I have both xplane12 and msfs2020. My personal favorite is XP12 bc for me it's way more immersive. even tho the graphics are not as good as msfs, they still look very good, and sometimes it beats msfs. also the physics, especially of airliners and while taxiing, are way more realistic than msfs. you can actually feel the weight of the aircraft and the inertia too while on ground. also the default airports are better than msfs. in msfs, they look all the same and the terminals doesnt even look like terminals. also the ground textures and taxiways, they're all unrealistic and incorrect and when it's dark there are no lights illuminating the airport, killing the immersion.
Same here. I used to exclusively fly FS2020. Once I tried XP12, I was immediately hooked for the reasons you mentioned, mainly immersion, I didn't even have any addons in XP11. I now exclusively fly XP12 for airliner flights.
@@corntaIYes, my issue though is the horrible cockpit models on most of them and the darkness in them, the perception of light seems non-existent in the cockpit.
I recently switched from msfs to xp 12 ( never had xp11). I prefer xp12 for the study level airliners. I still use msfs for GA VFR flying but when it comes to airliners , xp 12 feels more realistic to me as a RL pilot.
@@georgewhitworth9742 Hey! So if one person gets cut on a saw thats for whatever reason placed in a waterslide, can that person no longer argue that having a saw inside a waterslide is dangerous? Youre logic is compltelty flawed mate. Also you are making a wild assumption that I am the only person having problems with XP12 I hope you are aware of the steam reviews aswell as all the videos on XP12. Cheers
@@helmax7153 Not even an apples to apples comparison. Yours is an anecdotal experience... XP could be crashing because of something in your environment, not a fault of XP. The logic his argument is flawed because your game crashes doesn't invalidate or make his logic flawed. Now if you had said "*I* can't actually experience that because it crashes before I can even fly", you might have a leg to stand on. However, you're projecting your anecdotal experience onto him like that somehow invalidates his opinion.
there hasn't been much of a visual change between xp11 and 12 but most of the changes are beneath the surface. the weather engine and physics engine were massivly overhauled. i found these changes very noticable and welcome. XP12s biggest problem is 3rd party devs many devs such as INI,JF and Orbx have switched focus to msfs. furthermore what addons JF make are normally boiled down versions of their products for other sims. tldr XP12 is the best for learning to fly, msfs is the best for the casual who doesnt have a need for the complexity associated with xp fm's
@@carlarenna And the main problem I had with MSFS was to install so many scenery-addons because default airports look bad. And also running many applications in parallel to the sim like an app for the Fenix to work, an app for navigraph- and an app for FSRealistic (run with XP in the background or are integrated in the sim). I even had to run an app that creates realistic turbulences (CAT…something, don’t remember the name). Awful! At the end, i nedded less addons with XP12.
@ceilaz7861 Well said. They have use FSX and P3D where there have been publish installation and configuration guides big enough to be a manual to build the aircraft just to run the sim. And yet somehow they act like they have paralysis if they use X Plane to install addons to improve the looks to there liking and instead praise MSFS giving to all to them on a silver platter by default.
There are many videos out there that show both MSFS and XPlane 12 the Cessna 172s act almost identically to each other. Also, the A2A Piper Comanche is THE most realistic GA airplane you can get for any desktop simulator, and nothing in XPlane11/12 even comes close to it. I am a real world aircraft mechanic with a lot of time in GA aircraft in the air and on the ground doing systems work. There are a lot of people out there that THINK that XPlane 11/12 is better but those people are not real world pilots and have almost no experience in aircraft other than as a passenger. Is MSFS perfect? No. Is it very good? Yes. Does the A2A Comanche blow the doors off XPlane? Very yes. And before you @ me, know I have owned every version of XPlane since the first one, I have 11 and 12, and I still have my 1982 subLogic Flight Simulator data cassette, so I have been at this a very long time, and been working RL aviation for 25 years now.
@@ImpendingJoker It looks like you forgot the CL650 for XP12. I very much doubt that the Comanche can be better. Otherwise I am sure you will be able to explain in details where it is supposed to be better, since you are a very experienced mechanic. And sorry, the vast majority of professional pilots will agree that XP simulates the flight dynamics better in general, although there are some aircrafts in MSFS (Comanche) that can also be very good. And the difference is not as big anymore as 3 years ago. But seriously this debates becomes slowly boring. I do fly in real as well and the last time i used one of the default MSFS-airplanes (back in march 2023) to reproduce my flight i was schocked by how unrealistic it behaves. Perhaps they have improved since then? I have deleted MSFS. But according to the reviews of professional pilots, at least the dynamics of airliners are still better in general. Capt. Blackbox, an Airbus captain and instructor even explained the differences in great length. The atmosphere in MSFS is quite inaccurate resulting in unrealistic climbing or sinking-rates. And the simulation of inertia is quite bad as well (not noticeable in small GA's but in airliners). He was even quite upset why MSFS wasn't able to do that right during XP was much closer to real. Summary: no the A2A Comanche doesn't blow the doors of X-Plane at all. It is just a very good addon from what i've heard. No need to think that MSFS is the best everywhere. It isn't.
I've to disagree on the point that devs don't update their planes. These planes are either from developers which are now focusing on MSFS, were not exisitent anymore at all before XP11 time ended or, (in case of the Flightfactor 777/787 and X-Crafts) they are working on an entirely new version. It's not just Toliss and Zibo, there are many more good X-Plane 12 aircraft!
You've got a point. Users were told by LR that in the new version, planes would be backwards compatible. When the release happened (which was not smooth at all), this turned out to be false. Some developers took off for MSFS and some scrambled to get a flyable version out ASAP. Most have since updated them. The new screens of the re-designed 777v2 look outstanding.
Very little of what you've said about X-Plane 12 is true. You should note, however, that LR originally tried to make XP12 aircraft backward compatible with XP11 but could not honor that commitment. The result is that while some XP11 aircraft will load in XP12, they are incompatible with the sim. XP12 has essentially been in beta for the past year. However, LR has finally settled on a stable platform so that developers can only now release add-ons without them getting broken by an update. By the way, X-Plane is considered an engineering tool (some real-world aircraft manufacturers use it in the design process), and it is FAA certifiable for real-world flight training. Ultimately, I believe that X-Plane 12 will become the sim of choice for more and more people.
Seems like everyone here is just about the eye candy and the bells and whistles rather than what matters in a sim vs a game. XP was created as a training tool for pilots and less about the photorealism of the graphics. If you go into a Level D simulator (that’s a full motion, type-specific professional training simulator for pilots in airlines, etc.), the graphic representation is primitive compared to MSFS2020 or even XP12. There’s a reason that XP (the professional license) is FAA approved and MSFS is not. What real-world pilots care about is the realism in the representation of flight physics, weather, and procedures in the cockpit. IFR supplemental training for example, is way more realistic in XP than in MSFS. And if you were to build a home cockpit, you’d use XP hands down because you’d be able to program every switch in a cockpit, something you can’t do on MSFS. So that’s the difference, sim pilots and gamers who care more about the “wow factor” and eye candy, which is the unimportant realism when it comes to flying, MSFS would be the better choice. But I would definitely recommend XP to anyone who wants to use a sim as a tool to supplement your real-world training or for proficiency gaining purposes.
"If you go into a Level D simulator (that’s a full motion, type-specific professional training simulator for pilots in airlines, etc.), the graphic representation is primitive" - Nope. Look at CAE's Tropos visual solution. Also, they had interviewed CAE engineers on the importance of graphical fidelity in the sim. " What real-world pilots care about is the realism in the representation of flight physics, weather, and procedures in the cockpit. " - Weather is graphics.
All that is true for X-Plane 11. That's the entire point: You can stick to XP11. And afaik as part of a setup X-Plane 11 is FAA certified. I couldn't find any confirmation that X-Plane 12 is.
@@yellscreen3697 That is because X Plane 12 its not finish yet. You don't certify something while it is in on going development and before its finish to apply for certification and be able to prove it meets it.
As a real world airline pilot and flight instructor, I totally agree with all thats been said here in the comments about X-Plane. X-Plane has its focus more on being a simulator rather than trying to look perfect and it's for people who want to simulate real world scenarios and/or pilots supplementing their real world flight training. MSFS is more like a game for people who care about eye candy and some nice and shiny graphics and landscapes.
Valuable response. I just went through PPL ground school at my local EAA Chapter. Following it up with Sporty's videos, tests and then taking my written. Ive had msfs for a while with about 500hrs in it. I recently bought the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo and TPR pedals. I really wanted pedals to train my brain to use them. Turned off auto rudder in MSFS. What a mess! In a 172, you get left turning tendencies in real life. In the sim, you get the same. BUT, add a 10kt wind 45 degrees from the right, and I found myself giving full LEFT rudder when trying to take off. The planes "Weathervane" ridiculously in MSFS. After touching down for a landing, it'll always shoot off into the wind fairly aggressively. Tried 172, 172 (G1000) and Diamond DA40. All do the same. So that brings me to X-plane. Though my Bravo Throttle quadrant is all mixed up, I managed to get the Citation X and SR22 off the ground. There's actually weight to the planes in X-Plane. MSFS, they jerk around in the sky like kites. MSFS autopilot is fairly bad as well. Praying it's good in X-plane.
One other major factor is stability; I had recently acquired XP12 before the price increase last year, installed and tried a few stock aircraft out. Within a couple of hours, everything was configured and quite seamless to how I had it set up in XP11 with no glitches, stutters, major hangups etc. Contrast that to MSFS, which I've had since 8/2020 where the file system must be so borked by now it's a chance whether or not it'll start past the updating screen - I realize the solution is probably to reinstall, but I'm just not seeing the value in getting back nearly 200 GB of downloading time. In 2020 I was impressed by the visuals, the multiplayer and access to the streaming Earth, but now with constant server updating, chancy multiplayer sight unseen issues (yes the friends still do the disappearing act), loading problems and it seems like anytime a beta will come out the server traffic is horrendous. Honestly, I'd rather have a system knowing that legitimate improvements are being made, even if the textures are subpar for a few of the stock planes, at least the functionality is there. It's almost an apples to oranges comparison in the outlook - while I'd like to continue using MSFS, I just cannot be sold on pretty visuals alone anymore since there's a myriad of other things happening that ruin the experience over time. XPlane/Austin/3rd party devs are likely to fix the bugs and deliver a better product in the end, while MSFS is a true unknown in both 2020 and 2024, even if the 3rd party continues to support the platform it may not be stable enough to even matter.
Honestly I dont agree with the argument that Xplane 11 is nearly as good as 12.. Just the better flight dynamics and volumetric clouds make 12 way better overall. When you go back to Xplane 11 after playing 12 something just feels off with the way the airplanes feel, especially with the smaller planes such as the Cessna 172. While I'm not an expert on how flight simulators work, I'm flying a cessna 172 in real life as I work towards my private pilots license and I'd say Xplane 12 feels the closest to the real thing. The flight dynamics are what Xplane 12 is all about NOT the graphics. The feel of the planes in MSFS is quite good but realistically the actual flight model is very unrealistic and Xplane 12 blows it out of the water.
In Austin's head, he knows what we want more than we do. Then again to be fair, MSFS stomped the life out of P3D too. The sim looks and feels fantastic and even though it has a big clunky xbox interface, they are doing a great job of trying to be everything to everybody. I think Laminar is very aware their next major release will determine their fate. They also know the clock is ticking. I saw some comments from them admitting they need to compete on the global ground scenery scale. Meanwhile - Austin is writing stuff on his whiteboard nobody cares about.
@@activex7327 I can confirm that I do like the technical background in Austin‘s video, as someone flying in real and using the sim to train my flights. This is the best example that proves why arcade-gamers don‘t care about such advanced stuff. They only care about ground-textures and cockpit-resolution. It‘s literally the only thing they can talk about. Thanks for proving our point 🤣🤣🤣
@@goldgamer8446 I would agree with you if real pilots would not use MSFS, but unfortunately the opposite is true, there's more real world pilots in MSFS than in Xplane. " I can confirm that I do like the technical background in Austin‘s video" - Thanks, I was right again. I bet Gozz like me being right.🤣🤣🤣
@@activex7327I've always felt having been with MSFS since the 80's and X-plane 9/10/11, that Austin always hypes more than delivered and despite all the "physics" reality and 'used in professional sims', that on our consumer level it's like apples to oranges. X-plane has never handled so well that any RW pilot would use it to feel like they're flying or train for RW aircraft responses. So on that level playing field MSFS vs X-Plane, it doesn't matter at least IMO. I've used either to train muscle memory, mental checklists, etc and more than anything...navigation..which is why I've gone back and forth depending on current or usable databases and GA models. Mostly MSFS for me but currently my internet situation can't handle MSFS. But I'm no fan of X-Plane as I do not like feeing duped by marketing hype - Emperor wears new clothes far as I'm concerned for the vast majority that talk of the physics being so much better. They both work well enough for the purpose. As a VFR/IFR pilot for about 2 decades, I still want navigation, pre-flying new routes..and therefore VFR landmark accuracy for which MSFS 2020 excels. Sad I can't use it. By the way, I invested in my first VR headset (Vive Pro) and a top tier PC/X-plane 11 maybe 4years ago for the hype of VR. it was BS. Never worked to be usable and R@n$y at X-plane said it if you spoke by phone sort of 'not ready for prime time'. All marketing hype at least back then. Yeah I'm venting..sorry.
Was a big XP11 fan, then xp12 came, big dissapointment. Today I only use MSFS and love it, so much going on in that sim, MSFS is the future, Just wait for MSFS 2024 next year, looking forward :)
Is it true what people say that when you download MSFS it take so long to download and since your waiting for it to download you can’t get a refund according to steam ? ( looking to buy it but having doubts from what people say about it on steam).
@@coochieman7887 because I read the reviews on steam and when you open the msfs there is another download and apparently that is 2 hour of playtime according to steam once that is up you can’t refund it. And some people say that it takes long for it to download so I am not sure.
That is the BIG question for me. And I am saying this without any irony. So if the physics are way better in 2024 than in 2020, I think this might become a serious problem for LR. But then again, I am not so sure if they can reach LR's physics. I don't know, we'll see!
I only purchased Xplane 12 because of the announced drastic price increase starting 2024. I loved Xplane 11, but switched to MSFS2020. I was really disappointed to find that many of my planes (like the hot start TBM-900) even though they promised a year ago it would be a free update to Xplane 12 still hasn’t happened. Ground graphics was no different necessitating the huge orthos I had, a problem that msfs2020 solved and does much better. Xplane 11/12 still has better VR integration, but it’s not horrible in MSFS2020. Agree completely it is far better for the community to have more choices.
the biggest issue of your comparison is very skewed. almost all of X-Plane 12 users do not use the Steam version, but rather purchase it directly from Laminar. so the steam numbers will reflect accordingly.
