The answer you seek is in Austin’s reply in the last post on this page linked below. Already you’ll see the modelling depth of XP versus FS.
“XP still has more measuring points over all of the blade elements, from the propeller blades (the biggest deal for many GA pilots, probably) simulating its prop wash, all the way to the tiny bits like the effect of turbulence on all the wing surfaces.”
If you are referring to the spatial resolution used for calculating the aerodynamic loads on surfaces - this statement is not necessarily correct nor well-nuanced. In fact, most of the principles for calculating these loads are in fact quite similar - yet, it has always appeared from the videos and SDK that MSFS defines a much finer computational domain for this.
“You can see how easy it is for high-fidelity airliner add-ons in XP11 can easily maintain real world-like flight profile compared to MSFS.”
I am pretty sure I remember that a lot of the add-on airliners for MSFS do a lot of gymnastics to bypass or correct deficiencies in the XP11 aerodynamics model. Though details are lacking, Flight Factor is not shy about advertising this fact for their A320 (see Custom Flight Model section) :
I think the community doesn’t do a great job of separating the fidelity of the aerodynamics modeling (which is quite advanced in MSFS) from the modeling of aircraft systems (which is quite advanced in XP). When making these comparisons, the distinction and providing concrete evidence is important.
I also must say that, in terms of the aerodynamics modeling - a lot of what I see from XP is a lot of handwavey Kludges and corrections from effects that their blade element model cannot naturally model. It looks impressive when Austin gets up in front of a whiteboard and tries to defend his modeling choices - sure. But I am really hoping that what MSFS is developing in terms of their surface load modeling and CFD will move us further away from having to do so.
6 Likes
I thought we were prohibited from discussing any flightsims other than MSFS on this forum? Did something change?
I have XP11 and the only thing I like over MSFS is the camera system. Everything else including the flightmodel I prefer MSFS. MSFS feels alive (turbulence and wind effects). In XPLANE turbulence doesn’t exist (at least I never encountered any).
2 Likes
@CKSURFGIRL. Please see @N316TS post above. Discussions like this are fine as long as MSFS is the main focus. Hope this helps.
1 Like
To me, everything in XP feels like an airliner. I don’t get the sense that I’m flying a nimble jet or a light GA aircraft in XP. I don’t fly airliners much, so I can’t comment on those. I have spent a small lifetime in F-16 models in various sims, and I do not like any of the F-16s in XP. However, the perfect F-16 for MSFS has not been created yet either. 
I don’t think you can pick a winner here. They both feel like flying to my brain.
That FF A320 isn’t exactly ideal either. ToLiss Airbuses are far superior in that regard. Their A320, despite having “custom flight model” for some reason totally foregoes ground effect.
In terms of look & feel, Fenix A320 does it better, except when it comes to BSS’ soundpack for FF A320.
I also must say that, in terms of the aerodynamics modeling - a lot of what I see from XP is a lot of handwavey Kludges and corrections from effects that their blade element model cannot naturally model. It looks impressive when Austin gets up in front of a whiteboard and tries to defend his modeling choices - sure. But I am really hoping that what MSFS is developing in terms of their surface load modeling and CFD will move us further away from having to do so.
At the end of the day, it is the end result that matters.
Behind the scenes, I am pretty sure ToLiss or Zibo got to deal with a lot of hodgepodge mess of compensating customisation flight models and all. While PMDG may have to make do with limited customisability that the current SDK allows. However, the end result is clear for me at least: the ToLiss and Zibo could execute the SID or any complicated STAR path in precise manner, while the PMDG NG has to rock its wings, changing bank angle constantly to keep up with the flight path.
That being said, the absence of proper dynamic weather in XP11 makes it not really a fair comparison, and it is what made me jump ship once proper high-fidelity airliner addons are available for MSFS.
One question to be answered is, what does the flightmodel actually contain?
Should be a big list.
It comes down to what possible parameters does the simulator offer, what are the developers doing with it and ultimately how does it translate and interact with everything else (weather, ground sourface).
That’s why I don’t like this narrative of ‘‘MSFS doesn’t have a good flight model’’ and I am curious why people including the creator of XPlane say their flight model is so much better.
1 Like
Eh?? that post is actually comparing XP11 to XP10 and believe me there’s nothing in there that isn’t already included in MSFS or is at least being worked on.
They are both sophisticated flight models. Remember the days when every aircraft had the same flight model with different skins and sounds? Each aircraft can be made to behave close to reality in both systems.
1 Like
C’est le point! It’s not all there.
Well if I’ll be honest, there’s a good reason why X-Plane has a specific FAA-certified version, unlike MSFS. There, let’s leave it at that.
