I actually only know MSFS from 2020 bought Honeycomb cause MSFS2020 was nice. I learned from reading the Threats through MSFS2024 x-Plane could be an alternative, and is maybe very more stable, it’s certificated to let you get flights in real flightbook. Yes I know there are a lot of restrictions on this and I don’t looking for this cause I’m no real pilot only searching for a sim that is working. Anyone can explain difference from MSFS2020/2024 to X-Plain?
2 Likes
All I can reference is what I’ve noticed myself and read on other threads. XP is generally regarded as the more technically correct sim and centers on flight dynamics in lieu of delivering a more visual experience like 2020 and 2024 are supposed to do.
After evenings of multiple CTDs in 2020 I have been frustrated enough to consider XP, but as much as I hate to admit it, I’m a visual guy. The other problem is that I’ve invested several thousand dollars into planes and airports in the 2020/2024 expanse and I wouldn’t want to start over again.
Others may chime in with their opinions, but that’s what I’ve found.
11 Likes
I’ve been a loyal X-Plane user since version 6. For background, I fly fixed wing professionally. I also own and compete (very amateurishly) in a Pitts S1. A few years ago I got my helicopter CPL and am attempting to build a Mosquito. I held off on MSFS until I bought an XBOX 2 years ago. I felt that my sim hobby was getting bloated. Big GPU cards, HOTAS rigs and VR, all made siming simultaneously incredible and JOB LIKE. Where flight dynamics are concerned X-Plane is marginally better than MSFS. But flying is so much more than molecules over an airfoil. It’s the feel of soft grass under fat tires, the air rolling over the trees when you land, the big thermal you might get when flying under a CU, the sound of birds and traffic as you sit in the pit with the canopy open AND YES walking around your plane! Visuals are important. So I fly X-Plane about once a month mainly to practice helicopter ops and autos in VR. For the pure enjoyment of virtual flight, I prefer MSFS.
36 Likes
A De Havilland DH98 Mosquito?
1 Like
Hate to break it to you, but you aren’t flying if your tyres are in the grass.
10 Likes
Both sims have their problems and accolades. I fly both and it is a different experience in each. I am pretty sure X-Plane still offers a “free” trial so try it and see if you like it. Nothing beats real world experience.
2 Likes
CompositeFX XE290, a very small, single-place helicopter.
Moved to Discussion Hub > General Discussion since not a support request.
Stock scenery in XP looks like flying over “Sim City”"
7 Likes
Please no “mine is better than yours” discussion. We all share the same hobby.
10 Likes
XP Disadvantages:
- Default avionics are much worst than WT avionics for MSFS.
- Scenery is bad even with orthos.
- Autogen is bad.
- Anti-aliasing is bad, very bad.
- Lighting is bad, specially in the cockpit, or very bad.
- Add-ons are 2x, 3x or 4x more expensive due to the reduced user-base.
XP Advantages:
- Default airports are much better than in MSFS 2024.
- You don’t need an internet connection to be able to fly.
- Camera system is better than MSFS (subjective).
- Replay tool is much better than MSFS.
About the same:
- Physics and flight model, the days of XP being better are long gone. People still repeat this like parrots but is no longer true.
- Weather engine.
31 Likes
-
MSFS2020 - “a sim that is working” - You know its flaws
-
MSFS2024 - Free Flight mostly working, Careers and Activities have major issues, Marketplace not available but MSFS2020 marketplace aircraft purchases show up in your 2024 planes - Summary: not yet “a sim that is working” but fun to explore what is working. Note only MSFS2024 simmers are visible in MSFS2024 - cannot group flight with MSFS2020 yet.
-
XPlane12 - “a sim that is working” - Very well developed airport creation tool but the sim lacks native orthographic scenery coverage. Installing ortho4XP is a serious challenge but if successfully installed allows creation of orthographic scenery over which XPlane will place its “Monopoly game looking houses”. XPlane12 has no native “group flight” feature.
IVAO and VATSIM work with either XPlane or MSFS2020 for flying with “human ATC”. I saw an email that one of them had released support for FS2024, but I don’t fly with either network anymore.
