If you take away the photogrammetry and streamed scenery from MSFS, X-Plane wins by a clear margin. Noone would fly without that in MSFS because the sim doesn’t provide a decent enough fallback whereas X-Plane provides a reasonable rendition of the planet even without the satellite imagery - and is well capable of supporting said imagery if/when it becomes available (TruEarth, Ortho etc).
It also has things like trains, airport traffic, cars, street lights, ships, etc that are simply implemented better. They make the “plausible world” of Laminar more authentic than “the digital twin” of Asobo which is mostly empty. And let’s not even start on the default renditions of airports in both sims - X-Plane is miles ahead because it is community-led and has been for many years.
Honestly though I feel like one of the main points should be that the authors of X-Plane actually care about flight simulation on a deeper level than anyone at Asobo/Microsoft because it’s why they exist and we as hobbyists should think carefully about why that’s important.
Jorg for instance, has openly stated in an article that flight simulation is merely a method being used to subsidise the creation of “the digital twin” which, clearly, is the end goal for a corporation like Microsoft. Asobo are a gaming company - they don’t care about flight simulation, they care about making a flight simulator because they were contracted to do so by Microsoft.
Laminar Research deserve respect from the flight simulation community because, I believe, they have the same level of interest in simulation as a hobby as we users do - and wouldn’t simply pull the plug the moment a certain level of profit wasn’t being made for shareholders. X-Plane exists because of one man’s passion for flight and trying to simulate it as accurately as possible. He’s remained true to that cause for decades and you can tell it still excites him by watching his videos.
The fact Microsoft and Asobo are so quiet in the face of such a disastrous launch should be a huge red flag for anyone who is a flight simulation hobbyist and anyone who’s business depends on the platform.
I would say while MSFS 2024 has the potential to be great if it ever lives up to its promises, if you actually support flight simulation as a “thing” then Laminar Research should stay well and truly on your radar.
You have to be kidding me right ? There is no light pollution in XP12. The sky is always dark , all of the time over big city. This idea that XP12 lighting is way better is a fallacy.
Pros
Keybinding interface
better default airport
camera system
Cons of XP12
Only support FSR1. No FSR2/3 or DLSS 2/3
Run mostly on 1 core
Aircraft using SASL plugin steal in average 20-30% of the FPS because they all run on the same thread
Mesh definition is extremely low
Addons are more expensive
You need external weather applications
Most dev have abandon Xplane ecosystem. Only Hot Starts, Toliss and FF remains.
LR has a very small dev team and it takes forever for any fixes
Super VRAM hungry for no reason which causes blurry textures
Very dark cockpit.
Takes lots of space on hard drive if you do any othos or orthos streaming
You are entitled to your opinion but Xplane used to be great in the FSX days. it was the sim without the OOM and that’s why I switch to XPlane back than. Todays, even on the last version 12.3 Beta, the game is still runs on 1 core with no modern AA. Their graphic engine is 10 years behind any modern graphic engine.
When you do VFR, scenery does matter and MSFS is the place to be if you like GA. You can actually learned approaches and specific region because it is that good. Xplane 12 still doesn’t have shadow on building. This is FSX days of graphic level. You may say graphic doesn’t matter but that isn’t true. I can show you side to side comparison and it’s clear as day that Xplane has not evolved at all or very little.
Now if you only do Airliners, sure, you only care about airports and clouds. That’s it. The rest doesn’t matter. There is way more than just big airliners in aviation and LR should know that it does matter. Instead Austin makes cringy YT video about some bespoke airport that still looks like it was created from 10 years ago.
The only redeeming quality of XPlane 12 is the CL650. If it wasn’t for Hot Start, I don’t think I would have XP12 install still. LR hasn’t delivered 50% of all the things he promised he would deliver and it’s been more than a year and yet you seem to have Asobo on such standard. What about LR ? They failed to deliver so many things and they get a pass ?
