a basic aircraft design logically (fuselage + wings + horizontal stabilizers + vertical stabilizer = not even biplanes) while on XP you are, as a designer, not limited here (Rutan Boomerang? Fokker DR1? Yeah, go ahead!). This affects stall behavior but does only play a minor role in flying from A to B.
So, which one is better? Both are in their own field ;) Some of the issues you pointed out on MSFS will be fixed down the road, like airport lighting (I got some information that the way lights are currently simulated will anyway be different in future, so maybe they wait for a bigger overhaul [cough, RTX, cough]). Also the "Aircraft and Avionics Updates" will take care about the default aircrafts issues and limitations. XP however will be better for experimental designed aircraft and won't care much about impressing with stunning visuals. The goal here is to provide especially compatibility between many different systems like MacOS, Linux and Windows. Microsoft obviously does not care about that :)
Yeah I basically mean airliners. I say that once but only very briefly. Love the MSFS TBM. My favorite "non-airliner". Used to do island hopping in that. This was about the most fun I had in any sim 😁
Is the MS siulator as good as the x-plane for testing new designs before building them?
DFD is working on an a350 (freeware, same level of detail as FBW) currently development is a bit slow as many DFD devs are part of the FBWA380 team as well. They hope and plan to migrate a lot of the systems they create for the a 380 to the a350.
Bluebird are working on a 757 and a 767. The 757 is (according to their about section on their website) due to release mid 2023 published by JustSim. The 767 as I understood is still pretty early in its dev cycle, I assume, though, that there's a couple of systems they can recycle which should accelerate the process a little bit...
All in all Boeing lovers really a bit screwed in msfs currently but there's great projects on the horizon. And Airbus lovers have genuinely hit the jackpot. a fantastic payware a320ceo (with afaik the 19 and 21 variant planned) a really good freeware a320 neo and in the future brilliant a350s and a380s. (As an A333 lover I miss that as I would love to see a good FBW-level a333 but there's time and once the a320 and a380 by FBW are good, who knows what their path holds in store for us.
That sounds awesome. There is an A339 from Headwind and afaik Aerosofts A333 release is around the corner.
msfsaddons.com/2023/04/13/aerosofts-a330-for-msfs-nearing-completion-release-likely-this-summer/
@@yellscreen3697 hm, we'll see about the aerosoft one.... I'm always careful when companies value a deadline over the state of their product. Aerosoft publishes great scenery and i think no-one expects study level (let's just use pmdg as a comparison, fenix with the prosim under the hood wouldn't be fair). The CRJ they did (haven't tried it) wasn't exactly praised for the highest attention to detail but it wasn't shamed to death either. I hope there's not going to be too many inop buttons and the mcdu to be working well, meaning supporting a full and detailed difsrip and fixinfo.
As for the headwinds. yes, but I'm not a fan of the cockpit. I know the cockpit of the a33 and a32 are incredibly similar but there are some vast differences and I wouldn't feel like being in an a33 with the a32 cockpit^^ (I'm a bit weird like that :P)
Naja man wird sehen. Denke mal FBW mit der A320 Erfahrung wäre schon n ziemlich guter Kandidat für nen klassischen a332/a333, da wäre das zeitintensivste dann sicher das 3dModeln^^
the ground texture in xplane is caused by x-plane no owning saltlight
If Xplane had more (flyable) widebodies available I wouldn’t even look at other sims but sadly it doesn’t. The FF777 may change that for me however. I just can’t get over flying a plane that doesn’t respond as irl, that’s what it’s all about for me, therefore I don’t use MSFS.
Toliss A340, Rotate MD-11, Flight Factor A350 (pretty good, I was surprised)
@@maltimoto The flightfactor A350 kind of sucks tho, the Toliss A340 however is really nice
how many hours you have in real life?
