Only thing is, you can’t expect a sim to be perfect from day 1. This has never happened with a Microsoft flight simulator, and certainly not with X-plane. People are comparing a product that has evolved for 25 years to something that has been released 3 weeks ago, it crazy to me really.
Fly what you want to fly but this is the MSFS forums, not X-plane. You shouldn’t advertise other products here, we have Reddit for that or the X-plane forums.
We are having to do the work in FS too, the default non hand crafted airports are often at best just about ok and at worst woeful.
i bet that YOU have to do it but as far as i’m concerned YOU guys need to keep the voice leveled and consider more true facts but the alternative facts.
gosh i’m gonna miss that conway gurl, haha.
There’s obviously a difference between advertising and comparison. If you don’t want to read comparisons, it may be difficult.
Funny they don’t have any issue discussing MSFS on the X-Planes forums.
OP wasn’t advertising for X-Plane, simply comparing two products. If anything that benefits MSFS in order to bring attention to the areas where this “simulator” are deficient.
Can’t be worst like this. 11.5 Vulcan fresh install. Is that Paris or Namibia? I have no idea. Pay attention to the FPS (32) after you have checked my rig in profile.
Well you should know where you are 
Nothing wrong with 32FPS, that’s precisely what Laminar say users should aim for. Personally I don’t think there is much between the default XP airport buildings and the FS ones, they are both pretty poor. But what does matter is taxiway accuracy including the lines, signage, parking assignments and accurate lighting. These are a lot better in XP than FS at the moment in many cases. That will change but lets not kid ourselves that it will not involve a lot of community input, it most definitely will.
Actually I find the X-Plane airports a little bit better.
MSFS is currently a victim of it’s own visual realism. With such realistic looking objects my brain wants fill it with many more details (especially humans, but also animals, cars and debris), and since the objects are sparse and virtually non-moving it all has the impression of a postapocalyptic movie or a diorama.
This is a new problem that MSFS created by itself. Our brains are only partially fooled and react with confusion. I expect this will be gradually improve in the coming years when more and more details can come into play and people also invest in the hardware to run them.
But I think the airports in X-plane right now feel more alive and because my brain does not even need to pretend I am actually in the simulation, it is content with all the things that don’t look realistic. Whereas in MSFS it says, if there are some photorealistic objects in this world, the rest of it doesn’t make sense yet. I believe the same problem came up with true interactive movies and therefore the industry opted for a more artistic vision.
Side issue for a second but it’s absolutely mental how good charles de gaulle airport has been modeled in MFS - I think Asobo must have used this as some sort of performance benchmark as the detail is just insane - ofcourse it does hit frames though but 30fps on a decent rig is achievable.
Thanks for (unnecessarily) reminding me why I can no longer bear to launch XP and why I had to wait 5 years for the only offered significant improvement (Vulkan) to get about 35 FPS (with stuttering) on a high-end PC whilst looking at a dull graphic of a cartoon landscape and Lego brick buildings - and then find most 3rd party add-ons no longer working. Oh, and thanks to MS for a forum where I can voice such opinion instead of getting banned and have my post deleted at x-plane.org by some 3rd party dev and Community Leader due to a trolling accusation.
LFPG is really insane. Ok, the driving cars are a joke at all. I prefer the north like Iceland, Norway and Bush Flying at all. Greece is also well done.
You too, huh? Yeah, they don’t like competition. I got accused of trolling for posting MSFS pictures, and video, in their group for other flight simulators. I think they meant other than MSFS. 
Thats what is was about. MSFS just came out, so the flightmodel being better was when comparing to P3D/FSX. Or what did you not understand?
x-plane.org has a reputation to delete all posts that could result in less sales. I also stopped posting there because even harmless criticism would have simply dissappeared the next day. As you can already see from their name it’s a shop and a support forum, not a community.
That’s perfectly explained and exactly what i was thinking.
I understood that the x-plane flightmodel is better than FS2020. That’s not true. X-Plane was the star compared to P3D/FSX, now it’s FS2020. Period.
I can reassure you. I get 60 fps above that LFPG-scenery with X-Plane. And with MSFS i get 30 with the Cessna. And 10 (!!) with the A320. So good luck.
No i understood it compared to P3D/FSX.
I and many of my friends followed your many posts, all fair and constructive in our opinion, at that ‘Other flight sims’ forum at x-plane.org. Question: why try to silence XP-users by banning them if 'x-plane (or its 3rd-party devs) has/have nothing to worry about?
Our respect to you for refusing to be silenced. We also like your fair, helpful and constructive post on this MSFS forum. Keep up the good work here and happy flying.
ROFL. There is nothing in LFPG except Bricks. Put all the detailed objects, weather and lightning like in FS2020 and come back for further discussion. You can order all extras for your Dacia, it will never be a Mercedes