@yellscreen3697 my friends at Laminar. The steam version requires online service, so many X-Plane 12 users choose to purchase direct through laminar as it does not require online connection after activation
If MSFS didn't exist X-Plane 12 would be huge, but thanks to Asobo and access to petabytes of MS map data competing isn't really an option. Not that they couldn't have screwed it up and it does still have some minor issues, but kind of like how Street Fighter 4 rebooted fighting games MSFS introduced hundreds of thousands of new players to flight sims thanks to accessibility and incredible presentation, you can even play it on console. Due to its popularity MSFS has received more support from the add on community which has grown larger than ever before, and the quality of those add ons keeps getting better and better as the standards and expectations keep increasing, then there's FS2024 on the way introducing missions and objectives and carrying over any marketplace add ons you've picked up before, it's a scale of production that the X-Plane devs just cannot match. There's never been a better time to play flight sims, but unless MS screw it up it's going to be very difficult to compete.
I think you're neglecting the commercial markets. XPlane has a small overhead and can be an FAA certified simulator. Also, you can set up a facility and use multiple sims without the need to access massive bandwidth. I think LR and even P3D (which is funded by that small company Lockheed) will be just fine.
Pure crap video, it's well known that the 777 is very old and that FF will release soon the V2 of the 777 and the AIRAC you need a subscription for navigraph and this is for XP,MSFS,P3D
MS And Laminar are two competing businesses. Simple. More customers, more revenue. Who is creating more interest in their product? I must say I agree with what was said in the video, however, I hope XP will be able to dig themselves up again because I've got both xp11 and xp12 and I have purchased a great number of useless planes over time, particularly on xp12, which I hope will be flyable one day. Also, I hope they stop allowing bad developers on the system. Developers who don't care and will not fix their buggy stuff.
I enjoy both msfs and xp12. I do believe when xp12 was released it deserved the bad criticism it got but I have to give leminar credit as the sim has come a long way since then. I actually prefer default airports in xplane 12 to msfs and with free addons like autoortho and sim heaven scenery, the graphics are comparable to msfs. If you do any night flying then there is no comparison. The lighting is just better in xplane 12. Also there is something about the xplane flight model that just feels right. Having said that, I feel msfs is still the better overall sim at the moment.
Msfs is is absolutely dominating the flight sim industry. And they deserve it for the work they are doing and the fact that they have made air simulation at its best in the last decade.
@burgadaz17: the only "work" they have done is just throwing money at companies (Asobo, blackshark, inibuild etc.) who have the knowledge and made the sim for them. So the merit for this monopolistic world-company is close to zero.
as others said, one of the best part about X-Plane (and worst parts about MSFS) is that it doesn't have mandatory updates if you use standalone version. I assume that's what most X-Plane users do. If they bought on Steam then they'd get auto-updated.
5:00 - Yes, in this case I think you are indeed too pessimistic. I don't want to sound like a Asobo/Microsoft fanboy here, but if there's one thing the development team has shown in the past, it's that they absolutely care about the more demanding simmers! Just take a look at the latest sim updates or the announced sim updates. Major improvements in the avionics of all airliners (from the 787 to the A320) and intensive work is also being done on the flight physics (at least this is what is mentioned in the development updates). We can expect a completely new flight model for MSFS 2024! And at the Flight Sim Expo, Jörg Neumann once again emphasized that work is continuing on these factors and not just on content for casual players. And even if this was the case, it honestly would be enough for Microsoft to provide a stable basis. The rest will be done by external developers. This December alone, there were major development updates for the iFly 737MAX, the PMDG 777, the PMDG 737MAX, the Inibuilds A300, the Inibuilds A350, the FBW A380, the FBW A320neo, the FSS E-Jet family etc. etc. etc. etc. What more could one ask for?
From your lips to God's ears!I hear you. The last AAU was awesome. I feel like MSFS 2020 just gets going and not that it is at the end of its life-cycle. That's why I was surprised that there will be a new one so soon. But I think they ensured full backward compatibility. And all the new aircrafts we're getting - yeah maybe the future is more bright. First ini A306 streams running today. Plane looks preem.
@@yellscreen3697 You say : "I think they ensured full backward compatibility" I know (and no "i Think") that it should be impossible... The reason is very simple : graphic layers ! Your amability is a legend => move on ... Stay on a game... XBox is the future of MSFS...
@ceilaz7861 Do you have any evidence at all for your claims? Sounds like a lot of hot air to me, considering Microsoft is currently doing the exact opposite of what you claim...
@@yellscreen3697I think microsoft actually with a few developers announced the backward compatibility. ATLEAST with GSX Pro and PMDG 737, i heard that the Fenix A320 may need a little work on it before switching to FS2024. I think this all comes down to the fact that MSFS and MSFS2024 is practically based on the same engine and environment.
@@yellscreen3697 By that logic, would you find it fair to pick one of the worst and oldest MSFS-payware-addons to demonstrate how bad the sim is? Some of those addons were decribed by the community as scams. So do those addons in your opinion reflect how bad the sim is? Just to be sure I understand your point.
@angelicguru4066 Kind of. I said it in the video: Sometimes it's good if a developer forces the add-on makers to create a completely new add-on by going with a new engine, instead of just porting a 15 year old version.
@frankbyte if in 15 years MSFS 2035 is released and uses the same (by then) outdated engine and thus allows add-on plane developers to just port their 15 year old stuff and charge full price for it, then yes. It would be totally valid to call them out for that.
For me personally X-Plane will die once the PDMG 777 comes out and will die again once the A350 by iniBuilds (or the FBW A380, which ever is first) comes out and will die once again when the TFDiDesign MD-11 comes out (ohh and not to forget about the Aerosoft A330, if it ever comes out ^^). These are some really good and promising looking PAYWARE long-range aircraft addons which i'm really lokking forward to. Untill now there is almost no good long-range aircraft out there for MSFS but as soon as that changes i feel like i'll probably use X-Plane more less and less. Yes, there are some mods which enhance the long-range aircraft which we already have but it's just not the real deal for me. And the short-haul aircraft sector is also expanding with the Fenix A321 for example. So i'm guessing there won't be a future for ME in X-Plane anymore. Its also pretty interesting what Microsoft will really do in MSFS 2024. I really hope this won't bring any real trouble for third party developers, Microsoft says it won't but heys, we all know Microsoft. And i really hope there even is a good reason to buy MSFS 2024 anyway and not just so Microsoft can fill up their pockets with out money even more. 2024 will be an exciting year for us, guys.
"For me personally X-Plane will die once the PMDG 777 comes out and will die again once the A350 by iniBuilds" Oh please do you really believe what you just said seriously? lol The same company who took 15 months to bring out an efb after the release of the 737 who many lost confidence in, that you still want to sing the same song that a sim will die on one release of an aircraft? Have you ever heard of the Hotshot CL650? This is just bis Jets that has things in it you can only wish PMDG could put in their planes. Hotstart is current working on the A220 and it be based on the same concept. You may not care for bis jets but once you have seen it you will all off what it has and nothing that PMDG that will kill X plane anytime soon.
@ceilaz7861 so u have to pay even more money on sceneries and such just to make it look as good as vanilla msfs? Comparing both msfs and xp12 without any additional mods, xp12 is naff and the numbers shown in the video speak volumes about this. Shocking how people still try and defend xp12 when it looks like a pettily tweaked version of xp11, not to mention the entitled price point. The worst thing about xp12 is the scenery its actually funny to look at (1:28) at least the flight physics are somewhat okay but still that doesnt warrant a £50 charge for the game
@@dawg5883 Funny how some still try to bash XP when they show only one side that fits their narrative. Default airports in MSFS look very bad. In XP12 they look better so that you don’t need to install as much scenery-addons. And if you say « the flight physics are somewhat ok » in XP, what would be the appropriate term to qualify the MSFS-physics then? Utterly bad? 80% of XP11 has been reprogrammed for XP12. Just because it has almost the same ground and autogen doesn’t tell much. The weather-engine has been completely rewritten, seasons integrated, precipitation-accumulation, better flight-physics, sounds amd water massively improved. At the same time i bet you won’t mind to repurchasing a complete new sim 4 years after release for an almost identical sim with underwater-pubbles, AI-generated-rocks and missions.
@@angelicguru4066 "At the same time i bet you won’t mind to repurchasing a complete new sim 4 years after release for an almost identical sim with underwater-pubbles, AI-generated-rocks and missions" Bit ignorant to make such a bold and audacious statement considering the new msfs isnt even out yet, besides xp12 released 6 years after xp11 and still looks naff, funny you're even trying to compare xp12 default scenery to msfs, the xp12 scenery looks like it was drawn by a 10 year old, its actually ugly. bewildering that they even released the game with the scenery in that state, its all lowres sharp polygon borders, the forests dont match the underlying texrures, the autogen placement is like a game of blind darts, roads in the middle of nowhere and buildings placed with no sense of correlation of the scenery. Ur saying that 80% of xp11 has been reprogrammed into xp12, they may as well have just updated xp11 instead of releasing an entire new game and scamming £50 for it lol. If anyone bought xp12 in hopes of doing vfr flying they're out of luck and they'll be spending a lot of money on addon scenery to get the realism and accuracy on par with msfs. All the new "features" in xp12 look sloppy and poorly made, almost as if they had to release xp12 quickly in competition with the msfs2020 release.
Spent so much time on Xplane 10 and 11 years ago. I also spent a lot of money on XP11 with third party aircraft's. When XP12 came out and there was no support to convert XP11 aircraft over to XP12 (Carenado), I made a difficult decision to leave XP. I was extremely frustrated. I eventually built a monster PC and moved onto MSFS 2020 and I am extremely happy but the learning curve was difficult. My curiosity was bugging me so I tried XP12 with the default C172 and had a horrible experience. Not sure why. Maybe I had lost my XP feeling. To be honest, XP12 looks much better then previous XP versions including the flight model but the lack of developer support, especially when you spend thousands on third party aircraft is a shame. I've promised myself, until this developer scenario changes for XP, I will never go back and invest in XP again.
so i'm supposed to suffer because they don't have enough people to provide support for their product ....the complete absence of customer service to talk to in person....i didn't buy the sim to learn computer programming...it's for my entertainment ....if i really wanted to learn to fly i would go to flight school.
1. MSFS 2020 far far outsells X-Plane. 2. Most of those 'flying' MSFS are doing so because they love seeing things from the air (as do I). 3. MSFS is used more as a game - maybe XP would like to be used that way too, but can't compare. 4. XP flight models much better - look at MSFS planes 'waggling' in the sky totally unlike IRL. 5. XP is much better for pilots and would-be pilots in terms of matching real flying although you can do all of the same things (e.g. instrument approaches and landings) in MSFS. 6. MSFS makes landing planes almost failsafe while landing a plane safely in XP demands skills somewhat similar to IRL.
i have over 2k hours in XP11, i was a huge FSX simmer before but XP11 was so incredible i fell in love with it. That said, at launch i loved the graphics but MSFS felt like a toy. Now? I love it, after the A330 update i started using it more and more, they also iptimized the hell out of it and it works 10x times better than it did before on my 1070. Literally the only thing that prevents me from uninstalling XP11 is the FlyJsim 737 and 727 because i freaking love old-ass jets and those two (specially the 732) have the best soundpacks i've ever heard.
Xplane 12 is definitely better than 11. Sure, it sucks a lot of aircraft havent had reworks in years, but i'd rather have my 777 in Xplane 12 with bad interior graphics but gain new lighting and weather.
Msfs2020 flight dynamics are catching up with xp12 and with msfs2024 around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes even more realistic to xp12, not that alot of us know what a real plane feels like, some do but most don't.
I personally think that with the hardware we have now, a sim can only feel so good. Reason being, one of the biggest differences to me between the sim and real life “flight dynamics” wise, is the life you feel throughout the yoke. Sadly we don’t really have a consumer grade force feed back yoke at the moment, but it would be interesting to compare the two with more lively hardware
Four years ago, everyone was « headed » towards X-Plane. P3Dv5 was the very last surviving iteration, with or without MSFS, everybody would have left eventually. It really was too old to be frankensteined again. PMDG’s DC6 was a way for the developer to learn the tools necessary to bring their lineup to XP. Developers such as ToLiss or FF (777v2) invested a lot on the potential future of Xplane. That was until that very day at E3 2019, when MS announced MSFS. That really was an earthquake in the flightsim world. PMDG used their DC6 to the exact same purpose as for XP but with MSFS. I am pretty sure that the early stages of NGXu and 777 revamps were intended for XP. But the choice was easy for any developer (including sceneries) that wanted to find a new market after the death of P3D : X Plane (as was P3D) is a niche game, for a niche community, while MSFS was to bring more people into the hobby, therefore more potential customers. Wonder why Fenix’s A320 is so low priced ? Precisely because of this. Looking at XP12 today, you get the feeling that it’s abandonned by most devs (scenery devs in particular) because of what you pointed out : bascially, an XP11 scenery will work on 12, execept for fancy rain effect, so no need to bother. Add to it the fact that XP offers incredibly expansive planes, you get as a result that MSFS takes the lead. Yes, XP12 is fantastic for the feel, but MSFS has what is most important : attention from people and devs.
You do know that you can't get reasonable or accurate current user counts from xplane 12 without Laminar.... You don't get any sort of idea of those numbers from anywhere else. MSFS has steam, but you don't get the MSFS numbers from them either. YOu only get any approximal data from Steam. Also, people like the screen candy of MSFS. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. However, people that love to fly, fly Xplane. Another thing not seeming to get into your calculations is that the INSTALL base is orthogonal to the AVAILABLE install base. i.e., MSFS is on consoles and PCs. Xplane, is on PCs and mobile, and to a very small extent Linux. It's really clear you're biased, which is also fine. Just acknowledge that and move along. The thing that is obvious to anyone that can fog a mirror is that the users right now are in a good position, having this competition.
"You do know that you can't get reasonable or accurate current user counts from xplane 12 without Laminar.... " - Yeah sure. Do you have the numbers from Laminar? Then I use them. " YOu only get any approximal data from Steam. " Right - we approximate, which is what you do if you don't have exact numbers. What you can also do is cross-check the approximation with other numbers, like Twitch viewer count, number of reviews on metacritic and navigraph survey...which I did. "Also, people like the screen candy of MSFS. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. However, people that love to fly, fly Xplane." - oh right here we go again with the true simmers, the real simmers, the seriuos simmers - you are so superior to us arcacde gamers... 🥱 "It's really clear you're biased..." - sure - I'm not telling you what you wanna hear - so there must be some nefarious reason.
@@yellscreen3697 I fly both pal, and I worked at Microsoft for 12 years. I know what goes on in both camps, I'm beholden to neither. You sure seem to be smitten with Asobo though (it's Asobo, Microsoft bought them, they didn't "make" MSFS, they simply own the IP...). In terms of superiority, well, you tell me bubba. What solution is certified? Laminar's commercial offering, that's right. So in terms of fidelity, YES, it is superior. In terms of graphics, it lags behind MSFS, nobody argues this. When you make something work on a console for gaming, yeah, it is a "Game" at that point and won't have the same capability and flexibility you have on the PC. That's true of any solution you lock down to a console. The value-add to Microsoft in doing that, is the install base for consoles is HUGE. The gaming population for console is orders of magnitude larger than that of the PC. I never implied nefarious intent. SImply rose-colored glasses of a fanboy who seems to be more intent on saying xplane 12 is garbage and MSFS will feed the masses with a loaf of bread and three fishes. Microsoft has already proven they aren't reliable in this space (gaming). They killed the original flight sim out of sheer stupidity. I was IN E&D @ Microsoft when that went down, I worked on Robbie Bach's staff. You aren't talking to some dilettante here pal. As I said, it's GOOD we as users are spoiled for the competition. Any time there is only 1 of anything in the market, innovation tanks. Xplane 12 is nowhere near the same as xplane 10 and for you to say that is myopic, and just plain *stupid*. It shows your bias, and clearly illustrates that you aren't capable of illustrating the ways in which these simulators address their users' needs. You do you, nobody else will that's for sure. I simply tried to show that you re anything but impartial here, and your attempt at drowning the average user in a heap of data just proves that point.