XP11 user here, mostly flying the IXEG 733. Tried the A2A Comanche in MSFS and it is good, but the flight dynamics and landing physics leave me cold and numb, the sun feels dead and scripted compared to something like the SF260 in XP. That’s thing is alive and is a joy to fly and land. MSFS is strange, the aircraft have no mass or inertia. Bank left and right on attach and the millisecond you center the yoke, the back abruptly stops! Just doesn’t feel right. Had a few landings in the Comanche where I had a small bank and side slip and the aircraft doesn’t react, it just lands and rolls, where as in the SF260 you need to fly it all the time. MSFS is numb regarding feel.
I noticed the higher frames in XPlane 12 vs. MSFS. I suspect the processor makes the difference in XPlane 12. I can't even see 35 fps in XPlane 12 with a 3090ti and probably because the 10900k is the bottleneck. Would you agree?
Did not notice a high CPU load. Maybe an issue with the settings. Watch the LAX - SFO flight. I talk about the settings briefly and about anti-aliasing being an fps-killer.
ruclips.net/video/jj76N62pv3U/видео.html
Xplane is classically cpu bound by mostly 1 core. It's runnung a the simulation in the background and that's hard to break up into multiple threads. You want high single core clock speeds for it.
I think the commonly overlooked item in ground textures is that you eventually download all those gigabyte of tiles to get the immersion of detail. I downloaded orthophotos once and get nearly the same realism for free in X-Plane.
I guess the real point here is you actually have to do that in advance of your flight - you cannot just hop to some region and start right away exploring in VFR like in MSFS in the same session. I also think that's a real downside of XP and they could have mitigated that by providing at least some API allowing streaming from a map source (like ArcGIS at least) from third party tools.
@@deltak5457 with autoortho, yes you can. It streams ortho imagery to X-Plane in the same way MSFS does by default.
I used to hear from "real world pilots" on youtube that XPlane 11 had a very realistic flight model, but since 12 came I encountered some 'real; world pilots' saying it was garbage and totally unrealistic especially when you have a weather situation. I noticed that myself as well, XPlane 12 feels very "Arcady", plus the RTX 4090 performs like a GTX 870, so many issues I kinda want to ask for a refund, I hate wasting my money on trash!
X-Plane 11 still flies much more like Real World at this point than XP12. Xp12 has some issues somewhere. My XP11 setup looks WAY better than XP12 with the same add-ons and I get better FPS. :-)
@@EncounterTC Xplane12 is a total piece of shit. I saw real Airbus pilot simulate flight in tollis a320 and get real mad with how unrealistic the flight model was in hight altitude and a bit of wind
@@EncounterTC xplane 12 base more realistic flight model lol. Austrian said they where upgrading flight model especially for sea planes. Xplane is no longer getting updated anymore so I’m not sure what your talking about
Keep in mind that "real world pilots" are often on the payroll of Asobo, at least that's what I suspect
The thing that's oftentimes not discussed enough in these comparison videos is flight modeling. While MSFS is very pretty, it doesn't hold a candle to X-Plane's physics. You immediately feel this when rolling down the runway. Planes feel like they're actually machines barreling down a runway on a less than perfect runway surface and this dynamism continues once you're in the air. DCS is also another absolutely fantastic sim that's gotten flight modeling down but, since it's more of a niche combat simulator, not really comparable to MSFS/X-Plane.
I fly GA in real life and will say that, hands down, X-Plane feels more true to life. In comparison, MSFS, while decent, still feels somewhat simplified and cold. The A2A Comanche feels correct but, this is Accusim at work, not the Microsoft/Asobo flight modeling. Microsoft's current sim iteration is leaps and bounds ahead of what FSX/P3D was, however, it's still somewhat of a pretty face with a hollow shell.
Hopefully MSFS2024 will bring better flight modeling instead of just graphics improvements because this is what sells a flight sim for me. I want to feel all the things I feel when flying in real life.
