just want to mention that it’s not my statement, but from Austin the head of XPlane 
a lot of super interesting posts, thank you guys.
From my point of view, the PMDG 737 and MSFS do a better job pretending to be the real thing than I’ll ever do pretending to be a pilot.
I get MSFS with Gamepass, and I don’t have to spend anything to get decent weather, beautiful scenery, etc. I don’t need huge hard disk to store scenery. For me, even if X Plane is a little better at some things, MSFS with a high quality plane is all I need
3 Likes
That’s probably why MSFS is advancing in this area as well with their CFD and native propeller simulation.
XP 12 is like Blackberry trying to throw a Hail Mary after Apple released the IPhone. Yeah, Blackberry did have another release after the IPhone came out. But it was too little, and too late.
I see XP for the home consumer PC market going down the same road as Blackberry, that is, XP will eventually become extinct on home consumer PCs as MSFS keeps advancing.
7 Likes
X-Plane is old hat in my opinion. They had the podium spot but didn’t react quickly enough to consumer demand, plus MSFS has given us more for the price than X-Plane could.
1 Like
please guys stay on topic, this is just about the flight model, I don’t want to start a war at which sim is better in general. Like somebody already said, there is no point in it.
1 Like
Yup. Microsoft was out of the home PC flight simulation market for 10 years. Austin and LR squandered that time and did very little to advance flight simulation in those 10 years.
I am pretty sure that Jorg and the other Microsoft Executives looked at XP (and P3D), back around 7 years ago, and said to themselves, the competition is garbage, we can beat them with a brand new flight simulator. And they did. They made a much more advanced and better flight simulator, and so many flight simmers have moved to MSFS in the last 2 years.
Some hardcore XP users are holding out for XP 12. From the previews I have seen of XP 12 so far, it looks pretty bad, and it’s not even close to MSFS. I suspect that XP 12 could be a big disappointment. Based on the preview videos of XP 12 alone, I doubt it will come even close to matching SU 10 in terms of FPS and fluidity.
3 Likes
Yes but XP12 is not out yet, so all you can realistically get is conjecture, guessing, and marketing speak
No way to discuss this anywhere close to your original parameters (not saying it is a bad thread!)
2 Likes
Yes i agree, since it’s not released we can’t compare the two, only possible comparison currently is with XP11. But still got a lot of good informations what they do differently with Xplane 
I changed the title to XP11-12 and when it’s released I’m gonna change it back to just 12.
1 Like
I think Nokia is a better example … From hero to zero literally overnight
1 Like
Hey folks. The OP wants this discussion to be about “realism of the flight model” and not about preferences for one or the other. There is great potential for this topic to veer off the runway, so please try and stay on topic. Thank you.
5 Likes
What flight model? XP12 isn’t released and it’s testers are under an NDA.
Maybe the OP should change the thread title instead.
2 Likes
already done, look above your last post.
And there is gonna be more informations about XP12 in the near future , so I keep that in the title.
I added ‘‘currently with Xplane11 and later on with 12’’
1 Like
You have XP 12? I didn’t think it was released yet. How did you get it?
Unfortunately for some this is a very contentious topic. They have their favorite and will defend it to the death.
In reality there is no direct way to compare them. Sim A may feel better and more realistic to you on your setup and Sim B may feel better and more realistic to you on your friends setup. If you adjust a few settings, curves etc. on inputs, which feels better may flop. This the entire reason that an actual FAA approved simulator, even if you are using XP as the software, requires the entire package to be certified as a whole.
The software cannot actually be certified in a vacuum. The entire setup computer software peripherals and the configuration of all the above must be tested and verified to meet the requirements. If you change a single thing, add a monitor not part of the original certification, swap out RAM or GPU, get a different yoke, the entire platform must be recertified. You can add/ remove nothing.
A much more accurate statement compared to what LR put out is “XP 11 has been used in certified flight simulators well MSFS has not at this time and we are unsure if that is in the process of happening or not”
Here if you are interested is the actual FAA requirements for certification of a sim for training.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/initiatives/nsp/ac/ac-121-14.pdf
And here is a list off all currently sims approved by the FAA sorted by manufacturer. Please note that LR is not on this list because the software CANNOT be certified by itself.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/FAA_Approved_Airplane_ATDs.pdf
4 Likes
I have no way to tell as I’m not a real life pilot which flight model is better. What I do know is that MSFS feels believable to me, but then again so did xp11 when i briefly tried it.
As someone else noted above, a lot (all) depends on your set up, sensitivities, calibration etc
I think it all comes down to whether you enjoy it. Either can do the job, albeit quite differently when it comes to the visuals and not just the flight model
2 Likes
All, kindly keep your posts about MSFS. If you want to talk about MSFS with respect to X-Plane 12, please feel free. But please, no comments solely about XP12 that don’t tie back into MSFS.
4 Likes
OK I’ll bite - what is your source for this statement? ORBX is working with Laminar, but I haven’t seen any official statement as to what is being provided apart from a few airports and POIs.
As to the flight model there really isn’t any comparison. From the ground physics, to depth of systems, to procedural integrity, to the feeling of actual flight, XP11 has FS beaten already. I don’t “fly” airliners so I’m talking about small craft in general here.
1 Like
It is definitely one area where MSFS can keep on improving. They really impressed me in my 2 years of absence with this slightly artificial feel of “ground effect”. But it brokes quite a lot of other planes, making it very “floaty” near the ground. In retrospect, not all XP11 high fidelity addons have ground effect simualted. FF A320 for example, sinks all the way to the surface like a rock.
Another big improvement point is with the control hardwares compatibility. All TCA, Turtlebeach, or Honeycomb devices work perfectly from the get-go with XP and its high-fidelity add-ons like FlightFactor, ToLiss, and the likes. It took very minimal effort to get them to work perfectly in sim.
But in MSFS, they are super twitchy and hyper-sensitive, needs quite a lot of input tweaking and adjustments, even for its top addons like Fenix or PMDG. For example, you need to re-define all the throttle detents for FBWsim A32NX. Kind of makes you wonder if this is really intended for home entertainment use when most mainstream commercially off-the-shelf hardwares are barely supported. But then again, I always suspect that the control setup is designed in such way to accomodate those who want to use Xbox controller joysticks. Surely better than keyboard & mouse, but it is in no way should be prioritised over proper joystick / yoke & rudder pedal controls.
1 Like
I read all kind of things about “flightmodel” which is supposed to be “better” (what’s better?), and I must be honest I don’t know XPlane-11 but a “flightmodel” also needs realistic airflow. On the ground and up.
Q: how does XP perform on airflow, gust, wind ? Can someone post a wind settings screenshot please ?