You have the right to enjoy XPlane 12. That is your prerogative but don’t portrait that pink colored glasses picture because XPlane 12 is still in a beta phase and they failed to deliver so many promises. They also refuse to provide good quality avionics. Which in return brings down all the quality of addons being made for the platform. XPlane ecosystem has not evolved while Asobo is going at rapid pace.
Most, if not all, of the “pros” for XP have already been picked up in previous posts, but my highlights include:
the by-default availability of replays, if desired, with any and all camera views available at all times, compared with the (to me, anyway) obscure and unintuitive MSFS camera system;
the one-click set up (and removal) of a favourites section, compared with the disorganised mess that is the MSFS “hanger”;
the ability NOT to update the version if you think it might cause you problems, versus the MSFS forced updates;
the faster load / startup / take off times v MSFS: for me, 24 is no faster than 20 by the time the departure aircraft and local scenery are streamed, even with a 128Gb cache and full speed fibre optic broadband, 64 Gb DDR5 RAM, etc. etc., for repeat flights with the same aircraft from the same departure airfield.
If the world view eye candy is most important to you, then MSFS will almost certainly seem better; but if you need only to “suspend your disbelief” then XP has several advantages, and enough well modelled aircraft (incl. payware) to make a good selection of types to master.
I heard the same talking points for years. It’s full of fallacy. There is strong bias against MS/Asobo in all your comments. But it’s ok Steve. There is room for more than 1 simulator. If anything, I want LR to do better because someone needs to keep Asobo honest and vice versa. So far, LR doesn’t compete at all. They cannot compete. I am still waiting for all the things Ben/Austin promised to us at the FSExpo before XP12 release. So far they are not even 30% done. yet they are charging full price for their product.
Well.. Short answer is MSFS2020/2024 provides a visually rich and user-friendly experience, ideal for recreational simmers, while X-Plane is more stable and suitable for professional training, including FAA-certified applications. MSFS requires online, whereas X-Plane offers a more offline-focused setup. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages.
A friend of mine told me this is why she only has it installed also. Most of the time she is playing MSFS 2024. I too have this aircraft for XP 12 and many other top-shelf payware addons but don’t really use them. I’m too busy in MSFS / MSFS 2024 flying aircraft from Black Square, A2A, FSReborn, ect.
I’m not sure Laminar has ever tried to compete with MSFS … that seems to be something made up by the community who are obsessed with one simulator needing to be “the best” perhaps to help validate their own decisions.
Laminar seem to enjoy doing their own thing and it’s working out nicely for them. Moreover, some of us really like what they’re doing and get a lot of happiness from using their product - simple as that.
I think I’d rather Laminar be behind schedule (a schedule that they created though, not some weird corporate suits) and keep the product usable than releasing ahead of schedule to meet deadlines … it’s quite plain to see how that goes if you care to look around the rest of this forum. Frankly they’re doing what Asobo should do… keeping their core product stable and using a beta branch for those customers who like to test new features before they’re ready for the masses.
The only thing I go back to XP for is flying floatplanes (and the Hotstart Challenger). Unfortunately MSFS 24 doesn’t really scratch the itch for me but would love to see improvements to the water physics. You can’t even get up on step in MSFS 24.
I think XPlane 12 was released way too early as well. Let’s be honest here. version 1.0 was a total wreck.
This is a view that I have heard so many times : David vs Goliath. The small business vs the big corporation angle. LR is more righteous and LR is forgiven for any flaws because they are a small company who loves aviation right ?