Get the payware planes
@@lvvett1 I own several. While they are fantastic in their own right, they still have their own simplifications in flight modeling. None of them seem to handle the ground/air transitions correctly and only a few of them can even be trimmed for manual flight correctly.
I'm no fan boy of either sim and own both of them with plenty of add on included. I just want something that actually behaves like the real thing. Neither are perfect but X-Plane just does a better job, even with default planes, of getting the flight behavior more true to life.
Both sims are beautiful in their own ways but my reservation remains on how both can’t seem to reproduce ground behaviour. I’ve sat in the front end of a four seater aircraft and taxiing felt miles different from what I experience on both sims. The sense of drag and full control of the nose wheel are total as against the sims.
why didnt you use PMDG or fenix.. LVFR is just a default plane remodeled.. smh
I did use the Fenix @ 01:10. Try to pay attention.
LatinVFR they jumped on the MSFS hype train, produced some half baked sh*t. I wouldn't compare them to Captainsim, but it goes into the same direction...
can we get an update of this because xplane 12 had a lot of time to marinate in updates came out of beta testing.
A friend of mine (recently retired Virgin captain) flew the PMDG 737-700, the Piper Seneca and Cessna 414 Chancellor in MSFS and couldn’t believe how realistic the flight model is; he said he could train airline pilots using it. I agree that X Plane was the best flight sim (and I’ve used it) but I think as an all-round simulator, MSFS has taken the lead and the gap will widen given the huge amount of resource that Microsoft Asobo has. If X Plane want to compete they need to team up with Google to offer the same level of graphics that MSFS has.
I've never flown a commercial jet or anything like that, but I've flown some small GA planes so I can speak to that. Msfs really does a good job with the way the plane interacts with the environment. Wind, turbulence, etc. It really makes it feel alive and realistic. I've never flown another sim that comes close.
I still like xp12 more tbh.
Exactly as a private pilot msfs very true to life. As I’m training the 320 I’d only chose the fslabs or Fenix. These are the most realistic 320s in the simming industry I’ve heard from 320 captains.
@@majoraviatior1611 did they tried both sims or only msfs
@@greenesyt563 both the tollis is to sensitive and the flight factor has bad systems. The Fenix also uses prosim which is cost over 1k for a license.
allocated vram doesn't mean you actually need that much vram
you only need more vram if you start paging (manifests as stuttering and frame drops), if that doesn't happen you are fine
these vram overlays have done a lot of damage to peoples perception of how much you actually need
Of you give XP12 the same time MSFS needed to develop itself, XP12 will have a lot of things improved, like the A330 FMC which was announced to get a rework.
Agree. You can't drop the fact that MSFS has taken its time to get where it is today in terms of performance and stability. Hard to tell which one has more potential in the long term in this aspect.
It appears that Asobo's product has the edge in VFR flying for a long time. I could be wrong there given the tools and scenery we've seen for XP in the past. For IFR and ease of use, it appears to be that XP is just amazing with their one folder hierarchy, camera modes, replay functionality and potential planes coming over from XP11. FlyJSim, Zibo were all so great in XP11. Not to forget that a couple of essential historic aircraft like the TU-154, 727, 737-200 are available at a very high quality in XP11.
All those little windows in MSFS are pretty bad to handle. That reminds me a lot of MS WIndows' problems. And they always say the same about it: "There is so much different hardware we have to work with and the bugs are such Heisenbugs." Be it MS Windows or MSFS. Microsoft seem to repeat themselves there all too often.
After all I enjoy having competition.
Excuse-me is X-Plane 12 being done by a new team?
Xplane is being developed for more than a decade and it does what it does and will do what it can do but your argument makes no sense, if anything Xplane has years of development ahead of MSFS, at least know what you talking about, Xplane lacks the billions and backing from Microsoft, not time inn development, you two sound like you don't even know Xplane 11, or 10, or 9, 8...
