One of the main selling points of MSFS is the very realistic default scenery you get from the base game purchase, without needing to purchase additional scenery addons. Trying to compare XP12 with a bunch of scenery addons to vanilla MSFS is just acknowledging the already-apparent shortcomings of XP12.
11 Likes
Iâll maybe try it some time but with a limited area and only 15 minutes itâs not easy to test things - you just start to get things sorted and your times up! They really should put the time up to at least 30 minutes.
So yes, only 46% of customers have upgraded to 12. However, in the end once the beta is over, it will probably be 81% or more. And they very well may get new customers. As for the addon market, developers that are committed to XP 12 are making new addons (a couple have come out so far) and other developers are working on upgrades to existing addons. There is now going to be a xplane.to site for community developed addons.
So I really donât see XP 12 going away. Architecturely though I have to admit it is locked. If the next version was so different that addons were not forward compatible, then you may see people move because they donât want to reinvest from scratch again. However, the need to be backward compatible with addons is going to limit what can be done with future versions.
1 Like
I want most immersive sim with addons. I have bought many sceneries in MSFS too.
MSFS selling point is streaming. You donât need so much space in your hard drives like XP with orthos and True Earth addons. MSFS need some hand made landmarks and buildings. If you donât use addons winner is so obvious so why bother to compare. I want plane comparison made to with payware good aircraft, not vanilla.
You can compare both vanillas if you like and many does it that way. But both sims are much better with addons. Without addons MSFS havenât any helicopters but with we have pretty good B47 and H145. We have PMDG and Fenix in MSFS too.
1 Like
I generally open my boiled eggs at the little end and it makes absolutely no difference at all to me that others might normally open theirâs at the big end.
It wouldnât be too tough to occasionally turn it over though, should the mood take me. 
I agree, that sparse look is pretty terrible.
3 Likes
But only with a lot Online Transfer⊠XP is an offline sim that is explicitly intended as a base for add-ons. By the way, SimHeaven X-Word Adds and Orthos donât cost a penny.
It doesnât always have to be payware.
Compare MSFS Online and XP Vanilla landscapes, itâs somewhere like apples and oranges. Admittedly, the oranges are a bit shriveled.
However - offline mode in FS also looks more like dried fruit.
Better! Waaaaay better. Now some nice study-level Airbus or Boeing and we might have a deal 
Is this OrbX? I always loved the OrbX UK and Scotland sceneries back in the FSX-days, and these sceneries also looked so wonderful slightly oversaturated which truly brought the landscape to live.
I fly both sims and like both simsâŠend of story.
MS/Asobo have already stated theyâre working on seasons, but want to do it right. So not just switching trees, but having different satellite imagery for different seasons, so youâll have germinating fields in spring, and fields ready for harvest in fall.
Thatâs why itâs taking them so long. And with the power of Blackshark AI and the Azure cloud behind it, Iâm sure they will pull it off.
In the meantime, we have mods like REX accuseason / Bijans seasons to hold us over.
2 Likes
Another real life pilot here; VRF flying we look outside of the window 90% of the time.
6 Likes
Third one is OrbX TE GB South but all have OrbX TerraFlora. First is FASimulations Helsinki VFR Scenery, second is Ortho4XP, fourth and fifth are Frank Daineseâs 3D Val DâAosta + Matterhorn Park 2.0 scenery. Clouds are freeware Enhanced Cloudscapes.
MSFS Helsinki Photogrammetry is very heavy and it eats fps in VR. Otherwise it is far better, no missing buildings.
I tried Spain UHD but it is not good enough to me. I have TE Spain South but MSFS is only option for lovely North Spain. London is also far better in MSFS while I have TE GB South. SamScene New York for MSFS is one of best sceneries and it runs very well on my machine. I think I will buy XP12 too but I think MSFS is better. When we get more good helicopters in MSFS it will be my main civil aviation simulator.
Whatâs the cost of that lot v MSFS out of the box though? Orbx TE seem to be about ÂŁ25-ÂŁ30 each? Thatâs half the cost of (either) sim
2 Likes
Why should we compare MSFS to a tricked out XPlane 12 when for the money spent you can get much more with MSFS out the box? Look at XPlane 12 default compared to MSFS, thatâs the fair comparison. Default MSFS with the whole world represented to what Bing has covered versus payware add-on areas in XPlane 12 with very limited area covered the debate is not even close. Letâs compare the price for comparable ground coverage between the two. Hands down again MSFS beats everything out there including this latest version of XPlane. Leminar needs to figure out how to get Bing or Google Earth scenery into their sim then we can have a realistic comparison. Itâs amazing how people are trying put these two sims in the same ballpark. XPlane is good in itâs own right especially compared to other options out there but itâs no MSFS by a long shot.
5 Likes
Will XPlane still be around in 10 years time?
I honestly do wonder because I think that in the next decade simmers will expect very high quality scenery as a matter of course and this might well require resources which LR may not wish to commit to. Even more than this I still suspect that Austin as a engineer has other things which are way higher up on his âto doâ list than visuals.
To some here on the forum I suspect that XP12 already looks last gen and I wonder how long LR can continue down the same path of giving scenery a low priority without losing a lot of their customer base.
4 Likes
FS2020 cost me 120 euros for the base. In addition, there are around 30-40 euros per month for the amount of data transported (LTE).
Not exactly a bargain either.
MSFS2020 just need to improve CFD for airliners etc, get that to the point where X-Plane marketing / users can say, X-Plane has better flight modelling.
So give the Devs the tools, Devs use those toolsâŠ
I also took a screenshot of the KLSS environment.
vanilla without online âmodâ - only to create an equal situation.
I donât care who is better or worse. I just like to look at things objectively.
As a VFR leisure pilot with internet access, the FS currently has the better benefit for me.
XP isnât that bad either. Especially on low bush or heliflights. Nature looks really good at ground level.
Sounds good to me.
Wow. Thatâs the price of my 200Mb connection, unlimited. Thatâs steep, and for me the first time that I hear from someone who has to pay per usage.
For you offline, with a bit less detailed scenery is much better indeed!