sure, we all value different aspect. The Puddle simulator is good for screenshot 
It’s good to have an alternative for when MSFS servers are acting up. I forgot to mention but Xplane 12 does have triple screen support (which I do have) so there is that.
But, but… there’s much more to it. I must admit, I keep entering this thread from a “MSFS2020 vs XPlane” perspective, as I find 2024 unusable… and my experiences are mainly light GA.
As for “CFD vs Blade this, that and the other”.. a desktop computer is not capable, of actual, complex aerodynamic simulation. Regardless the platform, it’s all a massive compromise. Inside of a normal, operating envelope; both platforms are relatively good. Touching extremes; ala. stalls, exceeding Vne, and even aerobatics, they both fall apart, quickly.
If one’s intent, is to simulate (or even learn) “stick-n-rudder” fundamentals; either platform sill suffice. But when it comes to per-aircraft, realistic modeling, it’s more about the individual developer’s dedication… i.e.. how much effort they’ll exert, fine-tuning performance. Aside from being a stickler about things like climb vs cruise performance, etc.. there is an acid test that reveals basic realism:
Trim for hands-off, level cruise, and then adjust power. After equilibrium returns, airspeed should remain constant, while power increase/decrease will result in respective/proportional, climb/descent. If this does not happen, the flight-model is a messy mix of artificial stability and/or a developer whose goal was a friendly/easy model, vs a realistic model. This phenom can be underlined, while executing the classic, stabilized approach technique… “Pitch for airspeed, power for vertical speed”.
It is my opinion, that MSFS(2020) gives the developer a more flexible set of variables/tables (or, allows for modeling outside of the core aerodynamics, ala A2A), in which to pursue realistic behavior. And at the same time, allows for game-ish, easier-to-fly flight modeling; as in, the ability to “drive-by-joystick”, vs actually “fly” the airplane.
Further disclosure; I do not have extensive Xplane experience. Flight testin and fine-tuning a flight model is extremely time consuming.. I cannot dedicate that time, to more than one platform.
I have been simming since 1998 - both MSFS and X-Plane. I know some of you have been doing so even longer. I consider us lucky to have these two great simulators at our disposal. The progress in desktop flight simulation is amazing. Each have their strengths and weaknesses but neither deserves, in my opinion, the rather hard scrutiny they get from either camps. In my opinion, they are fantastic simulators.
I get evenly frustrated about both sims but it shifts over time which is currently the one I am most frustrated about. I guess that is just the price for a life long passion :).
Dont get me wrong, you have definately sold it to me. I have never flown XP so would never comment on which is better.
This thread has been an interesting read.
I really am considering buying XP to expand my horizon and knowledge, which can only be a positive thing. It’s not that I believe it’s superior to MSFS. and visa versa, as I am not qualifed to make that judgement.
Sure I will get frustrated with both at times lol.
I will continue to use all my sim Platforms and support them all. I just love this hobby.
XP at present is 33% discount on steam, are there any disadvantages on buying from Steam or purchase directly from Laminar Research?
I just hope for the future both sim platforms thrive whether it be XP or MSFS…just love this expensive hobby.
Future looks promising despite the massive hiccups MSFS are having at present.
Difference is night a day between the two sims. You are asking in a MSFS forums so obviously the response is going to be lopsided to MSFS being the better simulator but im on the other side. I use to LOVE msfs 2020 until i tried Xplane 12. Initially my initial impressions of Xplane 12 were not great. I did love the flight model. Felt much better than anything i flew on MSFS. Having said that, it seemed very rushed product and the ground textures looked awful. However, i gave it another try about a year later as i knew they had improved it massively and learned there was a lot of free tools out there to make Xplane look just as good as MSFS2020 (simheaven, autoortho). Once i istalled those i was blown away. Now i have everything. Eye candy and much better flight models than msfs2020. The planes actually feel like they have some mass to them. The best part is Leminar kept improving the sim with some big improvements every update.
Pass forward a year or so and here we are. Tried MSFS 2024 using gamepass 2 days ago hoping they worked on the flight model but was disappointed again. Guess i will stick with XPlane 12 for now. Much better experience in my opinion. Plus, the game does not rely on streaming every asset from the cloud which i like.
Also is it just me or are the graphics in MSFS 2024 look washed out and blurry mess? In Xplane 12 everything is sharp and clear.
I’m not talking about ground textures which get loaded but everything in the game looks like a blurry mess. Runways from a distance, trees, buildings, people ect everything is a blurry mess.
I think microsoft made a big mistake in the decision to stream every asset from the cloud.