@@kylewhite2985 Dude, you should know what you are talking about. Xplane 12 is a new flight sim with a lot of things reworked. As such, they developed a whole NEW flight model and a new weather engine. This means, almost all of the points mentioned in the video relate to these renewed engines. And by the way, MSFS has it's roots at least in FSX, made in 2006.
@@Flexflex744 You don't know whay you're talking about, period. I'll let other people pile in.
@@Flexflex744 xplane 11 and xplane 12 are much much closer together in terms of core similarities as opposed to fsx and fs2020. Each version of xplane closely iterates on the previous, while fs2020 is a flight sim that came out 14 years after FSX and still, it has a lot of work that could be done to polish it further. @Kyle White is right.
One big difference nobody talks about (well 3 actually). Xplane 12 loads on my PC in 8 seconds. MSFS loads with (cut-down) addons in 8 minutes. If I load all my addons, it's over 20 minutes. Sometimes, after waiting for that long load, MSFS will crash even just on the World map. Xplane seems more stable. I have Xplane 11 loaded on my second (Linux) PC in another room. It also will work on my Mac too. Littlenavmap works on all 3 platforms, but MSFS of course only works on Windows. I get better more consistent frame-rate on Xplane.
All these "passengers" rating a flight sim. "OOH, LOOK! OVER EXPOSED GROUND FEATURES MAKE THIS THE BEST FLIGHT SIM EVER". Hardly. The physics involved, especially on an IFR flight is and has always been superior on XPLANE. I own both and dont even use MSFS for instrument practice. Signed, actual pilot.
Simple answer XPlane 12 > MSFS 2020
XPlane focuses more on the plane
MSFS 2020 focuses more on the world.
I have both but prefer xp12 for IFR. MSFS is for vfr on virtual reality only but it's became extremely laggy after some windows 11 update. So at the moment is like 90% x plane
the rudder in MSFS 2020 is so-so,as i found it very hard to control on the ground -especially on high speeds.
To play these flight sims at 4K you need at minimum an RTX 3090, which most people could not afford.
Unfortunately as a former X-Plane flyer converted to MSFS there is no comparison. X-Plane 12 on ultra is MSFS on low settings, the Fenix A320 and the PMDG 737 were the final two nails in the coffin.
It depends on where one derives satisfaction from. In my Opinion MSFS is an absolute joy whenever you have to look out of the window, but it looks awful around airports that are not at the centre of a city. MSFS makes some airports outside a city including countryside airports look like they're in some kind of a rural settlement, and unless it is a third-party airport, it kills the immersion for me. Xplane 12 makes airports look immersive with well-laid out roads and cars running on them.
Yes it's staggering how good vanilla airports in for X-Plane 12. In MSFS you need a ton of add-ons.
In my last two videos I talked about how much I like this "busy" world of X-Plane 12.
Unfortunately XPlane 12 can not compare with the flying characteristics of XPlane 11. XPlane 11 is by far more accurate when used for flight training. And it doesn’t even come close to the visual immersion of MSFS 2020. I have a pretty robust system and I get around 27 fps in XPlane 12, around 50 in XPlane 11 and in MSFS 2020 around 39. I’m going to keep it on my system hoping that it gets better but for now for training I will continue to use XPlane 11 and for visual immersion MSFS 2020
I agree that the performance is better in MSFS because it is more optimised (remember how bad it was at the start?). For the other things i disagree. First where did you get that from that XP11 was better than XP12 for flight training? That’s BS since XP12’s flightmodel has been improved and even takes into account the temperature density, missing in XP11.
And for visuals generall speaking no one will deny that MSFS looks overall better. But i really had a few situations where my XP12 looked better than MSFS, mostly because the lighting can be so extremely realistic and we see better the topography and trees in the distance. Try for example taking of from LIMC on RWY 35L/R at 8h30 in the morning. That looked absolutely amazing.
The biggest downfall for me in MSFS is the lack of inertia and that clouds doesn’t impact your aircraft at all. You can literally fly into a hurricane and nothing will happen.