I flew XPlane11 and XPlane12 for many years, built my own aircraft and airports, built ortho4XP scenery for every flight I planned, and love how accurate the aircraft I fly are modeled (LongEZ, Cabri G2, ICON A5, C152/172). I was simming on Mac so could not fly MSFS2020 when it came out.
When I fly the LongEZ in group flights in MSFS2020 or with VATSIM/IVAO in MSFS2020, others do not see me as a LongEZ.
When I fly the ICON A5 or Cabri G2 in XPlane12 with VATSIM/IVAO others did not see me as the aircraft I was flying.
Because I typically only fly 3 general aviation aircraft, VFR, and usually at 1000 feet for planes and 500 feet for the heli, I prefer MSFS24 over XPlane12 and put up with the limitations right now. I prefer the MSFS casual group flight feature over the more restrictive (realistic) IVAO or VATSIM group required by XPlane12.
Hope that helps your understanding of the differences and “working” state of each.
4 Likes
Sorry - the MSFS2020/2024 Canard Pusher LongEZ still stalls 10 knots high and the canard does not have accurate lift per AOA on landing. XPlane12 models this bird much more accurate to the real aircraft performance, handling, (and sounds).
Again - MSFS2024 made improvements in the Cabri G2 helicopter flight dynamics, but XPlane12 models this aircraft better in performance, handling, and sounds.
So perhaps “People still repeat this like parrots”, but for two of my favorite aircraft XPlane12’s “Physics and flight model” are better than MSFS2024… BUT having identified the issues, I only use XPlane12 to compare specific flight aspects of an aircraft, and prefer to fly MSFS2024. (I still swear at it every landing because I have to land 10 knots fast).
4 Likes
Since I already have FS2020, and because FS2024 is not currently a compelling ‘upgrade’ for the type of flying I mostly enjoy (low-altitude VFR flights in GA aircraft on a PC, and no VATSIM or multiplayer) I decided to buy X-plane 12 for Christmas instead this year. I might give FS2024 another look next Christmas. But for now:
My TL;DR is that X-Plane 12 feels more like a simulator, whereas MSFS (both 2020 and even more so 2024) feel more like a game. If I’m in the mood for flying over scenery, or listening to ATC manage a big queue of realistic traffic courtesy of FSLTL, and spending most of my time in non-cockpit views as a birds-eye scenery tourist, I’ll fire up my trusty instance of FS2020.
If I’m in the mood for a somewhat more challenging flight, where what’s happening inside the cockpit is more important than what’s visible outside of it, where outside references will be few but will look more realistic (even if not more photo-realistic) and where the interface doesn’t get in the way of starting or restarting a flight, I’ll fire up X-Plane.
Below are some more detailed first impressions on the differences between MSFS 2020 and X-Plane 12, based on flying in areas of Australia and NZ that I’m familiar with. I haven’t done too many flights in X-Plane yet, but it doesn’t take a lot of flying to identify the most obvious differences.
-
MSFS (2020/2024) provides better and more photorealistic global real-world scenery when everything is working correctly
-
MSFS is more likely to have the correct type of buildings in their real-world locations
-
MSFS has more accurate city reproductions (especially if you’re lucky enough to get photogrammetry working without producing melted buildings)
-
MSFS has more eye-candy in the form of POIs, especially in areas that have received the World or City Update treatment.
-
X-Plane 12 has more accurate and current global roads and waterways (at least compared to FS2020) making VFR by traffic landmarks more intuitive, especially in remote and rural areas.
-
X-Plane 12 default scenery includes other familiar elements like power lines
-
X-Plane 12 ground scenery is more similar to the FSX landclass approach, so you will see forests and mountains and fields where they are supposed to be, but most fields and mountains look very much the same.
-
X-Plane aircraft handling and atmospheric conditions are meant to be much more realistic, and this is probably true. However for myself, most of my flying tends to be in relatively clear VFR conditions, where any difference in handling tends to be subtle or not detectable at all, with one notable exception:
-
X-Plane default aircraft tend to have more realistic and consistent ground-handling characteristics
-
X-Plane aircraft more accurately and consistently render rain effects onto cockpit windows. I find myself adding preciptation just to watch the drops stream down the window, or curving up and around it once I start speeding down the runway.
