Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 vs XPLANE 12 - Attention to details Comparison 

U mean for xplane 12 full release aswell

Yes, and when Helicopters come out more people are going to witness these MSFS flaws up close and personal.

orthoscenery has too many bugs for this to be the case. for these details, autopen is a must.

i compared the default scenery

@@FULTONOFFICIALKFV but you compared something that has photogrametry with something that it hasn't No sense

@@FULTONOFFICIALKFV Yeah but most of the MSFS world is not photogrammetry by default. Choose a big city like Dublin,Ireland to compare with for example. It's not photogrammetry.

@@Steve31000 the next time :)

XP12 looks good up close but you realise its shit as soon as you move your camera away and roads start looking ugly and their layout and shape is not even close to what is there in real life. In XP12 most cities in Europe look like american cities because roads are square grids

Thanks

Lame, I can tell a vehicles tyre pressure from 10,000', sir, I suggest you're just not trying hard enough!

Cessnas and Pipers are flying at 35,000ft? You never stope learning!

@@TheMrBitsy lmao

@@TheMrBitsy Well the Cessna Citation can go even higher and the Piper M500 reaches 30.000 feet. But of course you are talking about the smaller prop variants. To be fair, even at 2000 feet you won't really notice the large highway direction signs unless you really look for them. The smaller signs are as good as invisible from that altitude. So they are only adding to the scene while landing or during helicopter flights. I would love to someday see this level of detail added to MSFS, especially when helicopters are getting a bigger place within the sim in november. But for now I rather have higher altitudes look great as you see them most of the time.

In real life, If you had to make an emergency landing in let's say an Airbus A320, and you're flying low...at least you can alert ATC that you're "gliding directly over I-15, no traffic, I'm proceeding to land there".

R in VFR stands for rules, so you just said visual flight rules rules lol. However i do agree with the point you are making 😂 MSFS all the way.

That’s not quite accurate.. for VFR flying we use VRPs and the magnetic compass coupled with a timing device or some sort and our nav chart. VRPs which aren’t always buildings, they can be and are bridges, motorway junctions, railway systems, lakes, rivers, reservoirs and a very common one masts! The map in xplane 12 has all these points mapped out and I believe it’s starting to come to msfs as well after two years. We don’t fly looking at the ground or look at at how nice that roof looks from 2000ft you’re too busy looking out the windows for traffic, birds and anything else that may end up ruining a nice flight out on top of managing and monitoring the aircraft. You fly a course heading for X minuets / hours and then time your next course all of which including the winds aloft you have planned for in your pre flight and filed flight plan which you must do every flight including your weights and balance and fuel criteria, you can pick up your VRPs in the distance ( msfs struggles with LOD) and re adjust your course if needed If your gonna refer to real world VFR flying then you should know how real world vfr flying is done. I can just as easy fly a VFR flight from say cardiff to Huddersfield in default xplane 12 as I can in msfs and if I add Orbx to xplane 12 it’s even easier as I have the masts in the distance that I can see from miles out. Ever wondered why cat d sims don’t use photoscenery ? Because they aren’t needed to complete the training

It is quite funny actually, if you have a license in IRL it seems you are obliged to prefer XP to MSFS or P3D. IMO sure there are states of the flight where XP is more true to life but for the most part MSFS performs in a believable way, at least compared to the planes I used to fly (light-sport aircraft/UL). What you have instead in MSFS is immersion that I think XP totally lacks.

Yeah it's a flight sim but people care about too much live satellite imagery & photogrammetry lol

Well, I'm a real world GA pilot and I have to say that I prefer MSFS's dynamics and flight modelling 100% more than X-Plane. I loaded up X-Plane 12 demo the removed it again 10 minutes later. I'm shocked that they could release such trash! I am also a VFR pilot in real life so I prefer MSFS's scenery too.

@@darrenbrown3128 MSFS doesn't even use a real world flight model, otherwise X-Plane does use ''Blade element theory''' which explains real world flight models. X-Plane's development team Laminar Research also consists of flight instructors and real world pilots which is why their simulator's flight realism is at top notch at the moment. This flight simulator is shaped depending on FAA requirements such as foggy conditions failures and mostly flight modelling, which is why X-Plane is preferred by flight schools at the moment. Even Bridger Aerospace prefers X-Plane for firefighting pilot education, else aviation companies like Gleim Aviation and much more to count. I also should say there is a LEVEL D X-PLANE project too. This simulator shines in pilot education mostly.

@@hakanr339b I really couldn’t care less tbh. As a RL pilot, MSFS feels a lot closer to real life for GA aircraft as far as I’m concerned. So you stick with what you think is real, and I’ll do the same 😉

naah, I think "Fulton Official" just likes to stir the pot and have a good time! ;)

It's all about having fun 🤣😊

yeah... i really like both but x-plane 12 is just an update of 11, at least X-plane 12 could have online but they didn't even put that in the simulator, MSFS has improved with every update and besides being more and more realistic it is also fun to fly with friends!

What's unfair about it?

@@celderian Same question. What exactly was unfair ? Everything is better in XP12 - details, airports, physics(airborne and on the ground).