@@frankbyte In my previous post I was generalizing my thoughts based on my flight experience with both of the XPlane simulators.
I will be somewhat more specific with the hopes that I hopefully clarify my comment.
I owe a Cirrus SR 22 Gen 6 and mostly use XP 11 for IFR approaches using the Torquesim flight model and RealSimGear components. When utilizing XP11 the maneuvers of the plane feel much more realistic than with the XP12.
@@josec4790 Thanks for the explanations. That’s interesting. You should absolutely write to Austin because i think it’s the same plane he owns as well. I think he will be very interested about your findings. But i guess you have to describe where exactly it behaves less realistically in XP12, like engine performance, stall-behaviour etc.
@@frankbyte I will definitely do that. I would love to be able to switch to the XP 12. Thanks
Absolutely agree. On like-for-like settings, I get 60 FPS in XP11 and 22 FPS in XP12. XP12 is miserable! Terrible antialiasing too, from 15 years ago. no DLSS. No TAA. awful.
Why do you mention that the FBW a320 is pretty much default but you haven’t said anything about the Zibo?
One thing to remember, MSFS 2020 was a total failure on release. It was buggy, even the patch system failed. It was slow, bad graphics (stuttering) and really unusable for the first year and then some after release.
That's true, but now they managed to deal with most issues, how updates are checked and everything else so it's gaining momentum and getting better, lots of things added, i think in 2 more year time frame or more it will definitely surpass x plane
MSFS has realism and immersion X-plane has physics
Good god, it is hard so hard to hear what you are saying.
I think about it this way, msfs is for people that don't give a damn about the difference between platforms pc/ps/mobile, only visual experience matters to them ..as for xplane or other in depth flight system simulation is for people fascinated about tech and how things work or perform in different scenarios .. if we add combat into scene, msfs is done !
You are wrong here, mfs have high fidelity aircraft's also, like fenix and pmdg, mfs shines in avionics and how everything together works, while x plane have better physics, so saying its only visual total nonsense.
you are so wrong smh
In your video, the amount of time and focus dedicated to commercial jets when there are so many other aircraft types that could have been given a mention was a bit irritating. I understand there is a large group of commercial jet enthusiasts but IMO just as many sim pilots like me, don't care about or fly the commercial airliners. With that in mind, major portions of video reviews like yours essentially exclude us. The above aside, I agree MSFS2020 is the clear leader overall but people with the funds should also consider supporting XPlane so Microsoft doesn't gain another software monopoly. I own both sims. Thank you for your time to create and post.
MSFS is years ahead :)
True
Can only speak for the real world A330-200, but this aircraft has a minimal input delay. First timers find themselves chasing the aircraft through over input, then over correction. The Xplane model seemed far too sensitive.
Thank you for your honest comparsion.
MSFS simmer here. Planning to buy XP12 and any tips, info that anyone can share before I buy?? thanks
You can fly your XP12 controlled Zibo 737 - or an XP12 aircraft - inside of MSFS. The Swann Sim channel, and friends, have developed a software bridge, www.youtube.com/@swannsim4658
The XP12 >> MSFS bridge is still in Beta, there are a few bugs, but it combines the best of both worlds XP12 aircraft + MSFS scenery.
Up to 12-17GB in graphicly demanding airports ie... KJFK, KLAX, Tokyo, London, Paris, Frankfurt... Yes indeed Vram should be no less than 16GB for those that want all that Ultra settings 4K bling.
I have been flying x-plane since it's inception, I have flown FSX and MSFS as well. It seems 2 me that a lot of people care more about scenery than actually flying itself. I am a retired airline pilot, X-plane is definitely more aerodynamically accurate, not only one can change, modify and alter almost everything in x-plane, it is much easier to work with. Back in 1975 U.S broke eight time-to-altitude world records flying a F-15, I flew those eight flights and my time was 1-2 seconds off from the actual flight times. This is what I want from a simulator, good scenery is nice, but I wanna fly a Flight simulator not a Scenery simulator. Don't kill the messenger please!