"I fly both pal, and I worked at Microsoft for 12 years" - That's called an argument from authority - a sign that you have nothing substantive to say and just wanna bully me from a - what you perceive as a - superior position. "In terms of superiority, well, you tell me bubba." - name calling the usual - "What solution is certified? Laminar's commercial offering, that's right. So in terms of fidelity, YES, it is superior" - Maybe read again what I wrote about being superior - I wasn't talking about the sim. "you make something work on a console for gaming, yeah, it is a "Game" at that point and won't have the same capability and flexibility you have on the PC." - you do know that you wrote this in your original comment: "Xplane, is on PCs and mobile" "Simply rose-colored glasses of a fanboy..." - A personal attack, again nothing substantive to say. " You aren't talking to some dilettante here pal. " - Yes "pal" I am someone important - respect my authorotaaaa... LMAO - I guess you have a very small... ego "As I said, it's GOOD we as users are spoiled for the competition. Any time there is only 1 of anything in the market, innovation tanks." - agreed that's what I'm afraid of. "Xplane 12 is nowhere near the same as xplane 10 and for you to say that is myopic..." - What are you talking about? "I simply tried to show that you re anything but impartial here, and your attempt at drowning the average user in a heap of data just proves that point." - Me showing impartial data proves that I'm partial - You can't make this shit up...🤣
@@yellscreen3697 You aren't having anything less than a show of stupidity. I said what I said not to "bully" you, but to simply convey I *worked* there and know precisely what went on, what happens now, etc. You, don't. I know why they made the decisions they made. I get it. See, I never disparaged MSFS. I didn't upbraid Xplane. I said the one does this, the other that, you do you. You have made the impartiality the norm in this conversation. Now, since you are resorting to village idiot tactics (THAT is bullying, see what I did there??) I'll simply say good day sir, and enjoy your "game".
And again nothing substantive to say, again just personal attacks and insults. No data addressed, no argument made. Nothing about what was in the video. Just self-hommage.
I'm going to get hate but that's ok. There are many videos out there that show both MSFS and XPlane 12 the Cessna 172s act almost identically to each other. Also, the A2A Piper Comanche is THE most realistic GA airplane you can get for any desktop simulator, and nothing in XPlane11/12 even comes close to it. I am a real world aircraft mechanic with a lot of time in GA aircraft in the air and on the ground doing systems work. There are a lot of people out there that THINK that XPlane 11/12 is better but those people are not real world pilots and have almost no experience in aircraft other than as a passenger. Is MSFS perfect? No. Is it very good? Yes. Does the A2A Comanche blow the doors off XPlane? Very yes. And before you @ me, know I have owned every version of XPlane since the first one, I have 11 and 12, and I still have my 1982 subLogic Flight Simulator data cassette, so I have been at this a very long time, and been working RL aviation for 25 years now.
"Also, the A2A Piper Comanche is THE most realistic GA airplane you can get for any desktop simulator, and nothing in XPlane11/12 even comes close to it." It looks like you forgot the CL650 for XP. I very much doubt that the A2A-Comanche can compete, knowing a business jet is much more complex system-wise.
People need to look around the addons for X-Plane. So many great developers such as hot start, aerobask, Toliss, felis etc. There are some great addons on the horizon such as the FF 777. It just needs more exposure.
Like many I was XP11 fan and was looking forward to XP12 but it’s a huge disappointment. MSFS has massive development behind it and devs are creating some amazing planes that are the equal of the best planes in XP11/12. I agree it’s a shame but if you’re fair and compare the two sims you realise how dated XP12 is. With devs jumping to platform that make them the most money msfs Xplane will slowly become irrelevant except to diehard fans. To people who XP12 has better physics well there really isn’t so much advantage anymore. GFX wise XP12 is an embarrassing comparison and they will never have the maps tech for the scenery. It’s a shame I agree we need competition but it’s already over there is none 😢
So if MS has a massive dev team, where are the great flight and ground physics? Why has this huge team not been able to achieve good physics over the last 3 years?
@@maltimoto Austin’s too busy being the aviation nerd he is (which I appreciate) but doesn’t concentrate on the glaring issues XP12 has I’ve gone back to using xp11 due to all the money I spent for addons THAT are NOT compatible with xp12 wtf. Msfs is better than XP12 fan boys like to admit. So where’s the Ground scenery improvement in XP12 why are there angled roads everywhere, why do I have to hack the shit out of xp12 too make it look like it wasn’t designed 10 years ago. Modelling aircraft tires isn’t important when the whole sim hasn’t moved on in certain areas for YEARS. Simple fact is Xplane has fallen behind in many areas doesn’t mean msfs is perfect it’s not but at present there’s an obvious path for its development and improvement I see nothing that encourages me for xp12 and btw xp11 is far from perfect too.
I bought xplane 11 but never used it. I also bought xp12 and I love it. The planes I bought for it work now, except 727. And I really like the lighting. I hope they do improve though. We need the competition. I do wonder if msfs will be buyable or would be based linked fix to game pass
In was on MSFS since more than 25 years. I have switched on X-Plane12 last october 23' The only thing I regret It's not make it earlier. All is best on X-Plane. All the aircrafts are best.
All the aircraft are best, especially those who crashed the sim to desktop or come with AIRAC cycle from 2012. All the best. Nothing to see here - move on.
@@yellscreen3697 Do you not know that you can update your AIRAC? You keep repeating this as an excuse. Takes 30seconds to update. I still believe MSFS is still in that video game spot. Rather than the full on simulator that Xplane leads in. You may have the scenery graphics, but your plane and air physics aren't there yet.
@@yellscreen3697 I don’t have aircrafts that crashed my sim in XP12. And seriously, every serious sim-user uses navigraph-AIRACS. But everyone has its own priorities as it seem. I personnally have been disappointed by MSFS and have deinstalled it because XP offers me a better overall experience (flying in real too). And XP12 has massively improved and has even increased its market share by 25% according to the last navigraph-survey. It is a a solid second place and XP12 have also sold the most copies at release of any other version in the whole history of XP. They also increased their team. They are not going anywhere. People have seen it dying since 15 years. During that time MS failed twice, XP is still here and healthy. For the bashers of course this is hard to swallow.
Yell@screen- I totally agree with your views on this matter. I am big fan of X-Plane 11 and all add-ons. I have racked up thousands of hours with that sim and enjoyed it. Then, when X-Plane 12 came out i was so disappointed as no "Wow" factor at all. I decided to buy MSFS, which gave me the "Wow" factor. Massive improvement over X-Plane in many ways, buy not all. MSFS is now my go-to sim. In fact, I now only play XP11 and MSFS on my monitor and in VR. I will skip XP12 just as i did with XP10.
or the supper annoying "Connection to remote servers lost" screen that it took them YEARS to cause to not lock flight controls until you clicked the button... now it's just a big window that blocks half the display... no way to turn off... and it's REAL fun trying to land with that thing in your face (or where they locked controls but let the plane still fly)... lots of hard landings because of network issues to Microsoft's reliable Azure infrastructure.
For the B777 texture stuff it’s just why would flightfactor update the B777 worldliner ? They’re about to release a completely new made from scratch version of the B777 series so there isn’t any point in updating a probably almost 10 year old mod. X-Plane also has an advantage. The founder / developer of the game himself is a pilot and flies a lancair evolution. So he’s got a big head start on how the airplane Should actually fly and the physics of flight. Not just some Microsoft developer trying trying to get it right with 0 flight experience in person. So I’m sticking to X plane as MFS isn’t the best it’s mainly just a game for the graphics.
It comes down to who is more motivated and committed in creating the most realistic experience in a desktop flight Simulation. Asobo/MS had to tell their staff to get flight lesson where the founder of Xplane wrote the sim to help get his first PPL and his staff has experience pilots and trainers. Big difference when your staff has what takes to know how much they can put into a sim.
It's really disappointing seeing X-Plane go down this path. It has so much potential, but with updates so slow, and being miles behind the competition, its on a road to dying completely. It's especially hard for someone like me who is running Linux, and simply cannot run MSFS.
You should watch the second video. XP has increased their users the last year according to the last Navigraph-study by over 30%. And Plane 12 has seen the most substantial sales of any X-Plane release that Laminar has ever put out (source Cameron, working with Laminar). And they have improved way more within 1 year than MSFS did after the release.
You ABSOLUTELY CAN run MSFS in Linux. I'm running mine with steam and proton experimental it runs just as well as windows you can set the -FastLaunch option in the game properties in steam
I think if X-Plane 12 just had the visual look that MSFS has, it would win hands down! Sometimes I can't help but stare the beautiful sunsets, beaches and landscape that is MSFS! Like you, I hope MSFS2024 does not shift its focus from simming to becoming just another plane game!
I run Auto Ortho, ActiveSky 12, and SimHeaven and Orbx Global Forests - that gets me VERY close to MSFS - yes buildings are more generic BUT photogrammetry buildings in MSFS can be underwhelming and the actual base Ortho from AO is bing
Every time I go to X-Plane’s own blogs I see the exact same posts. They don’t update them from one month to the next. It feels like a dead project. Shame, because I use a Mac so I use X-Plane, and I like it, but it really seems like nothing is happening there.
I think xplane11/12/Elite Dangerous are on the endangered list, they are dying. Xplane11/12 is like the OAP Sim for bedroom lore lovers.I have been looking for XPLANE 11/12 Military Jet reviews (youtube), but there is none, no one cares, is all you find is some girly indulgent flyby. I have both xp11/12, yet why would i wast my time when i have msfs 2020/24 and DCS, i wouldn't. Same with Elite Dangerous, Frontier seem to have washed their hands of it, the only reason we are getting updates in 2024, is because of poor 2023 financials, otherwise they would pull the plug. These devs dont deserve out support, let the sims die
If you are looking for a good and "as real as it gets" flight simulation (not on a professional motion sim used for flight training but on an ordinary home-PC) X-Plane is currently the best you can get. "The other sim" is more a game than a sim - with nice eye candy. Just one example to show how retarded the MSFS is: Although it has been on the market for several years now, hand controllers are still not supported in VR mode! When the VR mode was implemented in X-Plane (version 11), VR including hand controllers worked smoothly from day 1. Now we are in 2024 and you have to move a mouse across the table in MSFS with VR goggles on your head to operate the flight deck. It feels pretty medieval to me... Even the admittedly more beautiful graphics can't make up for that. And all this with the background knowledge that MSFS is backed by a much larger development team than X-Plane.
U said it yourself. The reason why PMDG takes 4 years is because it’s p3d to msfs. They are 2 very different systems and are like apples to oranges. X-Plane is built to have aircraft easily ported over. Also it’s BS that graphics are the same. A beefed up xp12 is far better than a beefed up xp11.
That's what happens when the entire dev cycle from XP release to ~XP XX.50, and the associated payroll costs and other expenses have to be paid for with a brand-new sim, even if it doesn't offer groundbreaking advancements. Same for MSFS2020 to 2024 - the Azure Cloud functionality, the 14+ sim updates and world updates all have to be paid for somehow. Some will be via Game Pass but most serious simmers buy, so there's no choice but to force those people to buy again. The alternative is for them to go on subscription plans, like MMORPGs. The kicker however is that addon developers see a new sim version and they start charging high prices to convert their addons to the new version, see FlightFactor and others.
Some of the developers including FlightFactor, CowanSim, Orbx, and Hot Start gave free upgrades to XP12. I can't hate on 'em too bad if they ported it for free. They had to do work and they didn't get paid. Also, a lot of the reworks that are for XP12 include XP11 versions. It's not a gamechanger by any means, but the other day when I logged on to my Orbx Account and had 2 sceneries that were XP12 compatible for free...I wasn't too upset by it.
@@rigger41 A lot of the upgrade price paid doesn't feel commensurate with the dev effort required to update the addon. Sometimes the upgraded addon manages to look even worse (FFA320) And X-Plane addons are already more expensive, for example the Toliss sells each aircraft for $90.
@@Avantime I'm talking about the upgrades that were free. FF767, CL650, CowanSim helicopters were FREE upgrades. Also, Toliss is worth $90, I think. It's the best Airbus addon I've ever used and the depth is right up with PMDG.
If I could fully use my RealSimGear hardware like my Perspective+ stack with MSFS I would use it a lot more than X-Plane, but right now X-Plane along with Ortho like Orbx TE and vStates, the X-Aviation and Aerobask planes, my RealSimGear Cirrus cockpit hardware, and iPad Pro running Foreflight gives me a much more realistic experience than MSFS. I do like MSFS a lot though.
@@yellscreen3697 and they also recommend people to wait and buy the new, AND include a warning - instead of being extraordinarily bias use some newer aircraft like the 767 and the a340
without toliss I wouldn t use X12. I need to create an ORTHO and put simheaven to make it enjoyable. Im using X12 only for training purposes with ZIBO and Toliss. I agree with video :)
Great video and all good points. I go back and forth between MSFS and XP12. Historically it has been that XP is better on flight physics and avionics and MSFS was better with the eye candy. Now here we are on the verge of getting MSFS 2024 and it appears MSFS is making big strides in avionics and city/landscapes/scenery and some moderate gains in physics. I believe that XP is still better in terms of flight physics but not really maintaining any of its other strengths. That is not good for Laminar Research. XPlane is very drab and not inspiring. So many people, including myself, are willing to take a small (and getting smaller) hit on the physics because almost everything else is better.
To put this in perspective, XP-12 was a way bigger let down than MSFS2020 when it first came out (before all the updates & bug fixes) That's how much X-Plane fumbled, and honestly I don't blame them.
Yea when I would go back to X plane from time to time I would go to x plane 11. I liked 11. 12 was a huge disappointment. Honestly I ended making the change after about a year of thinking about it. I had over $1700 of payware and stuff for X Plane which is why i waited so long and thought over it. But I left for good mainly because promises promises promises.. I started out on MSFS about 30 years ago. Came to x plane because msfs went dead in the water for a while. But since they've been back especially after all of the massive updates my sim is awesome and I hadn't spent a $ aside from payware. Hardware wise I hadn't had to change a thing. The updates fixed everything. Thx X Plane for 4 years of fun.