Do yourself a favor and try 2024 again in a year.
I swear X-Plane is the same in this sense. A new sim releases buggy and with peripheral and addon compatibility issues.
Then it matures and gets better.
Best stay away from all new sims unless you enjoy the beta testing aspects of the hobby.
After a year, YouTube is full of tutorials and good ones, showing you how to set up everything. Transition is so much smoother and easier.
Totally disagree , this is somehow a superficial analysis. Our brain is not picking the best color here, it is convinced or not that the virtual experience it is living, matches reality or not based on the references we have of what a virtual experience is from the tech around us…
MSFS 2020 / 24 brought for the 1st time, the other aspect of aviation experiences (VFR, Bush, etc) that required the use of our imagination to pretend this is this or this is that in XP or FSX or any sim from the previous era.
In other words this is called the immersive experience that professional simulator companies like CAE are looking for. Why? Because we are 2025 and a definition of a simulator for aviation and other industry is evolving like anything else, with the technology that allows more and more immersion. Yes, the digital twin of our real world experiences.
In terms of world engine, MSFS is light years ahead of anything else (entertainment or pro simulation)…
Yes I have XP12 as I did have other XPs before or DCS etc. And to be fair, yes I prefer the control assignment in XP from the perspective of someone who works in user experience for a living.
Regards
I find X-Plane far more immersive than MSFS which feels empty and artificial to me, even though the world graphics are superior.
It’s interesting to see things from other peoples’ perspectives - there’s definitely no right or wrong answer.
It is really very puzzling your definition of immersion + emptiness 
I salute you, couldnt have said it better myself.
Asobo/Microsoft, we love you. Thank you for kicking some butt… 
Absolutely 
Crazy decision especially with storage space now being very cheap not to mention the fact that we have frequently had server problems with FS20 in the past too.
This was at the beginning of my flight simming, not now. So this was when MSFS was new. XPlane 11 had just released. MSFS had default settings for the Thrustmaster HOTAS. So yes, my equipment was there. I knew how to fly the plane, never had to go into controller mapping at all. So yes, in order to fly in plane, I had to know was I supposed to set up the axis for the rudder or was I supposed to be setting the increment or decrement. It was my first exposure and wasn’t really flying related, it was more device related when I didn’t have any prior exposure to what had to be setup. So you can tell me that it was something that was too simple to be asking and that I deserved such treatment from the community, but I never fired up XPlane again. Haven’t bought any addons for XPlane. Didn’t purchase XPlane 12. I have over 2400 addon purchases in the Marketplace, let alone other purchases such as BeyondATC or from SimMarket. So tell me, who really lost out? If instead of being insulting at least one person in the community had to me good information, they might have kept a member of the community who would have grown.
Trying to be unbiased I think you both lost out to be honest. Although I much prefer FS2020 to XP now both I think have their pros and cons.
Having said that although your queries were admittedly quite simple the XP community should have dealt with them in a much more understanding way. There is absolutely no excuse in my opinion for unfriendliness or in fact a superior stance especially when someone is asking for help. Definitely not the right way to act either in gaming or generally in life.
I know where you are coming from though. I much prefer this forum to the XP forum which I came from previously.
I recently bought Xplane 12 (direct from Laminar) after becoming very disillusioned with Asobo and the way they have handled the FS 2024 launch. My motivation was just to see what the ‘other side’ had to offer.
From my brief time so far with XP12 and using FS 2020 as a yardstick (I haven’t bought FS 2024 yet) my feelings of XP12 are as follows:
PROS:
I love the lighting and much prefer it to FS20
Despite my reservations in the past about the Laminar flight model being superior I actually do now prefer it to the FS20 version. That said, I am not a RL pilot and I understand that the SDK in FS24 should provide more options for a better flight model than we have in FS20
The sim is not online and not dependent on internet bandwidth. You will not get any stutters from inadequate MS servers.
There are no forced updates. As long as you have sufficient HD space you can have as many different versions as you want. This means you are not forced to accept a bad update which may not be fixed by the devs for months
The sim loads very quickly (literally just a few seconds) on my PC. By the time FS20 is still looking for updates XP12 has already loaded to the Main Menu.
Controller assignments (for me) are so much easier than FS20
Aircraft views are just so much easier to set up e.g. HUD view with nothing forward, fly by, tower view etc.