-
X-Plane controller set up and adjustments are much more logical than both FS2020 and FS2024.
-
X-Plane menu navigation is more straightforward
-
X-Plane save and load flight options are more full-featured
-
X-Plane comes with fly-by, tower, and replay view options, although the view menu is still not as easy to navigate as it was in FSX
-
X-Plane aircraft allow more panel elements, including fully clickable GNS units, to be popped out to an alternate screen
-
X-Plane multi-monitor use has some peculiarities of its own (or maybe I just haven’t found the right options yet). If you have two different views on two different monitors, the zoom and mouse movement works on both simultaneously. So I set the second screen to “unused” and simply move undocked panel elements onto it.
-
X-Plane AI traffic and ground vehicle movements tend to be more consistent, both at small and larger airports
-
MSFS and X-Plane both include ATC interactions. The interface for interacting with ATC is more mature and intuitive in X-Plane, especially its implementation of a ‘push-to-talk’ button approach that allows you to select ATC options with a joystick hat-switch when active.
-
MSFS and X-Plane both include AI traffic, but both still rely on add-ons to get more accurate true-to-life liveries showing up at a given airport.
-
The X-Plane ATC system is apparently unable to consistently interact with add-on traffic, so if you wish to keep ATC chatter related to in-sim activity, you’re stuck with the default AI traffic, which is moderately good.
-
MSFS and X-Plane default scenery both include vehicles moving along highways and roads. However because the roads are rendered more accurately and consistently in X-Plane (eg bridges over rivers where in MSFS roads sometimes run directly over or even under a river’s water-mask), especially in more regional and rural areas the traffic in X-Plane feels more real and believable.
-
MSFS and X-Plane 12 both include moving boat traffic. From some comments on this forum, I believe the X-Plane implementation is more mature.
9 Likes
This is very interesting
An important note for the end user is that currently, XP12 does not enjoy the support of a massive third party developer group anywhere near that of MSFS. If you enjoy extremely high quality airliners, you are in luck but if you enjoy a wide variety of detailed GA aircraft, the picking is much much slimmer. Developers have to follow the money and the offerings show that.
6 Likes
With technology as it is, an enormous part of the immersion and realism is now in the visuals. People will deny it but it’s the truth. For me, it’s immaterial how much more accurately XP recreates flight dynamics and systems because, when I look out of the window, I want to see a world that looks real.
The hardcore airliner buffs — who are far more concerned with systems, physics and sticking solely in cockpit view — might prefer XP but almost everyone else prefers MSFS.
As I say, in 2024, much of the authenticity is offered by aesthetics.
4 Likes
I would try it again, but I can’t get a good VR experience in XP12. It’s a puzzler for me.
2 Likes
@JakTrax78 , I agree that aesthetics form a large part of authenticity and realism. But at the moment many people are getting better aesthetics from FS2020 than from FS2024. Since the topic of this post is diifferences between FS2024 and X-Plane, an argument could be made that X-Plane 12 has more realistic visuals than FS2024 currently does. Think FS2024 oversized trees, windsocks blowing the wrong direction, etc. The only element X-Plane 12 does not have is photo-realistic satellite imagery, but it does have high-res ground-textures that beat or at least equal the current fuzzy low LOD renderings produced by FS2024, not to mention volumetric clouds, lighting and haze effects etc.
(not my picture, just a google image search for X-Plane 12 screenshots)
2 Likes
As far as I know 2020 does not model Canards, 2024 does because -if I’m correct- allows multiple surfaces to be modeled. I don’t think IndiaFoxtEcho has updated the LongEZ for 2024 so if the add-on is not using what the sim provides is not really a sim fault. I hope the Starship will be the first 2024 product where we can see Canards being fully used in the flight model.
With the Cabri I agree with you but again one thing is what the sim provides and another is how the dev uses that.
BTW: Big fan of the LongEZ hope IFE can update it to 2024, they were adding the WT G3x and hopefully a better flight model is in the roadmap.
6 Likes