The actual feeling of flight (height/depth perception/visual interpretation) is well represented in MSFS and now in DCS with the new clouds. Only a matter of time with flight dynamics and volumes of aircraft.
3 Likes
I’ve been active in X Plane for many years, and have a lot of money invested in it. Having said that, I keep reading about how much better the flight model is, etc., so I’ve been flying “same/similar plane” “same route” comparisons. That is, I’d fly the Toliss A319 from ATL to GSP (about 30 min flight), then I’d fly the FBW a320; or, I’d fly the LES Saab 340, then the Carenado Saab 340 in XP, then the Beech 99 payware (with sounds mapped to default King Air) on the same route.
After these comparisons (on an i9 with 2080, similar to OP), I still don’t understand the “X Plane is so much more accurate and real feeling in the air” argument. The FBW a320 is every bit immersive (more so) and fluid in flight as the ToLiss). I can’t really tell much difference between the Saab 340s in XP, and I enjoy flying the Beech in MSFS much more than either. Can’t wait for a Saab in MSFS.
So, X Plane, with all it’s add-ons, is my backup sim (even for Vatsim, where the FBW is great). Like others here, I just can’t go back to XP unless I have to (but thankfully my MSFS set up works smoothly). Hope Austin can up his game, not sure he cares to.
7 Likes
I am an old Xplaner. I moved to MSFS because of the visuals. Unfortunately, I am close to going back to XP just because the aircraft complexity and realism and flight model and performance. MSFS has a long way to go to provide me with a fully satisfying ‘flight’ part of flight simming, but it sure does look good.
8 Likes
X Plane is here to stay and will not be abandoned probably due to the fact that both sims as they are now to a degree appeal to a different audience.
I think for the long term X Plane crew there isn’t really much of a competition between MSFS and X Plane as just by looking at the past history of each one makes me pretty sure that I will maintain x-plane for as long as it keeps being developed.
What we have in X plane today is the result of dedicated team of aviation enthusiasts who have now worked for almost 30 years straight on a flight simulator, taking a very special engineering/physical approach and the first sim to implement a next generation API while the new sim on the block MSFS released with a legacy API Dx 11.
On the other side we have Microsoft (who are well known for losing interest and dumping the flight sim community twice before without notice) who hired a really talented French game studio to create a new msfs with stunning visuals.
I have read that most of the initial development team at Asobo are already working on their next projects which have nothing to do with MSFS, but that’s just how the gaming industry works.
With the huge investments in technical breakthroughs such as the Azure streaming service and creating Blackshark AI to generate airports and cities, I am hoping they really will keep their word and this becomes a 10 year project.
I am really interested in seeing how this evolves now that the hype is over and they are selling less copies and the gamers move on and we have less players but what I am confident of is that MS would never do anything for goodwill or passion only, unlike X Plane that is full of passionate Aeronautical simmers.
I am investing in MSFS now we have a helicopter but while I see the end of P3D for me once more airframes turn up in MSFS, I will be with X Plane so long as they keep moving forward as it offers something quite different to MSFS.
10 Likes
I said that but with a lot more words, well said!
1 Like
I don’t get the whole RIP P3D/X-Plane 11 mentality. Quite a many people still stick with the older platforms, or run the older platforms in conjunction with MSFS. Personally, I have P3D installed alongside MSFS. I use MSFS for graphics and world exploration, which is what its good at. I use P3D as a complex aircraft simulator primarily for IFR Long hauls on VATSIM–the kind of flying I like. I own X-Plane too, and the only reason I don’t use it is because it doesn’t have the aircraft I want to fly, but its still a freaking great sim.
There are many criteria that can be compared between the three sims, and each and everyone of them have pros and cons.
For instance, VFR flying–MSFS is king, especially since the world is drawn out from 3d satellite imagery and the like, which makes it possible to spot real world features.
In IFR flying, MSFS is still in the “WTF” category for me, especially since so many airports have misaligned localiser beams, inaccuracies in navigation, skipping of waypoints, and other issues that need ironing out.
Then we have camera controls, stability, loading times, airports, the approach to weather, and so on to consider. Each of these I have opinions on between the three sims.