Im pilot i can tell you the only thing XP still win fligth fisics,model , flare etc..but it was much better than MSFS , but now after few updates MSFS improved a lot , just meters of time to be equal.
i fly all the sims. xp12, xp11, msfs, p3d. (yes i have FOUR sim installed, its a nightmare). Im a RL pilot and I can tell you that no sim is perfect, But they all have their pros and cons. I love flying xp12 for the realistic flight model and physics, MSFS for the scenery, and p3d for the long haul aircraft. MSFS has major flaws with the flight model and just has an overall "game" feel rather than an actual simulator. laminar and xp12 just cant get the graphics right. P3D is a money pit and has no community.
I think you're missing an important point here. Laminar Research (Austin Meyer) is not competing with Microsoft Flight Simulator. He set out to build a teaching aid for pilots and get it FAA certified. He's done that. Now, he's just improving it.
Honestly, as someone who dabbles in both but uses MSFS more, I'd say it's down to accessibility. The barrier of entry for MSFS is significantly lower. Even out of the box you already get decent sattelite scenery (most of the time), the default aircraft, while not study level, are still pretty decent for a beginner (and still offer all the navigation tools to perform IFR flights) especially the newer ones like the inibuilds airbuses, you can get online functionality without needing to hop on vatsim and the like, and most importantly, it is optimized to be pretty flyable on just a gamepad, meaning you also don't have the cost barrier of a joystick at least to get started. Of course, if you want to get a more realistic experience with either sim you're gonna have to buy hardware and software/addons besides the base sim, but I think the low barrier of entry of MSFS as well as it's more "gamified" nature (with missions, flight lessons and landing challenges) make it a much less intimidating sim to get into. Besides, you can always move to x-plane after you feel comfortable enough going for a more 'engineer-minded" simulation.
The issue is that the average person tends to prioritize cosmetics over realism. Me personally, I will take a good physics engine over how pretty it looks. And X-Plane 12 is superior in that department. Not to mention that due to the lower graphics I can still use my six year old PC.
I use both, but I enjoy XP12 more. With ortho and simheaven it rivals MSFS in terms of visual quality. There a crispness with XP that you don’t get with MSFS. Both sims have their place.
I'm on Linux, so X-Plane 12 works nicely for me. One issue I have found was when I wanted to create a bit of scenery. The official Blender plugin hasn't had an update in ages because the main dev left Laminar. The geometry it creates is pretty inefficient because it doesn't seem to reuse vertices, and it flat out doesn't support lines. The docs are old, patchy, and disorganised. Now, I don't know what the tooling is like for MSFS or P3D, but I bet it's not as bad as XP's.
Xplane is like an indie simulator with great physics and MSFS 2020 is like a AAA XBOX game filled with eye candy. But MSFS has no FFB, terrible telemetry making it terrible in a motion sim with an FFB stick. Really not possible to compare the two at this point.
XP has more accurate flight modelling (physics in general) and wx and it appeals more to real pilots (it definitely "feels" more like flying a real airplane), while MSFS is more eye candy- and game- (vs simulation-) orientation, which appeals more to "casual" users. Agreed that XP (with Laminar's much more limited development budget) has some glaring deficiencies, but there's a reason you can log actual hours (with the appropriate licensing) with XP but not with MSFS. It's essentially simulator vs game, although MSFS has made some strides in the realism departement and can provide a reasonable sim experience in some cases. It's like photography these days--with very few exceptions, real photographers use real cameras and post-process their RAW image files, while snapshooters use phones and post their "auto-gen" JPGs to social media, rather than printing them. MSFS simply has much more visual appeal and simplicity, and that's what sells. Of course, there are options in MSFS (mostly payware) which offer more realism (cold startups, following an IFR flightplan, flying procedures, etc.) and the scenery is more believable (at least in clear weather--XP does a great job in low-vis scenarios--it's the roads that just don't look right, which is a problem in MSFS as well). I've used Microsoft's FS since v2 (mid-'80s) and XP since 9, and MSFS 2020 is the first MS product to come close to XP. They both have deficient ATC, but that seems to be improving (albeit slowly). XP12 is better than 11, but not radically so and most of the a/c aren't that great (especially the terrible interiors/panels, with some exceptions). Agreed that MSFS 2024 looks even more like a game than 2020 (very disappointing) and yes, we need XP not only for competition, but for its superior platform--they just need to work out a lot of details! I hope Austin, et al, continue to improve their product and the FS community continues to support them--I buy every release and provide feedback to help them in their mission.
I’m part of a virtual airline where there are a number of current and retired real world pilots. Now that PMDG has created very high quality aircraft, as well as a number of other developers, these folks are rapidly migrating to MSFS from XP and P3D. If you are an established XP user then there still a lot of high quality aircraft that don’t currently exist in MSFS that are in your XP hangar. But, if you are a new simmer the future is MSFS and there is little XP will have to offer that warrant the learning curve and add-on messiness. XP will be a footnote in the flight sim world a few years from now. Adobo has hundreds of staff - XP a few dozen.
The main reason you can log actual hours is because FSX left the commercial market and XP filled the gap. Yes FSX (commercial name ESP) was FAA certified.
Xp till have the best "feeling" of flight. The pitch control on MSFS is really bad. We struggle to trim a plane correctly, but XP12 looks like FSX. I can´t stand it anymore.
You're absolutely right about the competition. I firmy believe that the only reason M$ bothered with FS2020 was because of X-Plane... Also I would argue that reusing planes in XP12 from XP11 and earlier is a BIG plus for people who have already invested in their hobby. Something which M$ doesn't really care about. The issue with updates is valid - but actually, it's only really because of the size of the market, (they're not going to sell enough to make it worthwhile).. If more people used XP12, then more updates would be pushed through. The flight sim community needs Xplane to keep developing - you know that if FS2020 takes over completely, then M$ will do what they did with Word. Keep charing you stupid money for updates which nobody really needs/wants/uses..
I already had a Mac and didn't want to spend $3k on a dedicated rig, so my choice was made for me. That said, I want my sim so I can learn how to fly. That means solid flight model and accurate scenery for VFR. XP plus clumsy scenery mods seems like the way to go, but really XP should make good imagery far easier to integrate.
We went for the pretty pictures. Now, ive deleted the pile of garbage msfs and play xplane 12 again. If you want a realistic sim, xplane12 is better. If you want a garbage sim with nice scenery and a load of bugs, msfs.
The physics are still not there for general aviation aircraft on fs2020 for real world practice with good force feedback equipment fs2020 doesn’t even come close to the realism
Before, I used Xplane since version 8 and sometimes Flight simulator... Since 2020, I switched to MSFS 2020, although I also bought XP12 when it was released. MSFS is an all-in-one product, while XP12 has remained a product in need of multiple adon to be graphically a whole notch below MSFS. Certainly, at first, the MSFS planes had strange reactions, but time has passed and now everything is practically OK. A year ago, I changed my CGU to an intel Arc 770 16Go which gives me exellent result on MSFS, DCS, IL2, ARMA III etc, with settings in ultra on 1440P....except on XP12 which refuses to install... I send support tickets to intel who replied that they were waiting for Laminar’s fix. I send the same ticket to laminar and the answer was that I had to buy a modern and powerful GPU... This answer put a definitive end to my use of Xplane... despite many years at the disposal use with happiness...
why is xplane12 so bad? its actualy a very good flight sim but its still wierd that xplane12 can not beat the older xplane11 sooo i think im gonna buy the tollis a319 bye!
Believe me, XP12 is way ahead of XP11. I am quite amused about those telling the opposite. I used MSFS 1 year before XP12 came out and didn’t use XP11 at all. 6 months after XP12 came out i deleted MSFS and never looked back. XP12 is way better than XP11. I would even prefer MSFS over XP11 but not over XP12.
I bought XP12 coming from XP11 (i got pressured by the price increase and it was on sale so i thought i would try) I had blurry textures even in default planes and when I tried to do a flight my game crashed after lining up. And then I decided to stay xp11. I just wish planes like the ixeg 737 and zibo 737 make the jump aswell
Can I just mention that not everyone who has XP 12 plays it through steam. I for example purchased it through that X plane website, and just downloaded the installer from there. Most people do that, but a lot do it through steam for the ease of having it grouped together with all their other games.
Not sure how accurate your findings are but I'd bet a lot of people are running X Plane on mid to lower end computers and crank the graphics sliders to max then whine because X Plane doesn't run good....add trying to run all that in 4K too.
I feel xPlane12 has better flight dynamics, although it lacks optimization, and having to use so many external plugins leads to crashes and conflict. On my PC, I get 25-30 FPS while on the ground, and 45-50 when I'm in the air. MSFS, on the other hand, is better optimized (I'm getting 60fps or more at all times in ultra graphics), but when it comes to the flight dynamics, I feel they are a tad simpler compared to xPlane 12, I guess MSFS is more casual-friendly. It has a lot of eye candy as well. You can't go wrong with either. They are both good simulators.
I fly both (and DCS, Aerofly FS4, FSX, WOFF, Rise of Flight, IL-2 1946 and Il-2 Great Battles in fact any simulator that flys lol😂😂) they all have their good and bad points - I like MSFX and will buy MSFX 2024 but I rather regard it as a bit more eye candy than the others. Running XPlane 12 (or 11) with Auto Ortho, active sky and sim heaven can also satisfy my reality craving. I guess I’m just a fan boy for all flight sims BUT you are absolutely right NO COMPETITION IS BAD NEWS it stunts the market, lowers quality and ultimately raises prices. Thanks for your video.
The problem withMSFS is that once they determine that sales are dropping, they will abandon it, just like they did with their previous version. We were all left out in the cold.
Both have pros and cons. If X-Plane (LR) wanted to close the gap between the two sims, then all they'd have to do is add a "One Click" online button. vPilots want to fly with vPilots not AI. At this time, I don't think LR has the resources to finance such an expensive server for worldwide online simming like VATSIM or MSFS. LR will be adding their own store that might be able to support an online platform for it's vPilots, just speculation on my part. btw, I have chosen XP over MSFS it took over a year but in the end XP was for me.
saying that xplane11 has the same graphics as xplane12 is also untrue. xplane12 has improved volumetric clouds 3d trees new water and a whole new lighting system
I don't know if a lot of this is entirely fair and some aspects are not surprising. XP12 was always going to get the breadcrumbs left over from Microsoft. MSFS is basically *the* flight simulator. It's the one anyone I talk to knows about and only people actually _into_ flight sims know of X-Plane at all. The scenery was also always a losing battle. Laminar could go all in on scenery improvements but they'll never have a full private map data to work with. Technically, I think they were right to not focus much on the appearance, but business-wise they do clearly need to at least do better. But it's never going to be Microsoft. Planes and scenery will improve. The 777 is a very unfair comparison since it's basically known to be broken as FF works on a real XP12 version. This is definitely on the stores and FF themselves for even offering a broken product but that's a different discussion about 3rd party practice. The plane itself is still outdated. The explicitly released 12-version planes have been alright. ToLiss, Vskylabs, Rotate, X-Crafts, and the actually upgraded FF Boeings have been fine.
everyone with a realistic mindset will know that xplane is by far more realistic than msfs. But msfs is more user friendly and it’s funded all by microsoft, a massive brand. So in an obvious factor, people are going to go play msfs instead.
![[MSFS vs XP12] Thoughts after the six flights I did](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Bd5hnl3WBBs/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
I missed some data on this topic which changed some of the concerns I expressed here. Please watch this, too:
ruclips.net/video/8sSeya3KeZM/видео.html
I have both xplane12 and msfs2020. My personal favorite is XP12 bc for me it's way more immersive. even tho the graphics are not as good as msfs, they still look very good, and sometimes it beats msfs. also the physics, especially of airliners and while taxiing, are way more realistic than msfs. you can actually feel the weight of the aircraft and the inertia too while on ground. also the default airports are better than msfs. in msfs, they look all the same and the terminals doesnt even look like terminals. also the ground textures and taxiways, they're all unrealistic and incorrect and when it's dark there are no lights illuminating the airport, killing the immersion.
Same here. I used to exclusively fly FS2020. Once I tried XP12, I was immediately hooked for the reasons you mentioned, mainly immersion, I didn't even have any addons in XP11. I now exclusively fly XP12 for airliner flights.
@@corntaIYes, my issue though is the horrible cockpit models on most of them and the darkness in them, the perception of light seems non-existent in the cockpit.
Nothing wrong with XP-12 as far as i’m concerned
@ceilaz7861 Cockpit models on the a320, a330 are absolute jokes.
Does not compare with fenix or pmdg texturing and cockpit model.
@ceilaz7861 No not default, I'm talking about almost every single payware on xplane12
Point remains.
Two words. Austin Meyer.
Regardless, xp12 for me. Def better than 11.
Lighting engine is a lot better than XP 11, also weather, physics etc.
@@maltimoto NA
I recently switched from msfs to xp 12 ( never had xp11). I prefer xp12 for the study level airliners. I still use msfs for GA VFR flying but when it comes to airliners , xp 12 feels more realistic to me as a RL pilot.
Me too...XP physics (if I can say that as a non-pilot) feel really good
This argument would work if you actually got to expirience the physics XP provides, but you don`t cause the sim crashes before you even get to fly.
@@helmax7153Okay? You're using your own experience as an argument as to why everyone should ignore their own cause yours is special?
@@georgewhitworth9742 Hey! So if one person gets cut on a saw thats for whatever reason placed in a waterslide, can that person no longer argue that having a saw inside a waterslide is dangerous? Youre logic is compltelty flawed mate. Also you are making a wild assumption that I am the only person having problems with XP12 I hope you are aware of the steam reviews aswell as all the videos on XP12. Cheers
@@helmax7153 Not even an apples to apples comparison. Yours is an anecdotal experience... XP could be crashing because of something in your environment, not a fault of XP. The logic his argument is flawed because your game crashes doesn't invalidate or make his logic flawed. Now if you had said "*I* can't actually experience that because it crashes before I can even fly", you might have a leg to stand on. However, you're projecting your anecdotal experience onto him like that somehow invalidates his opinion.
there hasn't been much of a visual change between xp11 and 12 but most of the changes are beneath the surface. the weather engine and physics engine were massivly overhauled. i found these changes very noticable and welcome. XP12s biggest problem is 3rd party devs many devs such as INI,JF and Orbx have switched focus to msfs. furthermore what addons JF make are normally boiled down versions of their products for other sims. tldr XP12 is the best for learning to fly, msfs is the best for the casual who doesnt have a need for the complexity associated with xp fm's
@ceilaz7861 The main problem about xplane 12 are the need for add-ons to be decent, the price of these add-ons and the graphics need a lot of work
@@carlarenna And the main problem I had with MSFS was to install so many scenery-addons because default airports look bad. And also running many applications in parallel to the sim like an app for the Fenix to work, an app for navigraph- and an app for FSRealistic (run with XP in the background or are integrated in the sim). I even had to run an app that creates realistic turbulences (CAT…something, don’t remember the name). Awful! At the end, i nedded less addons with XP12.
@ceilaz7861 Well said. They have use FSX and P3D where there have been publish installation and configuration guides big enough to be a manual to build the aircraft just to run the sim. And yet somehow they act like they have paralysis if they use X Plane to install addons to improve the looks to there liking and instead praise MSFS giving to all to them on a silver platter by default.