The UI is very simple to understand. In my experience Asobo over complicates quite a few things
Multi Monitor support is much better. Having three PC monitors this quite an advantage
CONS:
XP12 is badly optimised and this is something which Laminar desperately need to look at. I would say that FS20 comfortably gives me around 10 to 15 more fps
The graphics in FS20 are obviously much better. That said, with Global forests and SimHeaven and a couple of other mods XP scenery is just about liveable with
Addons are more expensive
A few devs have moved off to MSFS so there are not as many new addons as there are for MSFS
So, for me, there are pros and cons with XP12. I am currently using it more atm than FS2020 although longer term I anticipate maybe that I will be splitting my time between both sims.
In time, when the mess which is FS24 gets sorted I will probably be buying that too. That depends very much however on how Asobo responds to and listens to customer feedback and whether they actually put their pretty words into action. We shall see.
So true. For the OP, I would consider the decimated XP 3rd party developer scene. Thranda, a major 3rd party developer for XP, is on record saying their sales are down immensely since the peak XP 11 days, and that a lot of people have left XP:
I won’t be disclosing sales numbers. But what I CAN say is, that they used to be many times higher… before MSFS2020 hit the market. We have published 10 planes, roughly, since then… and not even with 10 more planes on the market, have we seen a month in sales like when we published the PC6 four years ago. Not even with significant discounts on our products during entire months of sales. It seems like a LOT of customers have left X-Plane. And this is very alarming, because it’s an intensifying feedback loop. The less viable it is to make planes here, the less interest the market will have in X-Plane.
Note that the PC-6 was released by Thranda for XP 11 in 2020, before MSFS 2020 was released.
In addition, the flight dynamics for XP 12 are no longer better than MSFS 2024. Various real life pilots have commented on the flight dynamics for MSFS 2024. See this page for multiple comparisons by real life pilots who prefer the MSFS 2024 flight dynamics over XP 12 flight dynamics: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/654326-msfs-2024-flight-dynamics-and-groundwater-handling-thread/page/9/
Here is V1Simulations, a real life A320 pilot, rating the Fenix in MSFS 2024 better than the Toliss in XP 12 with respect to flight dymamics and other areas of comparison: https://www.youtube.com/live/UTOeK4Zn630?t=8280s
Finally, the GA avionics in XP 12 are so far behind MSFS avionics. The G1000 NXi, G3000, G5000, and G3X in MSFS are so good, you can’t even buy a better payware version at the moment than the ones in MSFS. Plus Working Title did a very good job on the GNS 530 and GNS 430. And for MSFS 2024, Working Title has done the Honeywell Primus Epic 2 and Universal UNS-1. There is a huge gap between the default avionics in XP 12 and MSFS 2024, it’s too large of a gap, IMO.
As for the graphics and terrain at ground level when no customer scenery is used, when everything is working normally for MSFS 2024, MSFS 2024 graphics at the ground level looks like its 7 years more advanced than MSFS 2020. MSFS 2020 graphics at the ground level look like its 8 years more advanced than XP 12. So MSFS 2024 graphics look like its 15 years more advanced than XP 12. 15 years is a lot, that’s 2 generation of graphics, it’s like the difference between a Playstation 4 and Playstation 2!
This is the ground scenery that MSFS 2024 can generate, plus the performance is generally good with most high end computers (not everybody is getting better performance in MSFS 2024, but many people are): https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrosoftFlightSim/comments/1h3igen/places_ive_been_over_the_years_revisited_in/
I have my doubts that even the next version of XP - XP 13 - can match the graphics that MSFS 2024 can generate at the ground level, as per the photos in that Reddit thread above.
Now some people will say this is a flight simulator and not a ground simulator. But how the ground looks is important if you are doing low level flying, which includes bush flying, helicopter low level flying, and even stuff like the crop dusting mission in MSFS 2024. Not everyone is flying airliners at high altitudes, some of us also enjoy low level flight in MSFS 2024.
This is so true. The G1000 in XP is terrible compared to the G1000 (NXi) in MSFS. My understanding is that COWS wanted to release their DA42 for both MSFS and XP, with a fully functioning G1000. They released the DA42 for MSFS because they just used Working Title’s G1000 (NXi) which is fully featured. I believe COWS still has not released their DA42 for XP 12 yet? Somebody can correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot find any news that COWS has released the DA42 for XP 12 (it’s supposed to be a G1000 NXi).
If COWS didn’t release the DA42 for XP 12 yet, it’s because they are still working on the G1000 NXi for their DA42 for XP 12. I think I even read rumors that COWS may make the G1000 NXi for their DA42 in XP 12, a separate add-on that other XP 12 developers can use, for a price of course. It’s really sad when one of the most used GA avionics, the G1000, is not a major priority for LR and COWS has to go and make their own G1000. So I absolutely agree with you, that LR are behind the ball when it comes to GA avionics.