If you ask for a comparison on the X-Plane forums, or P3D forums, you are bound to get different opinions from people. MSFS is fine for what it does, but the other sims have strong merits too, and I can guarantee that they will stick around for quite a few years. Sims like X-Plane have been dwarfed by sims like FSX and P3D for years until X-Plane 11 came along, but it still maintained a steady community all these years until version 11 came around. This makes me pretty sure that it will continue to do so in years ahead.
7 Likes
Well said ! 
I use both, if the plane I am learning to fly comes to MSFS great I’ll get it but till then I practice in Xplane.
Xplane direction is clear - commercial simulator.
MSFS direction is also clear - flying game available on a games console.
They both have pros and cons.
4 Likes
Sure buddy whatever helps you internalise your choice…
They’re both just flying games… One just has people convinced its more than that.
5 Likes
Here’s my very short comparison
2 different sims, 2 WW2 fighters, 1 city (Rome)
X Plane 2021 03 13 09 47 23 04 - YouTube
Microsoft Flight Simulator 02 Apr 2021 Milviz Corsair - YouTube
Pick whichever works for you and enjoy it.
1 Like
In my experience so far:
MSFS = VFR
Xplane = IFR
4 Likes
We live on a strange world.
On one side we have a sim that has fantastic planes, several of them study-level and a great flight model. They apparently think graphics are not paramount in a flight sim so they may just plan to continue with 8-bit style houses and buildings over satellite photos that the user has to download.
On the other side we have a sim with incredible photorealistic graphics, that is apparently heading towards the highlight of having a $140 study-level plane running on an Xbox. They seem to be fine with that too.
My only concern is that I don’t have enough popcorn for what is to come…
1 Like
One looks like its flying over the real world. The other not so much… easy pick for this one.
3 Likes
One feels like it’s flying. The other not so much. That said I want the one that doesn’t feel as much like real flying to improve that aspect.
1 Like
Yes, the one with the real world does give a better impression and sense of actually flying…
Even with all the fixes and optimizations that has to be done in MSFS, in my opinion MSFS is 1 million times better than X-Plane 11, FSX and all versions of P3D… all together with all the addons in the market.
Before MSFS I used FSX, X-PLANE 11 and P3D. Im never going to use them again, for me they are death… MSFS with all its actual problems is infinitely better, even there is not a point of comparation… its like to try to compare a ford fiesta, a nissan almera and a ford focus with a Lamborghini… Thats it💁
6 Likes
I think going with the auto comparison, to me it’s like the fiesta, almera and focus are all stock, standard and in good running order. The lamborghini, even though it looks great, has had it’s engine replaced with an old, unreliable citroen 2cv engine. Someone needs to ditch the 2 cylinder and get that 12 cylinder back in the lambo.
2 Likes
Don’t yell at me this is my own opinion but in it’s current state MSFS is a game and XP11 is a advanced simulator used by the FAA and yes I use both
13 Likes
I use MSFS for VFR rotary and fixed wing.
FSX for long haul IFR, formation flying and red bull air racing.
Feel
As for feel…FSX still gives me this complex, unforgiving much more mature technical feeling of flights and difficulty and is still much more rewarding performing landings that require lots of focus and nerves of steel. While MSFS is much easier to just jump into and load a session I don’t get any satisfaction nor nervous adrenaline with landings yet. The flight model feels much more forgiving.
Yes I’m gonna say it MSFS feels much more game/arcade friendly in the aerodynamics/physics controls aspect…particularly in multiplayer. Formation flying feels all too easy with MSFS I feel one could just jump in a MSFS multiplayer session and easily maintain a formation with others.FSX actually took time and fatal error to produce a solid formation flying group, months of months of training.
That pressure of crash/damage on in FSX multiplayer was like no other. You wipe out in a formation you just may wipe out your whole group and the session is over for you all.
I love that pressure of risk, danger and unforgiving complexity good ole FSX provides!
Things in FSX like formation flying, redbull racing and landings are much more complex intense and rewardingly unforgiving and nerve wrecking. I mean here I am 14 years later and Red Bull Air Racing with damage/crash model on in FSX still makes me sweat and the adrenaline pump. There is just no getting complacent and cocky with that type of flying in FSX. Meanwhile the Red Bull Air Racing in MSFS didn’t hold my attention for more than 30 minutes before I grew bored and pretty confident and complacent maneuvering a small frame metal coffin with wings and an engine through obstacles and hugging terrain at 180+ knots.