There are many videos out there that show both MSFS and XPlane 12 the Cessna 172s act almost identically to each other. Also, the A2A Piper Comanche is THE most realistic GA airplane you can get for any desktop simulator, and nothing in XPlane11/12 even comes close to it. I am a real world aircraft mechanic with a lot of time in GA aircraft in the air and on the ground doing systems work. There are a lot of people out there that THINK that XPlane 11/12 is better but those people are not real world pilots and have almost no experience in aircraft other than as a passenger. Is MSFS perfect? No. Is it very good? Yes. Does the A2A Comanche blow the doors off XPlane? Very yes. And before you @ me, know I have owned every version of XPlane since the first one, I have 11 and 12, and I still have my 1982 subLogic Flight Simulator data cassette, so I have been at this a very long time, and been working RL aviation for 25 years now.
@@ImpendingJoker It looks like you forgot the CL650 for XP12. I very much doubt that the Comanche can be better. Otherwise I am sure you will be able to explain in details where it is supposed to be better, since you are a very experienced mechanic.
And sorry, the vast majority of professional pilots will agree that XP simulates the flight dynamics better in general, although there are some aircrafts in MSFS (Comanche) that can also be very good. And the difference is not as big anymore as 3 years ago. But seriously this debates becomes slowly boring. I do fly in real as well and the last time i used one of the default MSFS-airplanes (back in march 2023) to reproduce my flight i was schocked by how unrealistic it behaves. Perhaps they have improved since then? I have deleted MSFS. But according to the reviews of professional pilots, at least the dynamics of airliners are still better in general. Capt. Blackbox, an Airbus captain and instructor even explained the differences in great length. The atmosphere in MSFS is quite inaccurate resulting in unrealistic climbing or sinking-rates. And the simulation of inertia is quite bad as well (not noticeable in small GA's but in airliners). He was even quite upset why MSFS wasn't able to do that right during XP was much closer to real.
Summary: no the A2A Comanche doesn't blow the doors of X-Plane at all. It is just a very good addon from what i've heard. No need to think that MSFS is the best everywhere. It isn't.
I've to disagree on the point that devs don't update their planes. These planes are either from developers which are now focusing on MSFS, were not exisitent anymore at all before XP11 time ended or, (in case of the Flightfactor 777/787 and X-Crafts) they are working on an entirely new version. It's not just Toliss and Zibo, there are many more good X-Plane 12 aircraft!
Absolutely
You've got a point. Users were told by LR that in the new version, planes would be backwards compatible. When the release happened (which was not smooth at all), this turned out to be false. Some developers took off for MSFS and some scrambled to get a flyable version out ASAP. Most have since updated them. The new screens of the re-designed 777v2 look outstanding.
Very little of what you've said about X-Plane 12 is true. You should note, however, that LR originally tried to make XP12 aircraft backward compatible with XP11 but could not honor that commitment. The result is that while some XP11 aircraft will load in XP12, they are incompatible with the sim. XP12 has essentially been in beta for the past year. However, LR has finally settled on a stable platform so that developers can only now release add-ons without them getting broken by an update.
By the way, X-Plane is considered an engineering tool (some real-world aircraft manufacturers use it in the design process), and it is FAA certifiable for real-world flight training. Ultimately, I believe that X-Plane 12 will become the sim of choice for more and more people.
Seems like everyone here is just about the eye candy and the bells and whistles rather than what matters in a sim vs a game. XP was created as a training tool for pilots and less about the photorealism of the graphics. If you go into a Level D simulator (that’s a full motion, type-specific professional training simulator for pilots in airlines, etc.), the graphic representation is primitive compared to MSFS2020 or even XP12. There’s a reason that XP (the professional license) is FAA approved and MSFS is not. What real-world pilots care about is the realism in the representation of flight physics, weather, and procedures in the cockpit. IFR supplemental training for example, is way more realistic in XP than in MSFS. And if you were to build a home cockpit, you’d use XP hands down because you’d be able to program every switch in a cockpit, something you can’t do on MSFS. So that’s the difference, sim pilots and gamers who care more about the “wow factor” and eye candy, which is the unimportant realism when it comes to flying, MSFS would be the better choice. But I would definitely recommend XP to anyone who wants to use a sim as a tool to supplement your real-world training or for proficiency gaining purposes.
"If you go into a Level D simulator (that’s a full motion, type-specific professional training simulator for pilots in airlines, etc.), the graphic representation is primitive" - Nope. Look at CAE's Tropos visual solution. Also, they had interviewed CAE engineers on the importance of graphical fidelity in the sim.
" What real-world pilots care about is the realism in the representation of flight physics, weather, and procedures in the cockpit. " - Weather is graphics.
All that is true for X-Plane 11. That's the entire point: You can stick to XP11. And afaik as part of a setup X-Plane 11 is FAA certified. I couldn't find any confirmation that X-Plane 12 is.
@@yellscreen3697 That is because X Plane 12 its not finish yet. You don't certify something while it is in on going development and before its finish to apply for certification and be able to prove it meets it.
@@yellscreen3697 XP-12 has the professional license available. You just need to get your equipment certified by the FAA.
@FlyBoyMT and @bobfs8891
Can you please give the source for your information? Your statements contradict each other.
As a real world airline pilot and flight instructor, I totally agree with all thats been said here in the comments about X-Plane. X-Plane has its focus more on being a simulator rather than trying to look perfect and it's for people who want to simulate real world scenarios and/or pilots supplementing their real world flight training. MSFS is more like a game for people who care about eye candy and some nice and shiny graphics and landscapes.
Valuable response. I just went through PPL ground school at my local EAA Chapter. Following it up with Sporty's videos, tests and then taking my written. Ive had msfs for a while with about 500hrs in it. I recently bought the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo and TPR pedals. I really wanted pedals to train my brain to use them. Turned off auto rudder in MSFS. What a mess! In a 172, you get left turning tendencies in real life. In the sim, you get the same. BUT, add a 10kt wind 45 degrees from the right, and I found myself giving full LEFT rudder when trying to take off. The planes "Weathervane" ridiculously in MSFS. After touching down for a landing, it'll always shoot off into the wind fairly aggressively. Tried 172, 172 (G1000) and Diamond DA40. All do the same.
So that brings me to X-plane. Though my Bravo Throttle quadrant is all mixed up, I managed to get the Citation X and SR22 off the ground. There's actually weight to the planes in X-Plane. MSFS, they jerk around in the sky like kites. MSFS autopilot is fairly bad as well. Praying it's good in X-plane.
Yes of course, the fenix320 is a "little game" 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
@@burgadahz17 I suppose it can be good... if and when the rest of the sim works
@@AviatorGM The guy thinks we're still in 2020🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
One other major factor is stability; I had recently acquired XP12 before the price increase last year, installed and tried a few stock aircraft out. Within a couple of hours, everything was configured and quite seamless to how I had it set up in XP11 with no glitches, stutters, major hangups etc. Contrast that to MSFS, which I've had since 8/2020 where the file system must be so borked by now it's a chance whether or not it'll start past the updating screen - I realize the solution is probably to reinstall, but I'm just not seeing the value in getting back nearly 200 GB of downloading time. In 2020 I was impressed by the visuals, the multiplayer and access to the streaming Earth, but now with constant server updating, chancy multiplayer sight unseen issues (yes the friends still do the disappearing act), loading problems and it seems like anytime a beta will come out the server traffic is horrendous. Honestly, I'd rather have a system knowing that legitimate improvements are being made, even if the textures are subpar for a few of the stock planes, at least the functionality is there. It's almost an apples to oranges comparison in the outlook - while I'd like to continue using MSFS, I just cannot be sold on pretty visuals alone anymore since there's a myriad of other things happening that ruin the experience over time. XPlane/Austin/3rd party devs are likely to fix the bugs and deliver a better product in the end, while MSFS is a true unknown in both 2020 and 2024, even if the 3rd party continues to support the platform it may not be stable enough to even matter.
Honestly I dont agree with the argument that Xplane 11 is nearly as good as 12.. Just the better flight dynamics and volumetric clouds make 12 way better overall. When you go back to Xplane 11 after playing 12 something just feels off with the way the airplanes feel, especially with the smaller planes such as the Cessna 172. While I'm not an expert on how flight simulators work, I'm flying a cessna 172 in real life as I work towards my private pilots license and I'd say Xplane 12 feels the closest to the real thing. The flight dynamics are what Xplane 12 is all about NOT the graphics. The feel of the planes in MSFS is quite good but realistically the actual flight model is very unrealistic and Xplane 12 blows it out of the water.
In Austin's head, he knows what we want more than we do.
Then again to be fair, MSFS stomped the life out of P3D too. The sim looks and feels fantastic and even though it has a big clunky xbox interface, they are doing a great job of trying to be everything to everybody. I think Laminar is very aware their next major release will determine their fate. They also know the clock is ticking. I saw some comments from them admitting they need to compete on the global ground scenery scale. Meanwhile - Austin is writing stuff on his whiteboard nobody cares about.
well said
I think Gozz and Gold Gamer care about the white board 😂😂😂
@@activex7327 I can confirm that I do like the technical background in Austin‘s video, as someone flying in real and using the sim to train my flights. This is the best example that proves why arcade-gamers don‘t care about such advanced stuff. They only care about ground-textures and cockpit-resolution. It‘s literally the only thing they can talk about. Thanks for proving our point 🤣🤣🤣
@@goldgamer8446 I would agree with you if real pilots would not use MSFS, but unfortunately the opposite is true, there's more real world pilots in MSFS than in Xplane.
" I can confirm that I do like the technical background in Austin‘s video" - Thanks, I was right again. I bet Gozz like me being right.🤣🤣🤣
@@activex7327I've always felt having been with MSFS since the 80's and X-plane 9/10/11, that Austin always hypes more than delivered and despite all the "physics" reality and 'used in professional sims', that on our consumer level it's like apples to oranges. X-plane has never handled so well that any RW pilot would use it to feel like they're flying or train for RW aircraft responses. So on that level playing field MSFS vs X-Plane, it doesn't matter at least IMO. I've used either to train muscle memory, mental checklists, etc and more than anything...navigation..which is why I've gone back and forth depending on current or usable databases and GA models. Mostly MSFS for me but currently my internet situation can't handle MSFS. But I'm no fan of X-Plane as I do not like feeing duped by marketing hype - Emperor wears new clothes far as I'm concerned for the vast majority that talk of the physics being so much better. They both work well enough for the purpose. As a VFR/IFR pilot for about 2 decades, I still want navigation, pre-flying new routes..and therefore VFR landmark accuracy for which MSFS 2020 excels. Sad I can't use it. By the way, I invested in my first VR headset (Vive Pro) and a top tier PC/X-plane 11 maybe 4years ago for the hype of VR. it was BS. Never worked to be usable and R@n$y at X-plane said it if you spoke by phone sort of 'not ready for prime time'. All marketing hype at least back then. Yeah I'm venting..sorry.
Was a big XP11 fan, then xp12 came, big dissapointment. Today I only use MSFS and love it, so much going on in that sim, MSFS is the future, Just wait for MSFS 2024 next year, looking forward :)
Is it true what people say that when you download MSFS it take so long to download and since your waiting for it to download you can’t get a refund according to steam ? ( looking to buy it but having doubts from what people say about it on steam).
@@Nabeel-dq6tdWhy not just wait for it to finish downloading? Why would you need to refund.
@@coochieman7887 because I read the reviews on steam and when you open the msfs there is another download and apparently that is 2 hour of playtime according to steam once that is up you can’t refund it.
And some people say that it takes long for it to download so I am not sure.
That is the BIG question for me. And I am saying this without any irony. So if the physics are way better in 2024 than in 2020, I think this might become a serious problem for LR. But then again, I am not so sure if they can reach LR's physics. I don't know, we'll see!
@@maltimoto I'm not very hopeful, only because they emphasized the missions and such...not much said about the flying...just a guess.
I only purchased Xplane 12 because of the announced drastic price increase starting 2024. I loved Xplane 11, but switched to MSFS2020.
I was really disappointed to find that many of my planes (like the hot start TBM-900) even though they promised a year ago it would be a free update to Xplane 12 still hasn’t happened. Ground graphics was no different necessitating the huge orthos I had, a problem that msfs2020 solved and does much better.
Xplane 11/12 still has better VR integration, but it’s not horrible in MSFS2020.
Agree completely it is far better for the community to have more choices.
the biggest issue of your comparison is very skewed. almost all of X-Plane 12 users do not use the Steam version, but rather purchase it directly from Laminar. so the steam numbers will reflect accordingly.
Wow. Cool. What's your source for the number of Steam and Non-Steam purchases of X-Plane 12?
@yellscreen3697 my friends at Laminar. The steam version requires online service, so many X-Plane 12 users choose to purchase direct through laminar as it does not require online connection after activation
Awesome can you share the source?
@@yellscreen3697 word of mouth from the guys when I was at Oshkosh in a discussion over food
So it's just just hear-say, there are no official numbers?
If MSFS didn't exist X-Plane 12 would be huge, but thanks to Asobo and access to petabytes of MS map data competing isn't really an option.
Not that they couldn't have screwed it up and it does still have some minor issues, but kind of like how Street Fighter 4 rebooted fighting games MSFS introduced hundreds of thousands of new players to flight sims thanks to accessibility and incredible presentation, you can even play it on console.
Due to its popularity MSFS has received more support from the add on community which has grown larger than ever before, and the quality of those add ons keeps getting better and better as the standards and expectations keep increasing, then there's FS2024 on the way introducing missions and objectives and carrying over any marketplace add ons you've picked up before, it's a scale of production that the X-Plane devs just cannot match.
There's never been a better time to play flight sims, but unless MS screw it up it's going to be very difficult to compete.
I think you're neglecting the commercial markets. XPlane has a small overhead and can be an FAA certified simulator. Also, you can set up a facility and use multiple sims without the need to access massive bandwidth. I think LR and even P3D (which is funded by that small company Lockheed) will be just fine.
Pure crap video, it's well known that the 777 is very old and that FF will release soon the V2 of the 777 and the AIRAC you need a subscription for navigraph and this is for XP,MSFS,P3D
Afaik MSFS updates AIRAC cycle through sim updates - no Navigraph needed. How did newer AIRAC cycle get into ZIBO and Toliss?
Flight Simming is not about competition, you must be a millennial to have that mental state.
Name calling / ad hominem attacks are always a good sign for a solid argument.
MS And Laminar are two competing businesses. Simple. More customers, more revenue. Who is creating more interest in their product? I must say I agree with what was said in the video, however, I hope XP will be able to dig themselves up again because I've got both xp11 and xp12 and I have purchased a great number of useless planes over time, particularly on xp12, which I hope will be flyable one day. Also, I hope they stop allowing bad developers on the system. Developers who don't care and will not fix their buggy stuff.
I enjoy both msfs and xp12. I do believe when xp12 was released it deserved the bad criticism it got but I have to give leminar credit as the sim has come a long way since then. I actually prefer default airports in xplane 12 to msfs and with free addons like autoortho and sim heaven scenery, the graphics are comparable to msfs. If you do any night flying then there is no comparison. The lighting is just better in xplane 12. Also there is something about the xplane flight model that just feels right. Having said that, I feel msfs is still the better overall sim at the moment.