2 years ago, in an interview with Orbx, Austin said he wanted to get the G3X in XP 12 (1:42:56 mark of video): https://www.youtube.com/live/X5sFJu6h-as?si=8th3NqfBqx3dDaXo&t=6176. The irony is, MSFS and Working Title beat him to it with the G3X in MSFS! That’s how slow LR is moving. It will be ages before they have decent GA avionics that match MSFS. Actually, the avionics in XP may never match MSFS, that’s how far MSFS 2024 has pulled ahead of XP 12 avionics.
I too never got the is it a game or a sim theme. I came to FS2024 from DCS, not XP, so I do not have a dog in this fight.
As far as certification arguments are touted. I think DCS has knocked that out of the ballpark, it being used for military training in VR by various air forces around the world including the USAF.
I am not here to tout what is best, every one of them have their strong points and weak points.
As others have said, XP, DCS, FS2024 can be both a game and a simulator, it depends on how it is used by the “player”.
Since FS2024 dropped and I got my VR rig working mostly fine, I have not logged onto DCS once. I came here for the real world scenery and that is what I got.
I fly the A2A Comanche exclusively, I do not bother with the default aircraft at all. I once tried the C172 to first try out the sim and it felt “off” like it was riding on rails, despite every setting in the sim set to as realistic as possible.
I cannot see how a default aircraft can possibly have realistic flight characteristics when it is designed to be flown with either a hotas/ yoke or an Xbox controller. Compromises have to be made.
I was recommended the Comanche by this community because Scott at A2A made no compromises. It was to emulate his own aircraft in every way possible.
In FS2024, I was forced down by airframe icing over high ground in Iceland, during a ferry trip from the UK to miami in real time weather. First time ever in a sim.
Yesterday, I flew from Leeds Bradford Airport to St Nazier, France down the Biscay coast in real time and in real weather. Strong headwinds, so had to make a precautionary stop at Lee on Solent to refuel " to be sure I was fat".
Low cloud and mist over France forced me down to 1500ft instead of my preferrred VFR altitude of 3000ft. I had one eye on the manifold pressure and one hand near carb heat the whole time. Carb heat every 15 mins is not enough in such circumstances.
Instead of going direct in low track mode on the autopilot, I went many miles out of my way to avoid flying over the Bay of Biscay in winter, in a piston single.
I landed at St Nazier at little above walking pace, such was the wind, although I was ready to divert if the windsock was showing a direct crosswind, not that I ever saw the windsock because it was almost dark by then. I could tell by how much of a crabbing approach I needed.
On the other hand…
I watched FS2020 content on youtube off and on for years. There were the controls turning blue when you hovered over them. There were the captions telling you what the controls did. There were the lollypop signposts everywhere. There were the silly stunts people were trying.
For four years I dismissed FS2020 as an Xbox game.
As stated, all the sims are a game or a simulator at the same time. I do not have lollypops and blue controls, I do not try mad stunts. I do not fly default aircraft, designed out of necessity to be a compromise.
I fly with a purpose, a goal. My character yeesterday was as a CPL, hour building and delivering urgent aircraft parts to St Nazier for no wage, but free aircraft time.
As in real life, my flights are often grindingy long, often darkening and turning to night, real time as unexpected headwinds aloft mean I run out of daylight, and always real weather, and flown as per my flight training many many years ago. In my case FS2024 is a simulator. It just does not hurt when it all goes wrong…
£1000s and 1000s of hours in there. MSFS and the others may be games on paper, but they are also fairly realistic VR flight sims if you are prepared to make it so. DCS Hog pilots will recognise that VR cockpit at a glance.
Nice to read this, good aspects. My 5c three additional points, having used XP11 and now using MS20.
Doesn’t matter. The 3rd party developer scene for XP is continually shrinking. If this keeps going, all XP will have is the commercial market because it is on the path of losing the consumer market to MSFS.
XP is just behind MSFS 2024 in so many areas, it’s like an F1 car versus a Ford Tempo, where MSFS 2024 is the F1 car and XP 12 is the Ford Tempo. More and more consumers, including real life pilots, will take notice and switch over to MSFS in the long run.
Just look at the example of G3X. Austin talks about needing a G3X in XP, 2 years ago. The G3X still hasn’t been done for XP 12 and in the meantime, the MSFS team completed a good version of the G3X. The MSFS team is running laps around LR.