2 Likes
XP 11 is a mature product and despite what some folk believe MSFS isn’t written in FSX code, it is essentially a new sim that at it’s outset was supposed to be backward compatible. And that was all before SU5, now it’s evolved considerably to take better advantage of modern data handling in memory.
They can accurately simulate a new aircraft using XP and then build the plane in the real world and its sim predicted in flight behaviour is reflected in the real world version. That’s how accurately the maths in the sim works. The big aircraft manufacturers would not use XP if it doesnt do what Laminar claims it does.
I think MS will always be following Laminar as far as flight modelling is concerned but I think Laminar will definitely always be following MS where scenery is concerned and possibly weather too. Asobo/MS are doing very well in terms of the environment we fly in.
2 Likes
I again refer to this post below. Compare the developer’s notes to what Asobo put out and what DC Designs came up with in their fighter jets.
Just as an illustration.
As a MSFS user since FS95, and been using both FSX and following the development of MSFS 2020 closely, I am super curious where do people get this idea?
Did they just mistaken P3D with MSFS?
From FS95 all the way to FSX, the control scheme of Microsoft Flight Simulator has always been the same. For example, ‘/’ is the spoiler or air brake, ‘.’ is toe brake. However, it is no longer the same in MSFS 2020, and it is the only MSFS (since FS95) at least that has entirely different keyboard control scheme. Looking at the interface should tell anyone that this MSFS is clearly not built on top of ESP engine.
2 Likes
I find that 2018 post difficult to comprehend. Also because of style. The man (admin?) sits there and talks as if he wrote XPlane himself and he’s getting tired of people’s questions (??)
Most is not about airflow, here’s a bit,
And this is very cool: Wings and stuff that are INSIDE of bodies are now automatically hidden from the airflow!
Ditto the parts of wings that are inside of engine nacelles! Cool!
This takes away that little bit of lift on twin-engine props, for example, that have the nacelles hiding away part of the wing!
This adds a nice little extra bit of realism, especially if you have wings going inside the fuselage or something like that, where the wings do not see any air and therefore need to be removed from any airflow.
Ok… so if you put your wings in de fuselage (inside) they won’t get airflow. Revolutionary 
And there are several “winch location options” mentioned. Now when I’m flying a glider, I can’t be outside 2-5 degrees of the winch at takeoff, so why would a user bother about its location… If so, go all the way and provide arrangements with others, tugging and teamwork. Does XPlane have that ?
Anyway my question was… what do wind settings look like in XPlane ? When nobody can provide that let’s google it… Found this…
With the wind layer on the left, I can set similar properties as MSFS but there is no gust frequency (essential) and how to interpret “storminess” on the right… In these weather settings I also miss the cloud coverage type. In MSFS there are various options for cloud types, cloud density, scattering… mist and snow… time of day is prominent, I don’t see it… What about RT weather is added to XP 12 ? They’ll provide for that ?
I think weather simulation is just as imporant as the flight model. And they should work together.
1 Like
We are getting closer to a final reminder about what this thread is about… the realism of flight modeling between XP and MSFS. Posts about whether MSFS is built on legacy FSX code are irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Thanks.
4 Likes
Thank you!
1 Like
One thing to consider is that while the current iteration of MSFS is a full product on its own, one of its goals is to showcase the power of their Azure back end. The ability to stream live data to the client to generate the world and climate conditions is something that’s never been done before. Integratiopn of Azure Voice services is also a first in a game (and if I were a betting man, I feel they have more coming on that front in the future).
And this is where the big money potentially lies for MS. And MS will do whatever is best for its shareholders. If they can use the gamers and simmers to test a product they’re building, there’s really little preventing them from leveraging that technology for commercial applications as well. Or at the very least, licensing it out.
I’m not saying they will make a commercial sim out of MSFS, but it’s not inconceivable they could. I’d be willing to bet that since the world saw what could be done with MSFS on the visual front, they’ve likely had inquiries.
I don’t think XP is going to faceplant that hard, but they’re in a tight corner. Unless they somehow partner with Google, there’s no way they’ll ever be able to catch up with what Microsobo have done in terms of realistic visuals, streamed data, etc. They might (for now) have the better flight model and better interface and other tools / functions, but on the consumer level, they’re clearly second place now and will remain there.
Really what you’ll have is the hardcore XP users who are heavily invested in the platform (thousands of dollars of hardware and software) and refuse to leave what they know and folks who need a certified flight training sim. Otherwise, most of the casual / mid-level and even some more hardcore simmers will jump ship if they haven’t already.
We already have a large group who use both - XP for IFR, and MSFS for VFR. And even some hardcore XP users have now crossed over with the release of the Fenix and PMDG airliners. So the future of XP isn’t quite as bright IMHO. Maybe not Nokia bad, but definitely not good.
3 Likes