For night flying in XP12, do you use any mods? During the day, I love the lighting, but night kinda looks meh. Wondering if you spiced it up at all?
Msfs is is absolutely dominating the flight sim industry. And they deserve it for the work they are doing and the fact that they have made air simulation at its best in the last decade.
@burgadaz17: the only "work" they have done is just throwing money at companies (Asobo, blackshark, inibuild etc.) who have the knowledge and made the sim for them. So the merit for this monopolistic world-company is close to zero.
@@goldgamer8446 ok bro, didnt ask, stop crying.
@@burgadahz17 You are the one crying here.
@@burgadahz17You ARE crying lol.
cry@@goldgamer8446
as others said, one of the best part about X-Plane (and worst parts about MSFS) is that it doesn't have mandatory updates if you use standalone version. I assume that's what most X-Plane users do. If they bought on Steam then they'd get auto-updated.
5:00 - Yes, in this case I think you are indeed too pessimistic. I don't want to sound like a Asobo/Microsoft fanboy here, but if there's one thing the development team has shown in the past, it's that they absolutely care about the more demanding simmers!
Just take a look at the latest sim updates or the announced sim updates. Major improvements in the avionics of all airliners (from the 787 to the A320) and intensive work is also being done on the flight physics (at least this is what is mentioned in the development updates). We can expect a completely new flight model for MSFS 2024!
And at the Flight Sim Expo, Jörg Neumann once again emphasized that work is continuing on these factors and not just on content for casual players.
And even if this was the case, it honestly would be enough for Microsoft to provide a stable basis. The rest will be done by external developers. This December alone, there were major development updates for the iFly 737MAX, the PMDG 777, the PMDG 737MAX, the Inibuilds A300, the Inibuilds A350, the FBW A380, the FBW A320neo, the FSS E-Jet family etc. etc. etc. etc.
What more could one ask for?
From your lips to God's ears!I hear you. The last AAU was awesome. I feel like MSFS 2020 just gets going and not that it is at the end of its life-cycle. That's why I was surprised that there will be a new one so soon. But I think they ensured full backward compatibility. And all the new aircrafts we're getting - yeah maybe the future is more bright. First ini A306 streams running today. Plane looks preem.
@@yellscreen3697 You say : "I think they ensured full backward compatibility" I know (and no "i Think") that it should be impossible... The reason is very simple : graphic layers ! Your amability is a legend => move on ... Stay on a game... XBox is the future of MSFS...
@ceilaz7861 Do you have any evidence at all for your claims? Sounds like a lot of hot air to me, considering Microsoft is currently doing the exact opposite of what you claim...
@@jean-michel3364 Microsoft has already announced that backwards compatibility should, by and large, not be a problem at all...
@@yellscreen3697I think microsoft actually with a few developers announced the backward compatibility. ATLEAST with GSX Pro and PMDG 737, i heard that the Fenix A320 may need a little work on it before switching to FS2024. I think this all comes down to the fact that MSFS and MSFS2024 is practically based on the same engine and environment.
you cant use the flightfactor 777v1 as an example to say that xplane has horrible textures, that plane is made for xplane 10 and is highly outdated
Exactly. Yet they're still selling it. Thanks for making my point.
@@yellscreen3697 The fact they sell it is a decision of the developper and has nothing to do with the sim itself. Don‘t you agree?
@@yellscreen3697 By that logic, would you find it fair to pick one of the worst and oldest MSFS-payware-addons to demonstrate how bad the sim is? Some of those addons were decribed by the community as scams. So do those addons in your opinion reflect how bad the sim is? Just to be sure I understand your point.
@angelicguru4066 Kind of. I said it in the video: Sometimes it's good if a developer forces the add-on makers to create a completely new add-on by going with a new engine, instead of just porting a 15 year old version.
@frankbyte if in 15 years MSFS 2035 is released and uses the same (by then) outdated engine and thus allows add-on plane developers to just port their 15 year old stuff and charge full price for it, then yes. It would be totally valid to call them out for that.
For me personally X-Plane will die once the PDMG 777 comes out and will die again once the A350 by iniBuilds (or the FBW A380, which ever is first) comes out and will die once again when the TFDiDesign MD-11 comes out (ohh and not to forget about the Aerosoft A330, if it ever comes out ^^). These are some really good and promising looking PAYWARE long-range aircraft addons which i'm really lokking forward to. Untill now there is almost no good long-range aircraft out there for MSFS but as soon as that changes i feel like i'll probably use X-Plane more less and less. Yes, there are some mods which enhance the long-range aircraft which we already have but it's just not the real deal for me.
And the short-haul aircraft sector is also expanding with the Fenix A321 for example. So i'm guessing there won't be a future for ME in X-Plane anymore.
Its also pretty interesting what Microsoft will really do in MSFS 2024. I really hope this won't bring any real trouble for third party developers, Microsoft says it won't but heys, we all know Microsoft. And i really hope there even is a good reason to buy MSFS 2024 anyway and not just so Microsoft can fill up their pockets with out money even more.
2024 will be an exciting year for us, guys.
@ceilaz7861 Yeah it almost seems like their shifting their focus away from the actual simulator to more of the casual stuff.
"For me personally X-Plane will die once the PMDG 777 comes out and will die again once the A350 by iniBuilds"
Oh please do you really believe what you just said seriously? lol The same company who took 15 months to bring out an efb after the release of the 737 who many lost confidence in, that you still want to sing the same song that a sim will die on one release of an aircraft? Have you ever heard of the Hotshot CL650? This is just bis Jets that has things in it you can only wish PMDG could put in their planes. Hotstart is current working on the A220 and it be based on the same concept. You may not care for bis jets but once you have seen it you will all off what it has and nothing that PMDG that will kill X plane anytime soon.
@ceilaz7861 I am also worried that MSFS will not improve physics, but instead offer Rescue Missions and Oil platforms
uprading from xp11 to xp12 is nothing compared to xp10 to xp11
@ceilaz7861 so u have to pay even more money on sceneries and such just to make it look as good as vanilla msfs? Comparing both msfs and xp12 without any additional mods, xp12 is naff and the numbers shown in the video speak volumes about this. Shocking how people still try and defend xp12 when it looks like a pettily tweaked version of xp11, not to mention the entitled price point.
The worst thing about xp12 is the scenery its actually funny to look at (1:28) at least the flight physics are somewhat okay but still that doesnt warrant a £50 charge for the game
@@dawg5883 Funny how some still try to bash XP when they show only one side that fits their narrative. Default airports in MSFS look very bad. In XP12 they look better so that you don’t need to install as much scenery-addons. And if you say « the flight physics are somewhat ok » in XP, what would be the appropriate term to qualify the MSFS-physics then? Utterly bad?
80% of XP11 has been reprogrammed for XP12. Just because it has almost the same ground and autogen doesn’t tell much. The weather-engine has been completely rewritten, seasons integrated, precipitation-accumulation, better flight-physics, sounds amd water massively improved.
At the same time i bet you won’t mind to repurchasing a complete new sim 4 years after release for an almost identical sim with underwater-pubbles, AI-generated-rocks and missions.
@@angelicguru4066 "At the same time i bet you won’t mind to repurchasing a complete new sim 4 years after release for an almost identical sim with underwater-pubbles, AI-generated-rocks and missions" Bit ignorant to make such a bold and audacious statement considering the new msfs isnt even out yet, besides xp12 released 6 years after xp11 and still looks naff, funny you're even trying to compare xp12 default scenery to msfs, the xp12 scenery looks like it was drawn by a 10 year old, its actually ugly. bewildering that they even released the game with the scenery in that state, its all lowres sharp polygon borders, the forests dont match the underlying texrures, the autogen placement is like a game of blind darts, roads in the middle of nowhere and buildings placed with no sense of correlation of the scenery. Ur saying that 80% of xp11 has been reprogrammed into xp12, they may as well have just updated xp11 instead of releasing an entire new game and scamming £50 for it lol.
If anyone bought xp12 in hopes of doing vfr flying they're out of luck and they'll be spending a lot of money on addon scenery to get the realism and accuracy on par with msfs. All the new "features" in xp12 look sloppy and poorly made, almost as if they had to release xp12 quickly in competition with the msfs2020 release.
@ceilaz7861 You are wrong, Xp11 gives you x2 on FPS compared to XP12.
nvm i just tested it its definitely worth it
Spent so much time on Xplane 10 and 11 years ago. I also spent a lot of money on XP11 with third party aircraft's. When XP12 came out and there was no support to convert XP11 aircraft over to XP12 (Carenado), I made a difficult decision to leave XP. I was extremely frustrated. I eventually built a monster PC and moved onto MSFS 2020 and I am extremely happy but the learning curve was difficult. My curiosity was bugging me so I tried XP12 with the default C172 and had a horrible experience. Not sure why. Maybe I had lost my XP feeling. To be honest, XP12 looks much better then previous XP versions including the flight model but the lack of developer support, especially when you spend thousands on third party aircraft is a shame. I've promised myself, until this developer scenario changes for XP, I will never go back and invest in XP again.
Keep in mind that XP12 is devloped by about 20 people while MSFS 2020 has the whole entrie Microsoft, Xbox and Asobo
so i'm supposed to suffer because they don't have enough people to provide support for their product ....the complete absence of customer service to talk to in person....i didn't buy the sim to learn computer programming...it's for my entertainment ....if i really wanted to learn to fly i would go to flight school.
1. MSFS 2020 far far outsells X-Plane. 2. Most of those 'flying' MSFS are doing so because they love seeing things from the air (as do I). 3. MSFS is used more as a game - maybe XP would like to be used that way too, but can't compare. 4. XP flight models much better - look at MSFS planes 'waggling' in the sky totally unlike IRL. 5. XP is much better for pilots and would-be pilots in terms of matching real flying although you can do all of the same things (e.g. instrument approaches and landings) in MSFS. 6. MSFS makes landing planes almost failsafe while landing a plane safely in XP demands skills somewhat similar to IRL.
i have over 2k hours in XP11, i was a huge FSX simmer before but XP11 was so incredible i fell in love with it. That said, at launch i loved the graphics but MSFS felt like a toy. Now? I love it, after the A330 update i started using it more and more, they also iptimized the hell out of it and it works 10x times better than it did before on my 1070.
Literally the only thing that prevents me from uninstalling XP11 is the FlyJsim 737 and 727 because i freaking love old-ass jets and those two (specially the 732) have the best soundpacks i've ever heard.
Xplane 12 is definitely better than 11. Sure, it sucks a lot of aircraft havent had reworks in years, but i'd rather have my 777 in Xplane 12 with bad interior graphics but gain new lighting and weather.
Msfs2020 flight dynamics are catching up with xp12 and with msfs2024 around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes even more realistic to xp12, not that alot of us know what a real plane feels like, some do but most don't.
I personally think that with the hardware we have now, a sim can only feel so good. Reason being, one of the biggest differences to me between the sim and real life “flight dynamics” wise, is the life you feel throughout the yoke. Sadly we don’t really have a consumer grade force feed back yoke at the moment, but it would be interesting to compare the two with more lively hardware
with all that msfs are doing, its just matter of time before there are absolutely no benefits to use x-plane 12
@@mammid9622 or 12
Fs2024 has New Physics & Aerodynamics engine
@@LyricPenguin where did they say that
I can't even play X-plane 12. Every time after it downloads, it gets to the loading screen and just freezes. Idk what to do.
oh yeah it happenes to me aswell but if you wait it out it continues loading
Four years ago, everyone was « headed » towards X-Plane. P3Dv5 was the very last surviving iteration, with or without MSFS, everybody would have left eventually. It really was too old to be frankensteined again. PMDG’s DC6 was a way for the developer to learn the tools necessary to bring their lineup to XP. Developers such as ToLiss or FF (777v2) invested a lot on the potential future of Xplane.
That was until that very day at E3 2019, when MS announced MSFS. That really was an earthquake in the flightsim world. PMDG used their DC6 to the exact same purpose as for XP but with MSFS. I am pretty sure that the early stages of NGXu and 777 revamps were intended for XP. But the choice was easy for any developer (including sceneries) that wanted to find a new market after the death of P3D : X Plane (as was P3D) is a niche game, for a niche community, while MSFS was to bring more people into the hobby, therefore more potential customers. Wonder why Fenix’s A320 is so low priced ? Precisely because of this. Looking at XP12 today, you get the feeling that it’s abandonned by most devs (scenery devs in particular) because of what you pointed out : bascially, an XP11 scenery will work on 12, execept for fancy rain effect, so no need to bother. Add to it the fact that XP offers incredibly expansive planes, you get as a result that MSFS takes the lead. Yes, XP12 is fantastic for the feel, but MSFS has what is most important : attention from people and devs.
You do know that you can't get reasonable or accurate current user counts from xplane 12 without Laminar.... You don't get any sort of idea of those numbers from anywhere else. MSFS has steam, but you don't get the MSFS numbers from them either. YOu only get any approximal data from Steam.
Also, people like the screen candy of MSFS. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. However, people that love to fly, fly Xplane. Another thing not seeming to get into your calculations is that the INSTALL base is orthogonal to the AVAILABLE install base. i.e., MSFS is on consoles and PCs. Xplane, is on PCs and mobile, and to a very small extent Linux.
It's really clear you're biased, which is also fine. Just acknowledge that and move along. The thing that is obvious to anyone that can fog a mirror is that the users right now are in a good position, having this competition.
"You do know that you can't get reasonable or accurate current user counts from xplane 12 without Laminar.... " - Yeah sure. Do you have the numbers from Laminar? Then I use them.
" YOu only get any approximal data from Steam. " Right - we approximate, which is what you do if you don't have exact numbers.
What you can also do is cross-check the approximation with other numbers, like Twitch viewer count, number of reviews on metacritic and navigraph survey...which I did.
"Also, people like the screen candy of MSFS. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. However, people that love to fly, fly Xplane." - oh right here we go again with the true simmers, the real simmers, the seriuos simmers - you are so superior to us arcacde gamers... 🥱
"It's really clear you're biased..." - sure - I'm not telling you what you wanna hear - so there must be some nefarious reason.
@@yellscreen3697 I fly both pal, and I worked at Microsoft for 12 years. I know what goes on in both camps, I'm beholden to neither. You sure seem to be smitten with Asobo though (it's Asobo, Microsoft bought them, they didn't "make" MSFS, they simply own the IP...).
In terms of superiority, well, you tell me bubba. What solution is certified? Laminar's commercial offering, that's right. So in terms of fidelity, YES, it is superior. In terms of graphics, it lags behind MSFS, nobody argues this. When you make something work on a console for gaming, yeah, it is a "Game" at that point and won't have the same capability and flexibility you have on the PC. That's true of any solution you lock down to a console. The value-add to Microsoft in doing that, is the install base for consoles is HUGE. The gaming population for console is orders of magnitude larger than that of the PC.