Visuals
Both of my sim builds are pretty darn gorgeous in VR though!
FSX has its awww moments of beauty just as well with the right addon combos.
With MSFS the feeling of presence of physical place and worldly life is much more appearent with photogrammetry. The later much more modern MSFS actually captures a real life geographic location’s unique character. Unlike the prior sims where say for example South America feels and looks just like South East Asia in XP11 when it comes to colors and just overall atmospheric mood! XP11 lacks any sort of geographic atmospheric mood unique to locations. Its the same “bland dusty greened out” feel of the whole globe unfortunately.
I would honestly say through my experience of owning every last one of these sims XP11 takes the cake for aerodynamics/physics, but it’s also lowest on the totem pole in terms of visuals, yes I would say FSX looks much better visually than XP11 addon for addon.
While MSFS dominates in all things visual of course but feels the most game/arcade like with controls.
4 Likes
Goodness you all totally missed the point of the post and why I focused on the aspects I did. Notice I spent little time on the graphics comparison. Reason is it isnt meant to be the focus of my comparison. In the last couple of updates so many people have ranted about how unstable MSFS is compared to Xplane and P3D and how they were switching back to the older gen simulators. I compared the two to see if thosr claims line up. They really dont because of the differemce in requirements and also that, frankly, you have just as much chance of running into a hiccup that causes a CTD on both platforms. My comparison’s intent was to kill the whole complaining about how MSFS isnt as good as XPlane etc because of its stability and optimization “issues”.
Now as so many people want to mention a difference in flight physics time to crack some eggs with this. When it comes to flight physics you cant really compare the two without having a near identical aircraft model. Reason why? Its the aircraft model developers that ultimately determine how an aircraft feels by integrating it into the overall physics of the simulator. In order to properly compare the flight physics you have to look at what each simulator can do in regards to computing ability. X plane has better flights physics not because of the computing ability of the simulator but because of the maturity of the aircraft developers. MSFS is still waiting on its first true study level aircraft. The Aerosoft CRJ is the closest you get right now and from the reactions of CRJ pilots, Aerosoft came pretty dang close with the physics. What MSFS has the ability to do in regards to flight physics over X plane is that MSFS can account for more points of interaction for an aircraft than X plane 11 will ever be able to do thanks to modern coding. Once again how these points interact depends on the aircraft developer. As far as aircraft systems go, if PMDG can say they have everything they need to implement their aircraft right now in MSFS you can best believe that means that everything you need to do realistic IFR flights is in the simulator already. The simulator just needs an aircraft developer to put out an aircraft for it.
What does impact flight physics that is wholly dependent on the simulators is weather and fluid dynamics. A comment on here pointed out that X plane is “better” because it uses current METAR from airports. That is a really bad justification when METARS are not always real time reports. At many airports METARs may lag in weather. Not to mention, METARs only give snapshots within the airports airspace. That can lead to incomplete actual weather rendering. Using a “METARs accurate” process isnt really a superior weather rendering model.
Now the issue that is really important is fluid dynamics and how that is rendered in the simulator. X plane cant really render that at all. It just doesnt have the coding to handle that level of detail in a realistic manner. MSFS has coding in place to render that to the best degree a personal computer really can. MSFS is able to render dynamic turbulence from passing through clouds and adverse weather as well as a pretty dang good mountain wave rendering for a simulator. In my time using X plane I never saw an rendering of that effect. Prior to the release of MSFS Asobo made it a point to highlight how these effects are integrated into the simulator. Something that doesnt get noticed too much.
Now I wasnt saying X plabe doesnt have a place, really that is up to you to decide, but all the big talk about how great X plane is to MSFS is really not much of a supported argument. Talk all you want about how “X plane is FAA approved” but that bubble bursts when the FAA also requires certified hardware to accompany it, as X plane even states on the issue, and the FAA certification isnt for the big league airliners like people seem to think thats what is meant by it.
9 Likes