Except for the cardboard trees I was surprised just how stable it was using Vulcan. I flew from John Wayne to LAX during scattered cloud cover in a 172 and not one stutter in VR.
The scenery wasn’t the greatest but I was VFR and I’d genuinely forgotten how stable X-Plane is, especially the crispness of everything.
One thing that did surprised me was just how small the 172 cockpit in MSFS is compared to X-Plane. Is MSFS using the right dimensions in VR in terms of camera distance?
I know we’ve only just begun with MSFS but flying X-Plane helped me understand where the benchmark actually is.
Also slightly off topic has anyone noticed that MSFS scenery is getting blurrier and more washed out with each update?
10 Likes
I haven’t flown X plane for over a year after I became a tester here. At the time they were developing Vulkan and every update had its fair share of issues. I may need to fire it up again.
There are many threads about the degradation in quality of the graphics. Trade off between performance and quality I guess. The level of detail (LOD) radius has certainly shrunk.
3 Likes
I actually find it quite relaxing flying in X-Plane. The fps went up dramatically after they got Vulkan working, so now it’s really smooth and, as you say, stutter-free, and I don’t spend my time glancing at the fps meter to see how bad it’s got.
It is good having both sims!
10 Likes
Sure counter strike 1.6 also runs real smooth on my pc as compared to call of duty modern warfare.
You do realize msfs graphic fidelity is leaps and bounds ahead of xplane ? Ofc xplane runs like butter. For me msfs runs like butter because I have the hardware to support it. But I lock it at 30fps. Xplane I can easily do locked 60fps. 5900x and rtx 3080.
14 Likes
I have RTX 2070 and can’t find or afford other options right now. I also have MSFS locked at 30, but over Amsterdam yesterday frames dipped into the high teens. Compared to previous versions, changing the settings does not make much of a difference except at the lowest settings. Curious about X plane for nostalgic reasons only…
I don’t have a VR headset, so I can’t talk from experience, but, If you’ve ever been in a real C172, it’s pretty small in there. You’re nice and cozy with your co-pilot (whether you want to be or not). Though, I will say, typically the pilot position is set too low in most if not all of the default planes. Might that be a contributor to your feelings?
I am starting to think about getting a VR headset myself (VR or save for a real plane? VR or save for a real plane? 
)
2 Likes
Cessna 172 is an very small aircraft, only about 40 inches wide inside. Even an small car is much wider. To get an impression watch some C172 cockpit videos.
So I see MSFS on the right side this time.
3 Likes
Quite a decision. I trained in a 172.
What I mentioned here was the difference of cockpit space between the two sims 
Thanks for your comment, I hadn’t realised MSFS was leaps and bounds ahead 
.
The way things are right now with degrading scenery issues, it may not be long before they’re on par, with X-Plane running true earth!
6 Likes
Thank you very much. But maybe you read the title of this portal. It is about MSFS 2020. I think there is a X-Plane forum for all X-Plane users. Please write there about X-Plane topics.
7 Likes
I flew X plane the other day for fun. I can honestly say it was probably the last time. MSFS is just that much better at simulating the feeling of flying for me. I do not think X plane will be on par anytime soon. There are far too many resources and tech behind MSFS. I do agree with the TA and voted up that the cockpit scale in VR does seem a bit small.
3 Likes
I don’t care for XP… never have. It feels like balancing a spinning plate on a chopstick.
5 Likes
Can you please explain this?
Is this something like the video I’ve posted here:
MSFS is breaking the VR golden rule: don't move the camera, the user is
It’s not the “porpoising” effect so prevelant in MSFS. In XP it has always been a “feeling” of the aircraft being balanced on a fulcrum, or suspended by fishing line at a single point of attachment, like a Christmas ornament. Think of the way a gyroscope remains upright and stable; that’s how the XP flight model has always felt to me, except more twitchy.
For the record: I have not tried XP with the Vulcan rendering enabled, but as I understand it, the “blade theory” flight model is still the underpinning for the simulator. That’s what I don’t like… it doesn’t “feel” right to me. So I doubt Vulcan would make any difference.
2 Likes
We have to wait for DX12, DLSS and further optimizations. MSFS needs at least 1 or 2 years to mature. Besides Xplane 11 doesn’t stream Ortho imagery so who knows how it will perform if they ever decide to go that route.
1 Like
dont`t expect any higher Frametimes with DX12
3 Likes
I’ve been agonizingly aware of MSFS scenery degradation and its what had got me into X Plane. I’ve spent hours trying to get MSFS2020 to look like what it did when I first started flying but to no avail, it looks blurry and low res on all ultra settings at 2k with a 2070. X-Plane on the other hand looks pretty great after many hours spent learning Ortho and downloading scenery, well worth it to me as I’ve really enjoyed flying the Zibo 738 and recently have been having a blast with the updated X-Crafts E145. I would really like to get back into MSFS and try the CRJ’s and give the WT CJ4 another spin but until it actually looks like what I paid for it’s not worth it
Has Asobo recognized the issue with scenery degradation? I haven’t seen anything.
Leaps ahead? Well, i like it, for sure, but it’s only “ leaps ahead” in the graphics department IMHO.
Technically MSFS still can learn a lot of XP…
13 Likes
I am not expecting higher frames but I do expect it to be smoother (less stuttery) than it currently is.
2 Likes