I never implied nefarious intent. SImply rose-colored glasses of a fanboy who seems to be more intent on saying xplane 12 is garbage and MSFS will feed the masses with a loaf of bread and three fishes. Microsoft has already proven they aren't reliable in this space (gaming). They killed the original flight sim out of sheer stupidity. I was IN E&D @ Microsoft when that went down, I worked on Robbie Bach's staff. You aren't talking to some dilettante here pal.
As I said, it's GOOD we as users are spoiled for the competition. Any time there is only 1 of anything in the market, innovation tanks. Xplane 12 is nowhere near the same as xplane 10 and for you to say that is myopic, and just plain *stupid*. It shows your bias, and clearly illustrates that you aren't capable of illustrating the ways in which these simulators address their users' needs.
You do you, nobody else will that's for sure. I simply tried to show that you re anything but impartial here, and your attempt at drowning the average user in a heap of data just proves that point.
"I fly both pal, and I worked at Microsoft for 12 years" - That's called an argument from authority - a sign that you have nothing substantive to say and just wanna bully me from a - what you perceive as a - superior position.
"In terms of superiority, well, you tell me bubba." - name calling the usual - "What solution is certified? Laminar's commercial offering, that's right. So in terms of fidelity, YES, it is superior" - Maybe read again what I wrote about being superior - I wasn't talking about the sim.
"you make something work on a console for gaming, yeah, it is a "Game" at that point and won't have the same capability and flexibility you have on the PC." - you do know that you wrote this in your original comment: "Xplane, is on PCs and mobile"
"Simply rose-colored glasses of a fanboy..." - A personal attack, again nothing substantive to say.
" You aren't talking to some dilettante here pal. " - Yes "pal" I am someone important - respect my authorotaaaa... LMAO - I guess you have a very small... ego
"As I said, it's GOOD we as users are spoiled for the competition. Any time there is only 1 of anything in the market, innovation tanks." - agreed that's what I'm afraid of.
"Xplane 12 is nowhere near the same as xplane 10 and for you to say that is myopic..." - What are you talking about?
"I simply tried to show that you re anything but impartial here, and your attempt at drowning the average user in a heap of data just proves that point." - Me showing impartial data proves that I'm partial - You can't make this shit up...🤣
@@yellscreen3697 You aren't having anything less than a show of stupidity. I said what I said not to "bully" you, but to simply convey I *worked* there and know precisely what went on, what happens now, etc. You, don't. I know why they made the decisions they made. I get it. See, I never disparaged MSFS. I didn't upbraid Xplane. I said the one does this, the other that, you do you. You have made the impartiality the norm in this conversation. Now, since you are resorting to village idiot tactics (THAT is bullying, see what I did there??) I'll simply say good day sir, and enjoy your "game".
And again nothing substantive to say, again just personal attacks and insults. No data addressed, no argument made. Nothing about what was in the video. Just self-hommage.
I'm going to get hate but that's ok. There are many videos out there that show both MSFS and XPlane 12 the Cessna 172s act almost identically to each other. Also, the A2A Piper Comanche is THE most realistic GA airplane you can get for any desktop simulator, and nothing in XPlane11/12 even comes close to it. I am a real world aircraft mechanic with a lot of time in GA aircraft in the air and on the ground doing systems work. There are a lot of people out there that THINK that XPlane 11/12 is better but those people are not real world pilots and have almost no experience in aircraft other than as a passenger. Is MSFS perfect? No. Is it very good? Yes. Does the A2A Comanche blow the doors off XPlane? Very yes. And before you @ me, know I have owned every version of XPlane since the first one, I have 11 and 12, and I still have my 1982 subLogic Flight Simulator data cassette, so I have been at this a very long time, and been working RL aviation for 25 years now.
"Also, the A2A Piper Comanche is THE most realistic GA airplane you can get for any desktop simulator, and nothing in XPlane11/12 even comes close to it."
It looks like you forgot the CL650 for XP. I very much doubt that the A2A-Comanche can compete, knowing a business jet is much more complex system-wise.
People need to look around the addons for X-Plane. So many great developers such as hot start, aerobask, Toliss, felis etc. There are some great addons on the horizon such as the FF 777. It just needs more exposure.
Like many I was XP11 fan and was looking forward to XP12 but it’s a huge disappointment. MSFS has massive development behind it and devs are creating some amazing planes that are the equal of the best planes in XP11/12. I agree it’s a shame but if you’re fair and compare the two sims you realise how dated XP12 is. With devs jumping to platform that make them the most money msfs Xplane will slowly become irrelevant except to diehard fans. To people who XP12 has better physics well there really isn’t so much advantage anymore. GFX wise XP12 is an embarrassing comparison and they will never have the maps tech for the scenery. It’s a shame I agree we need competition but it’s already over there is none 😢
So if MS has a massive dev team, where are the great flight and ground physics? Why has this huge team not been able to achieve good physics over the last 3 years?
@@maltimoto Austin’s too busy being the aviation nerd he is (which I appreciate) but doesn’t concentrate on the glaring issues XP12 has I’ve gone back to using xp11 due to all the money I spent for addons THAT are NOT compatible with xp12 wtf. Msfs is better than XP12 fan boys like to admit. So where’s the Ground scenery improvement in XP12 why are there angled roads everywhere, why do I have to hack the shit out of xp12 too make it look like it wasn’t designed 10 years ago. Modelling aircraft tires isn’t important when the whole sim hasn’t moved on in certain areas for YEARS. Simple fact is Xplane has fallen behind in many areas doesn’t mean msfs is perfect it’s not but at present there’s an obvious path for its development and improvement I see nothing that encourages me for xp12 and btw xp11 is far from perfect too.
I bought xplane 11 but never used it. I also bought xp12 and I love it. The planes I bought for it work now, except 727. And I really like the lighting. I hope they do improve though. We need the competition. I do wonder if msfs will be buyable or would be based linked fix to game pass
More and more developers are leaving XP 12 every few months. XP 12 is on life support now.
Other devs will gladly fill the gaps
In was on MSFS since more than 25 years. I have switched on X-Plane12 last october 23' The only thing I regret It's not make it earlier. All is best on X-Plane. All the aircrafts are best.
All the aircraft are best, especially those who crashed the sim to desktop or come with AIRAC cycle from 2012. All the best. Nothing to see here - move on.
All my AIRACS each month are updated without problem @@yellscreen3697
@jean-michel3364:
Are you paying $90 for each XP10/XP11 look like aircraft in XP12?
I did not know that 2006 textures are "all the best" 😂😂😂
@@yellscreen3697 Do you not know that you can update your AIRAC? You keep repeating this as an excuse. Takes 30seconds to update.
I still believe MSFS is still in that video game spot. Rather than the full on simulator that Xplane leads in. You may have the scenery graphics, but your plane and air physics aren't there yet.
@@yellscreen3697 I don’t have aircrafts that crashed my sim in XP12. And seriously, every serious sim-user uses navigraph-AIRACS. But everyone has its own priorities as it seem. I personnally have been disappointed by MSFS and have deinstalled it because XP offers me a better overall experience (flying in real too). And XP12 has massively improved and has even increased its market share by 25% according to the last navigraph-survey. It is a a solid second place and XP12 have also sold the most copies at release of any other version in the whole history of XP. They also increased their team. They are not going anywhere. People have seen it dying since 15 years. During that time MS failed twice, XP is still here and healthy. For the bashers of course this is hard to swallow.
Yell@screen- I totally agree with your views on this matter. I am big fan of X-Plane 11 and all add-ons. I have racked up thousands of hours with that sim and enjoyed it. Then, when X-Plane 12 came out i was so disappointed as no "Wow" factor at all.
I decided to buy MSFS, which gave me the "Wow" factor. Massive improvement over X-Plane in many ways, buy not all. MSFS is now my go-to sim. In fact, I now only play XP11 and MSFS on my monitor and in VR. I will skip XP12 just as i did with XP10.
It's hard to disagree with what you just said. Just stick with XP 11 and carry on life
I have never used the steam version of X-Plane and don't know anyone who does. I will always use X-Plane as MSFS crashes every flight.
Must be a skill issue. MSFS is stable and beautiful. X-Plane 11 runs and looks worse.
@@CAL1MBO since when? x plane 11 ran much better for me and most people who played both
or the supper annoying "Connection to remote servers lost" screen that it took them YEARS to cause to not lock flight controls until you clicked the button... now it's just a big window that blocks half the display... no way to turn off... and it's REAL fun trying to land with that thing in your face (or where they locked controls but let the plane still fly)... lots of hard landings because of network issues to Microsoft's reliable Azure infrastructure.
For the B777 texture stuff it’s just why would flightfactor update the B777 worldliner ? They’re about to release a completely new made from scratch version of the B777 series so there isn’t any point in updating a probably almost 10 year old mod.
X-Plane also has an advantage. The founder / developer of the game himself is a pilot and flies a lancair evolution. So he’s got a big head start on how the airplane
Should actually fly and the physics of flight. Not just some Microsoft developer trying trying to get it right with 0 flight experience in person. So I’m sticking to X plane as MFS isn’t the best it’s mainly just a game for the graphics.
You do realize that some Asobo staff have licenses and most of them took flying lessons
Why is it that Xplane fanboys keep beating the dead horse? 😂😂😂
It comes down to who is more motivated and committed in creating the most realistic experience in a desktop flight Simulation. Asobo/MS had to tell their staff to get flight lesson where the founder of Xplane wrote the sim to help get his first PPL and his staff has experience pilots and trainers. Big difference when your staff has what takes to know how much they can put into a sim.
It's really disappointing seeing X-Plane go down this path. It has so much potential, but with updates so slow, and being miles behind the competition, its on a road to dying completely. It's especially hard for someone like me who is running Linux, and simply cannot run MSFS.
You should watch the second video. XP has increased their users the last year according to the last Navigraph-study by over 30%. And Plane 12 has seen the most substantial sales of any X-Plane release that Laminar has ever put out (source Cameron, working with Laminar). And they have improved way more within 1 year than MSFS did after the release.
You ABSOLUTELY CAN run MSFS in Linux. I'm running mine with steam and proton experimental it runs just as well as windows you can set the -FastLaunch option in the game properties in steam
@@teatamines4154 I second that I can run MSFS on linux just fine ..... now getting the FENIX to work is another can o worms
I wouldn't worry about X-Plane. They have a much smaller overhead, commercial customers, and their user base is not as bad as this video implies...
I think if X-Plane 12 just had the visual look that MSFS has, it would win hands down! Sometimes I can't help but stare the beautiful sunsets, beaches and landscape that is MSFS!
Like you, I hope MSFS2024 does not shift its focus from simming to becoming just another plane game!
MSFS graphics with XP12 physics, Lightning (for me is very good) and menus (much less confusing and pratical) would be a perfect simulator.
I run Auto Ortho, ActiveSky 12, and SimHeaven and Orbx Global Forests - that gets me VERY close to MSFS - yes buildings are more generic BUT photogrammetry buildings in MSFS can be underwhelming and the actual base Ortho from AO is bing
@@jcsk8 Plus the XP camera and replay system and I'm in!
@@simmybear31 Do you find MSFS terrain shifting as it loads and changing color or resolution distracting?
I play xplane 12 it's my preferred "Simulator" but when I want to play a "game" I play msfs for like 20 mins or so lol
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is a great game!
XP12 is a great simulator..
Every time I go to X-Plane’s own blogs I see the exact same posts. They don’t update them from one month to the next. It feels like a dead project. Shame, because I use a Mac so I use X-Plane, and I like it, but it really seems like nothing is happening there.
I think xplane11/12/Elite Dangerous are on the endangered list, they are dying. Xplane11/12 is like the OAP Sim for bedroom lore lovers.I have been looking for XPLANE 11/12 Military Jet reviews (youtube), but there is none, no one cares, is all you find is some girly indulgent flyby. I have both xp11/12, yet why would i wast my time when i have msfs 2020/24 and DCS, i wouldn't. Same with Elite Dangerous, Frontier seem to have washed their hands of it, the only reason we are getting updates in 2024, is because of poor 2023 financials, otherwise they would pull the plug. These devs dont deserve out support, let the sims die
Sad but true
If you are looking for a good and "as real as it gets" flight simulation (not on a professional motion sim used for flight training but on an ordinary home-PC) X-Plane is currently the best you can get. "The other sim" is more a game than a sim - with nice eye candy.
Just one example to show how retarded the MSFS is: Although it has been on the market for several years now, hand controllers are still not supported in VR mode! When the VR mode was implemented in X-Plane (version 11), VR including hand controllers worked smoothly from day 1. Now we are in 2024 and you have to move a mouse across the table in MSFS with VR goggles on your head to operate the flight deck. It feels pretty medieval to me... Even the admittedly more beautiful graphics can't make up for that. And all this with the background knowledge that MSFS is backed by a much larger development team than X-Plane.
U said it yourself. The reason why PMDG takes 4 years is because it’s p3d to msfs. They are 2 very different systems and are like apples to oranges. X-Plane is built to have aircraft easily ported over. Also it’s BS that graphics are the same. A beefed up xp12 is far better than a beefed up xp11.
That's what happens when the entire dev cycle from XP release to ~XP XX.50, and the associated payroll costs and other expenses have to be paid for with a brand-new sim, even if it doesn't offer groundbreaking advancements.
Same for MSFS2020 to 2024 - the Azure Cloud functionality, the 14+ sim updates and world updates all have to be paid for somehow. Some will be via Game Pass but most serious simmers buy, so there's no choice but to force those people to buy again. The alternative is for them to go on subscription plans, like MMORPGs.
The kicker however is that addon developers see a new sim version and they start charging high prices to convert their addons to the new version, see FlightFactor and others.
Some of the developers including FlightFactor, CowanSim, Orbx, and Hot Start gave free upgrades to XP12. I can't hate on 'em too bad if they ported it for free. They had to do work and they didn't get paid. Also, a lot of the reworks that are for XP12 include XP11 versions. It's not a gamechanger by any means, but the other day when I logged on to my Orbx Account and had 2 sceneries that were XP12 compatible for free...I wasn't too upset by it.
@@rigger41 A lot of the upgrade price paid doesn't feel commensurate with the dev effort required to update the addon. Sometimes the upgraded addon manages to look even worse (FFA320)
And X-Plane addons are already more expensive, for example the Toliss sells each aircraft for $90.
@@Avantime I'm talking about the upgrades that were free. FF767, CL650, CowanSim helicopters were FREE upgrades. Also, Toliss is worth $90, I think. It's the best Airbus addon I've ever used and the depth is right up with PMDG.
Great video... Very fair too.
If I could fully use my RealSimGear hardware like my Perspective+ stack with MSFS I would use it a lot more than X-Plane, but right now X-Plane along with Ortho like Orbx TE and vStates, the X-Aviation and Aerobask planes, my RealSimGear Cirrus cockpit hardware, and iPad Pro running Foreflight gives me a much more realistic experience than MSFS. I do like MSFS a lot though.
There’s no way you’re complaining at the decade old 777V1 😅 a V2 is coming yet you showcase the V1 as the best it has to offer?
And the fact they still selling the old one, with the new one so close around the corner doesn't feel scammy to you?