ALL X-PLANE NEEDS IS A HUGE INVESTOR AND THATS IT FOR MSFS THEY WILL BE HISTORY.
7:21 That's it : msfs is for gamers, x-plane is for simmers. Took 3 seconds to resume both , the game and the sim 👌
You should have watched the video longer, he said mfs was for gamers until fenix a320 came out and followed by pmdg 737, now mfs for gamers and simmers.
X-Plane 12 requires orthos to look good. without those, it looks the same as X-Plane 11, and 10, and 9, and 8 and so on etc.
XP at its core can be a non-internet dependent sim used from cd's. Therefore, the only fair comparison is xp with scenery addons and the stock 172 in each. Mfs will be subscription based in 1-2 years and will always be dendent on internet connection.
@@DownTheRabbit-Hole exactly. Most small commercial sim manufacturers use X-Plane as a basis for their Simulators, including the one at my local airport.
@@DownTheRabbit-Hole No, it will not. Microsoft was incredibly clear on that, find me a source saying it'll become subscription based in 1-2 years.
@@ShortFinal They can't with XP12... it's not certified yet.
yeah...and it's not that hard to create Orthos, bascially I just have to set the Zoom Level, click rectangles on a map and click on Batch Create
With all due respect I am not sure how you came to your conclusion. You say that X-Plane has many more and better planes which behave more realistically and has better night lighting, yet you favour MSFS because it is better to look out of the window and the clouds and weather look better. You make no allowance for the fact that X-Plane is only just out of beta and the clouds are the subject of constant improvement. I suggest that for most serious simmers scenery is fairly low on their priorities and there are a variety of ways in any case that this can be improved in X-Plane without having to be constantly online as you fly.
That's wrong:
1) I never said planes in X-Plane 12 behave more realistic - I said that between the Toliss and the LVFR the Toliss has the more realistic depiction of the A319 - 06:57 . And I also said that the in my opinion the Fenix is the best of the A320 family - 08:04 (weird that you didn't hear that)
2) I specifically said I cannot say anything about the realism of the flight model - 08:38
3) I never said that X-Plane has the better night lighting - only that X-Plane 12 has any light at all at night at vanilla airports. In the night flight video I said I still prefer MSFS for the flight - ruclips.net/video/pmJ6QbrBh-s/видео.html
4) I doubt that most people who have a flight sim installed on their PC are "serious simmers" or real world pilots who want to practice or whatever. (To those people I say: stick with X-Plane 11) I have to help these people make a purchase decision as well. And just btw there are so many real world pilots who stream and make videos who use MSFS (e.g. 320 Sim Pilot, 737NG Driver, V1-Simulations)
5) I like this pretend outrage of having to be online in the third decade of the 21st century
@@yellscreen3697 Again, with respect, I appreciate you did not say that X-Plane was more realistic, just that it was different. However since only one of the simulators has a commercial version suitable for pilot training then I think it does not take much imagination to decide which is more likely to be the most realistic
XP is for serious simmers, MSFS for Instagram pilots 🙂
@@maltimoto Absolutely agree. Whenever you see so called objective comparisons it always comes down to the graphics and possibly the weather. It Technicolor terrain and flying over your house is so important then play the MSFS game but pleases don’t pretend it is an actual accurate simulation.
Long haul airplane for MSFS... What about A310, PMDG BBJ and BBJ2?
I think by "long-haul", we can assume he's also referring to wide-body. The BBJ is "long-haul" only by virtue of being light and having up to 9 auxiliary fuel tanks! It's not a true "long-haul" aircraft. You're right about the A310 though; partially - it only has a 6 hour endurance, which rules out most long-haul flying, and renders in "mid-haul".