The issue with LR has nothing to do whether they are a small company or not. It’s their culture. Philip refused to upgrade default avionics. he thinks XP1000 is good enough, forcing 3rd party dev to use that because they don’t want to build their own G1000 unit. THAT the issue with LR. They are behind on the ball. They were talking about multiplayer like it was a thing of the future…hilarious. To their credit, they hire some good people (Amy and Maya) to help them out but I am not sure it is good enough. This old graphic engine they are using is so archaic that moving pieces around just so they can do multithreading or motion vector is going to take years. Probably Xplane 13 before we get what WE were promised. To me that’s unacceptable. Yet somehow LR gets the passed. It’s not their fault, they are small and it’s a passion project…blah blah blah
With all the flaws 2024 has it still like in a different era of modern flight simming while Xplane 12 is still this old dinosaur that is facing extinction because it’s not adapting fast enough. I think it’s sad. Xplane use to be at the forefront of flight simming while MS was abandoning FSX. They had the whole market for them to take. They failed to seized the opportunity and here we are today. 800 dev vs 10.
in 2 years from now, 2024 is going to be amazing while Xplane 12 might not even get motion vector yet or multithreading. in 2024, that’s not acceptable.
It’s acceptable for me… as I keep saying, I’m not sure they’re meant to compete - but even if they are I prefer X-Plane over 2024 for what it is now, not what it might be in a few years time. You obviously disagree. shrugs.
I mean, it’s alright. Steve, if you enjoy Xplane 12, Go for it. I don’t think anyone here is stopping you from doing so. Maybe I got a grudge with LR seeing how very little they have evolved since I got into the ecosystem. I was really hoping XP12 was going to be a leap forward, it was not. At least not now. Maybe once all the pieces are there , it will be better.
I agree. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade but based on MSFS history, I see a lot of unfulfilled promises and failures. Let’s be realistic, MSOBO is here to sell you software, not fulfill your dreams or expectations. Thinking that somehow this will all be rectified in the near future is ludicrous. It’s truly pollyannish.
I complained about XP12 stability in this very thread but since I updated to the latest Beta, reinstall GPU drivers with DDU and updated mobo BIOS I have not seen a single CTD in XP12. I did several flights in Zibo in the last few days and I am loving it.
MSFS scenery feels like a photograph created by AI. Looks great overall but when you start looking into details you see a lot of anomalies. Water “climbing” up the riverbanks, cars driving under water, clouds baked into textures, textures tiles from different seasons next to each other.
I am a former X-Planer (XP9, XP10 and XP11). I have no intention to go back. People can just try the demo, if they think this is good enough for them (and for the OP), go for it.
It’s not good enough for me. I was already ■■■■■■ with their development pace back in 2017-2019. The forever promissed Vulkan and all. By the time MSFS 2020 was announced/released I moved not looking back once. And I’m really fine around here.
It’s not a fact X-plane has better physics in general (talking with pilot friends, they say some add-ons are good, just like in MSFS). The weather is bad. The default planes are worse than what we have in 2020/2024. The third party devs were thriving before 2020 was released, but right now it’s very rare to see a good release for XP12 (Toliss and FF releasing bugged and low quality planes).
Anyways, just try it and see if it’s good enough for you. Because it’s not for me.
So.. you’ve not tried X-Plane 12 then? The default aircraft are infinitely better than in 11 (the Citation and MD-80 in particular), the weather has had a huge upgrade, the graphics and lighting too along with full Vulkan support, much better ATC in the current beta and… ToLiss releasing bugged products?
If there was the same amount of flight simmer in Xplane 12 that there is in MSFS 2020/2024, They would be outrage all over the internet about all of the blurry textures, VRAM issue and poor performance. Since this is not the case, Xplane 12 goes under the radar for most users.
I may sound like I am an xplane 12 hater, I am not. I was a buyer day 1. I was looking forward to it, only to find filled with empty promises. Someone mention the default plane was better. have you seen the A330 ? It’s has FSX quality texture and have a Boeing FMS in it for like 6 months. Do you think that would be acceptable if Asobo did this ? The citation X was freezing all the time using the FMC. It took another 6 months before that was fixed. The live weather kept getting timeout and you never had real live weather for months. If cockpit were as dark in MSFS that it is in Xplane 12, a riot would ensue… Just double standard all over the place.
we just have to be honest and look at both product and see their flaws. They are both flawed product but I see more promises in 2024 to resolve these issue in a timely manner compare to what LR has been doing.