@@yellscreen3697 and they also recommend people to wait and buy the new, AND include a warning - instead of being extraordinarily bias use some newer aircraft like the 767 and the a340
@tb46475 really wow. I haven't seen no warning or advice to wait. Do you have a link?
without toliss I wouldn t use X12. I need to create an ORTHO and put simheaven to make it enjoyable. Im using X12 only for training purposes with ZIBO and Toliss. I agree with video :)
Great video and all good points. I go back and forth between MSFS and XP12. Historically it has been that XP is better on flight physics and avionics and MSFS was better with the eye candy. Now here we are on the verge of getting MSFS 2024 and it appears MSFS is making big strides in avionics and city/landscapes/scenery and some moderate gains in physics. I believe that XP is still better in terms of flight physics but not really maintaining any of its other strengths. That is not good for Laminar Research. XPlane is very drab and not inspiring. So many people, including myself, are willing to take a small (and getting smaller) hit on the physics because almost everything else is better.
I like and prefer XP12 better. XP12 is a Sim and thats what I need.
Msfs too man😅
To put this in perspective, XP-12 was a way bigger let down than MSFS2020 when it first came out (before all the updates & bug fixes)
That's how much X-Plane fumbled, and honestly I don't blame them.
I don't know anyone who plays x-plane through Steam
Me 🙂
XP11 if you want a simulation. MSFS if you want to play a game.
Yea when I would go back to X plane from time to time I would go to x plane 11. I liked 11. 12 was a huge disappointment. Honestly I ended making the change after about a year of thinking about it. I had over $1700 of payware and stuff for X Plane which is why i waited so long and thought over it. But I left for good mainly because promises promises promises.. I started out on MSFS about 30 years ago. Came to x plane because msfs went dead in the water for a while. But since they've been back especially after all of the massive updates my sim is awesome and I hadn't spent a $ aside from payware. Hardware wise I hadn't had to change a thing. The updates fixed everything. Thx X Plane for 4 years of fun.
as an x-plane fanboy i 110% agree, im still sticking with x-plane 12 but if anything stick with 11.
Im pilot i can tell you the only thing XP still win fligth fisics,model , flare etc..but it was much better than MSFS , but now after few updates MSFS improved a lot , just meters of time to be equal.
This was painful to read 💀
i fly all the sims. xp12, xp11, msfs, p3d. (yes i have FOUR sim installed, its a nightmare). Im a RL pilot and I can tell you that no sim is perfect, But they all have their pros and cons. I love flying xp12 for the realistic flight model and physics, MSFS for the scenery, and p3d for the long haul aircraft.
MSFS has major flaws with the flight model and just has an overall "game" feel rather than an actual simulator. laminar and xp12 just cant get the graphics right. P3D is a money pit and has no community.
I think you're missing an important point here. Laminar Research (Austin Meyer) is not competing with Microsoft Flight Simulator. He set out to build a teaching aid for pilots and get it FAA certified. He's done that. Now, he's just improving it.
Honestly, as someone who dabbles in both but uses MSFS more, I'd say it's down to accessibility. The barrier of entry for MSFS is significantly lower. Even out of the box you already get decent sattelite scenery (most of the time), the default aircraft, while not study level, are still pretty decent for a beginner (and still offer all the navigation tools to perform IFR flights) especially the newer ones like the inibuilds airbuses, you can get online functionality without needing to hop on vatsim and the like, and most importantly, it is optimized to be pretty flyable on just a gamepad, meaning you also don't have the cost barrier of a joystick at least to get started.
Of course, if you want to get a more realistic experience with either sim you're gonna have to buy hardware and software/addons besides the base sim, but I think the low barrier of entry of MSFS as well as it's more "gamified" nature (with missions, flight lessons and landing challenges) make it a much less intimidating sim to get into. Besides, you can always move to x-plane after you feel comfortable enough going for a more 'engineer-minded" simulation.
It´s a shame and it shows the almighty power of marketing & money. X-Plane 12 is definetely the better simulator - excluding the graphics only!
Fr
The issue is that the average person tends to prioritize cosmetics over realism. Me personally, I will take a good physics engine over how pretty it looks. And X-Plane 12 is superior in that department. Not to mention that due to the lower graphics I can still use my six year old PC.
I use both, but I enjoy XP12 more. With ortho and simheaven it rivals MSFS in terms of visual quality. There a crispness with XP that you don’t get with MSFS. Both sims have their place.
I'm on Linux, so X-Plane 12 works nicely for me. One issue I have found was when I wanted to create a bit of scenery. The official Blender plugin hasn't had an update in ages because the main dev left Laminar. The geometry it creates is pretty inefficient because it doesn't seem to reuse vertices, and it flat out doesn't support lines. The docs are old, patchy, and disorganised.
Now, I don't know what the tooling is like for MSFS or P3D, but I bet it's not as bad as XP's.
Not the first time I am reading that. Under the follow up video, someone shared the same experience.
X-Plane 12 IS KING
Performance on Linux is stunning, standard planes are excellent !
Man uses Linux💀
Me too on Linux, and I even use VR under Linux
@@maltimoto Linux is ass
Xplane is like an indie simulator with great physics and MSFS 2020 is like a AAA XBOX game filled with eye candy. But MSFS has no FFB, terrible telemetry making it terrible in a motion sim with an FFB stick. Really not possible to compare the two at this point.
XP has more accurate flight modelling (physics in general) and wx and it appeals more to real pilots (it definitely "feels" more like flying a real airplane), while MSFS is more eye candy- and game- (vs simulation-) orientation, which appeals more to "casual" users. Agreed that XP (with Laminar's much more limited development budget) has some glaring deficiencies, but there's a reason you can log actual hours (with the appropriate licensing) with XP but not with MSFS. It's essentially simulator vs game, although MSFS has made some strides in the realism departement and can provide a reasonable sim experience in some cases. It's like photography these days--with very few exceptions, real photographers use real cameras and post-process their RAW image files, while snapshooters use phones and post their "auto-gen" JPGs to social media, rather than printing them. MSFS simply has much more visual appeal and simplicity, and that's what sells. Of course, there are options in MSFS (mostly payware) which offer more realism (cold startups, following an IFR flightplan, flying procedures, etc.) and the scenery is more believable (at least in clear weather--XP does a great job in low-vis scenarios--it's the roads that just don't look right, which is a problem in MSFS as well). I've used Microsoft's FS since v2 (mid-'80s) and XP since 9, and MSFS 2020 is the first MS product to come close to XP. They both have deficient ATC, but that seems to be improving (albeit slowly). XP12 is better than 11, but not radically so and most of the a/c aren't that great (especially the terrible interiors/panels, with some exceptions). Agreed that MSFS 2024 looks even more like a game than 2020 (very disappointing) and yes, we need XP not only for competition, but for its superior platform--they just need to work out a lot of details! I hope Austin, et al, continue to improve their product and the FS community continues to support them--I buy every release and provide feedback to help them in their mission.
I’m part of a virtual airline where there are a number of current and retired real world pilots. Now that PMDG has created very high quality aircraft, as well as a number of other developers, these folks are rapidly migrating to MSFS from XP and P3D. If you are an established XP user then there still a lot of high quality aircraft that don’t currently exist in MSFS that are in your XP hangar. But, if you are a new simmer the future is MSFS and there is little XP will have to offer that warrant the learning curve and add-on messiness. XP will be a footnote in the flight sim world a few years from now. Adobo has hundreds of staff - XP a few dozen.
The main reason you can log actual hours is because FSX left the commercial market and XP filled the gap. Yes FSX (commercial name ESP) was FAA certified.
Spot on. I bought 12 and to be honest it's a big let down.
If want to compare modern with modern, please don't pick an old module like the Worldliner. Pick something like ToLiss 320neo, or Aerobask
You mean the 90$ (oh sorry 72$ - it's on sale) Toliss to the free FBW?
Bro a free plane vs a 90 dollar.
@@yellscreen3697 What about the Zibo vs the FBW?
OP explicitly asked for Toliss A320 Neo.
Xp till have the best "feeling" of flight. The pitch control on MSFS is really bad. We struggle to trim a plane correctly, but XP12 looks like FSX. I can´t stand it anymore.
Grafics grafics grafics......
dumb, flightfactor is literally making a 777v2, i fail to see why a 12 year old addon being outdated is x-plane 12s fault
There wasnt enough of a change from XP11 to 12 to justify switching over. My XP11 actually looked better than XP12 lol
visually sure it does looks like xp11 with mods but there has been a massive overhaul of the weather engine and physics
XP12 default clouds are pure candy, no FPS drain like XP11 cloud addons...
You're absolutely right about the competition. I firmy believe that the only reason M$ bothered with FS2020 was because of X-Plane...
Also I would argue that reusing planes in XP12 from XP11 and earlier is a BIG plus for people who have already invested in their hobby. Something which M$ doesn't really care about. The issue with updates is valid - but actually, it's only really because of the size of the market, (they're not going to sell enough to make it worthwhile).. If more people used XP12, then more updates would be pushed through. The flight sim community needs Xplane to keep developing - you know that if FS2020 takes over completely, then M$ will do what they did with Word. Keep charing you stupid money for updates which nobody really needs/wants/uses..
I already had a Mac and didn't want to spend $3k on a dedicated rig, so my choice was made for me.
That said, I want my sim so I can learn how to fly. That means solid flight model and accurate scenery for VFR. XP plus clumsy scenery mods seems like the way to go, but really XP should make good imagery far easier to integrate.
We went for the pretty pictures. Now, ive deleted the pile of garbage msfs and play xplane 12 again. If you want a realistic sim, xplane12 is better. If you want a garbage sim with nice scenery and a load of bugs, msfs.
Me too. I even do VFR flights with XP 12 because the physics feel so good. And with Ortho...looks nice.
@@maltimoto Same for me. I've deleted MSFS since more than 1 year already. I never really liked it...
MSFS 2024 disagrees!!! Get a better PC and stop moaning
The physics are still not there for general aviation aircraft on fs2020 for real world practice with good force feedback equipment fs2020 doesn’t even come close to the realism
Before, I used Xplane since version 8 and sometimes Flight simulator... Since 2020, I switched to MSFS 2020, although I also bought XP12 when it was released. MSFS is an all-in-one product, while XP12 has remained a product in need of multiple adon to be graphically a whole notch below MSFS. Certainly, at first, the MSFS planes had strange reactions, but time has passed and now everything is practically OK. A year ago, I changed my CGU to an intel Arc 770 16Go which gives me exellent result on MSFS, DCS, IL2, ARMA III etc, with settings in ultra on 1440P....except on XP12 which refuses to install... I send support tickets to intel who replied that they were waiting for Laminar’s fix. I send the same ticket to laminar and the answer was that I had to buy a modern and powerful GPU... This answer put a definitive end to my use of Xplane... despite many years at the disposal use with happiness...
why is xplane12 so bad? its actualy a very good flight sim but its still wierd that xplane12 can not beat the older xplane11 sooo i think im gonna buy the tollis a319 bye!
Believe me, XP12 is way ahead of XP11. I am quite amused about those telling the opposite. I used MSFS 1 year before XP12 came out and didn’t use XP11 at all. 6 months after XP12 came out i deleted MSFS and never looked back. XP12 is way better than XP11. I would even prefer MSFS over XP11 but not over XP12.
I bought XP12 coming from XP11 (i got pressured by the price increase and it was on sale so i thought i would try) I had blurry textures even in default planes and when I tried to do a flight my game crashed after lining up. And then I decided to stay xp11. I just wish planes like the ixeg 737 and zibo 737 make the jump aswell
Can I just mention that not everyone who has XP 12 plays it through steam. I for example purchased it through that X plane website, and just downloaded the installer from there. Most people do that, but a lot do it through steam for the ease of having it grouped together with all their other games.
Agreed. Why would you want another level of complexity. Steam adds nothing to XPlane...
I still prefer flying aircraft in xplane than fs2020. I do wish however that they could better improve scenery for more authentic VFR flight.
Not sure how accurate your findings are but I'd bet a lot of people are running X Plane on mid to lower end computers and crank the graphics sliders to max then whine because X Plane doesn't run good....add trying to run all that in 4K too.
I feel xPlane12 has better flight dynamics, although it lacks optimization, and having to use so many external plugins leads to crashes and conflict. On my PC, I get 25-30 FPS while on the ground, and 45-50 when I'm in the air. MSFS, on the other hand, is better optimized (I'm getting 60fps or more at all times in ultra graphics), but when it comes to the flight dynamics, I feel they are a tad simpler compared to xPlane 12, I guess MSFS is more casual-friendly. It has a lot of eye candy as well.
You can't go wrong with either. They are both good simulators.
I fly both (and DCS, Aerofly FS4, FSX, WOFF, Rise of Flight, IL-2 1946 and Il-2 Great Battles in fact any simulator that flys lol😂😂) they all have their good and bad points - I like MSFX and will buy MSFX 2024 but I rather regard it as a bit more eye candy than the others. Running XPlane 12 (or 11) with Auto Ortho, active sky and sim heaven can also satisfy my reality craving. I guess I’m just a fan boy for all flight sims BUT you are absolutely right NO COMPETITION IS BAD NEWS it stunts the market, lowers quality and ultimately raises prices. Thanks for your video.
The problem withMSFS is that once they determine that sales are dropping, they will abandon it, just like they did with their previous version. We were all left out in the cold.
If you want a true simulator, Xplane is the way to go. If you want to game, MSFS is your best bet.
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱
Both have pros and cons. If X-Plane (LR) wanted to close the gap between the two sims, then all they'd have to do is add a "One Click" online button. vPilots want to fly with vPilots not AI. At this time, I don't think LR has the resources to finance such an expensive server for worldwide online simming like VATSIM or MSFS. LR will be adding their own store that might be able to support an online platform for it's vPilots, just speculation on my part. btw, I have chosen XP over MSFS it took over a year but in the end XP was for me.
saying that xplane11 has the same graphics as xplane12 is also untrue. xplane12 has improved volumetric clouds 3d trees new water and a whole new lighting system
I don't know if a lot of this is entirely fair and some aspects are not surprising. XP12 was always going to get the breadcrumbs left over from Microsoft. MSFS is basically *the* flight simulator. It's the one anyone I talk to knows about and only people actually _into_ flight sims know of X-Plane at all. The scenery was also always a losing battle. Laminar could go all in on scenery improvements but they'll never have a full private map data to work with. Technically, I think they were right to not focus much on the appearance, but business-wise they do clearly need to at least do better. But it's never going to be Microsoft.
Planes and scenery will improve. The 777 is a very unfair comparison since it's basically known to be broken as FF works on a real XP12 version. This is definitely on the stores and FF themselves for even offering a broken product but that's a different discussion about 3rd party practice. The plane itself is still outdated. The explicitly released 12-version planes have been alright. ToLiss, Vskylabs, Rotate, X-Crafts, and the actually upgraded FF Boeings have been fine.
everyone with a realistic mindset will know that xplane is by far more realistic than msfs. But msfs is more user friendly and it’s funded all by microsoft, a massive brand. So in an obvious factor, people are going to go play msfs instead.
I have x plane but I didn’t buy it from steam I think most buy directly from x plane their site not from steam so these number are true but still off