@@droge192 How can I be right or wrong just by asking a question? (;
I prefer x-plane, but x-plane12 keeps crashing everytime. What can I do? I already installed the drivers..
Might have to go back to MSFS. X-Plane is a terrific sim. It really puts you through the paces of setting up flights. Very realistic... then it crashes. The worst part about X-Plane is you can't save flights. You go through all the procedures to set up a flight, which sometimes can take hours. Then... it crashes, and you have to start all over again - from scratch. In MSFS, saving is/ or was like hitting the PAUSE button. Exiting. Come back, and pick up where you left off. X-Plane is looking more and more like junk.
X-Plane is an REAL flight simulator, while MSFS is just an eye-candy GAME for teenagers !
I wish xplane had the resources to compete graphically and create a streamable world.
it does with addons i have them and it looks amazing
@@Dave-ky1es streamable world with addons..!?😜🙈
I’m a real 320/321 pilot, and Toliss’ flight model is waaaaay better than Fenix’s.
Thank you for speaking up, I can't hear the RUclips pilots praising the Fenix anymore. I am not a pilot but I think even as a passenger one can tell that Fenix physics are not as good as Toliss.
@@maltimoto then dont comment on what’s better if you havent fly them🤦🏻♂️ go watch V1 best real airbus pilot on youtube and gives unbiased opinions on airbuses.
@@masflow09 You can also judge it as a passenger
@@maltimoto 🤦🏻♂️
Was that the default LAX airport in Xplane 12?
xplane mobile on my iphone feels more realistic flying the planes than msfs, and i play msfs all day every day but still enjoy xplane mobile. i can even replay my flights on xplane mobile which i can't do on msfs.
i do enjoy the msfs live group flights with general aviation planes that some youtubers host live. not sure how big the xplane 11/12 live sim flight popularity is, but its very big on msfs. flying with 50 people coast to coast on msfs live every night was amazing, regardless of the planes not feeling extremely realistic, the weather and scenery across usa was amazing in msfs.
Need to combine xplane12, msfs, and GTA!!!😀
I have worked as an airline pilot since 98.
I use only Xplane 11 in VR with the Toliss A320Neo and A321.Which is what i fly nowadays.
I have trIed MSFS with the Fenix 320.
The Xplane flight model is way better than MSFS, like 10x.
Simulating the inertias of a medium jet is hard but Xplane tries nicely, MSFS is a toy in comparison.
If you want eye candy go with MSFS.I understand that the "real" scenery is hard to argue with.
Now that's a lot of GROUND GROUND TEXTURE!!!!
I have flown both and the camera and replay systems in Xplane are far better. I like the scenery and the Fenix and FBW planes in FS2020 - wish it's camera systems were better.
I agree, ground detail and accuracy is important and a reason to fly to destinations. I remember playing FS on my home built 486 years ago, and flew from London to Paris just to see the Eiffel Tower. I've had laptops ever since but 30 years later FS2020 has got me shopping around for a desktop again.
486 years ago? That's a long time!
I've bought Alienware R13 for MSFS. After two days I got my refund and uninstalled MSFS. The main reason is the absence of seasons. It is always July in MSFS. I had been with MSFS for like 25 years but the Asobo work discouraged me.
X-Plane is not perfect but more immersive. Aircraft modeling is much better. I took like a month to make a decent flight on Zibo Boeing 738.
Not that MSFS is terrible. But X-Plane gave me a completely different experience.
Haha tell this to Jörg Neumann Head of MSFS…🙈😂
so you saying xplane gives you more immersion than msfs? oh god
It is like a sci-fi movie/series. What is more important: advanced CGI or a good story, great characters, and a realistic setting? We always want to get both. But it doesn't work this way. Better CGI is much more expensive. Thus, a product is aimed at a wider audience. And we get vanilla.
Great video, thanks! I'm guessing airplane developers are concentrating more on MSFS now so I wonder how much future XP has