@@makskk6spm275 your joking right 😂

Why? Because X-Plane has better roads and details? Why is it only unfair when X-Plane has something better then fs2020? Have you seen google maps or bing maps? This is what it looks like so idk what you were expecting

@@Greasytrap4 but you can’t say everything is better in X-plane 12 that’s just being a fan boy all msfs need is to improve physics

Agree. MSFS is a great sim for a tour through a country or continent. XP does not come close. But if you are in a helicopter chasing a car or train then XP is better.

@@FritzWeinrebe why is that what I did every time I played the XP demo? lol I chased a cop car in a 206 and he got away.

@@TurboNeon185 looks like you need a faster helicopter. Have fun and look out for the power lines. :-)

It is indeed funny. What's funnier is how so many people want to tell everyone that XP12's ground textures, roads and autogen look life like when unless viewed from very close up, absolutely do not mix well together and look pretty bad from above (it's a flightsim afterall). And those ground textures and beaches everywhere. Oh man.

The engine is fine. Its the artists that needs to improve the graphics.

It was disabled in this video, lol. Paid MSFS scenery kills all XP paid scenery, which is what you are seeing in this video. Most of the XP world is flat twenty year old scenery.

@@ComdrStew it wasnt though lol

⁠@@ComdrStewI hope you realize that with free scenery you can have ortho tiles, also most of the xp world is handcrafted scenery that is mostly recent. If you want more details look up X-Plane scenery gateway

Come down to earth when your fuel runs out. Then you will see it.

XP12 is based on OpenStreetMap data which is also real world. Every major version they make a new road cut from real data. GA flights at low level is frequent. Jetliners don't see these issues.

@@FritzWeinrebe got it :)

​@@FritzWeinrebe Yeah but I can't even recognize the roads in xplane in my practice area irl 🤷

@HomeSchool Dre On my first flight in MSFS I found my house too. There was a factory building there. Nice touch.

@HomeSchool Dre I found the street where my house is bit sadly the house is autogen. But what was nice was to see some features in the sim that I have edited in OpenStreetMaps was in the sim. Like a park and a communication tower at my workplace.

Same, plus a real world pilot too.

This Is why i hate xplane fanboys

You can choose any area in XP12 and it will look like the video.

Yes generic and repetitive Objects only and they don't reflect the real world, I do prefer MSFS , I do agree that Xplane is better in Dynamics only and its graphic engine is too old.

@@FritzWeinrebe yes, all the same everywhere! Like legoland 🤣

Orbx ? Provides scenery for both sims to fix the shit in both sims.. with includes auto gen.. there’s also a ton of freeware libraries for both sims now but everyone claims that the photogrammetry is the greatest thing in the world in sim however it in many areas is represented by melted building appearances that look like they’re from the movie I am legend. Both sims have good and bad points but let’s give XP two years like msfs is currently and we can have another check.. My money is street lights will still be a ball hovering above the ortho in two years.

😂

TOTALLY disagree. I'm a real word GA pilot and GA aircraft flight dynamics are 100% times better in MSFS. I installed X-Plane 12 demo and removed it again 10 mins later! Not sure where all this hype and crap is coming from but it's totally wrong. And not sure why it's crashing for you - obviously your PC as mine is fine - but that bears no resemblence of the accuracy of the simulation itself so not sure why you mentioned that.

The runway wasn't the same in the comparison?

@@gozz7733 No, I don’t think so. I actually went back-and-forth looking at that a couple of times… Check out the body of water in the background

@@wesleybenn4523 Ok, but how many different looks can a runway have? The problem I'm having is that for years, MSFS users have been trolling X-Plane users about not being able to keep up with current tech. Now we have a sim that has done that, and people are complaining. Why can't we all just enjoy what we want, without the trolling??

@@gozz7733 I have both, and enjoy both, so which one “wins“ really isn’t something I am deeply invested in. However, if you’re going to do a comparison, then do it properly. This most certainly was not that.

@@gozz7733 What? MSFS has only been out for 2 years, and once it was released it was the X-Plane fanbois who couldn't help but belittle MSFS, following the example of their master Austin Meyer, the lead developer of X-Plane. For 2 years. Now that X-Plane 12 has released, it's reasonable to see it coming the other way round

😂

Exactly, Go for a flight around Table Mountain in Cape Town, and then tell me which sim wins on looks. XP doesn't give two shits about accuracy of terrain and cities, it's great for IFR Airliners with great systems simulation, but it sucks balls for low and slow VFR GA flying.

@@BloodSteyn Yes. But even on systems and flight dynamics simulation, for how long is it going to keep the advantage? I can see Asobo ditching the "lookup tables" flight model in the future. They already use something similar to XP besides the old model which, as far as I know, is only there for compatibility with older FSX aircrafts. And they are now developing simplified computational fluid dynamics as well. The visual gap is already out of XP reach and the flight dynamics gap is shrinking fast... Austin Meyer has become the enemy number 1 of his own product. That's sad. Imho.

@@classydave75 I agree, XP is great in it's own right, but it's fast slipping. MSFS implementation of CFD and NPS along with their 3D environmental airflow simulation is going to put a lot of pressure on XP's tried and tested, but quite old, BET that's still just a 2D simulation. I grew up flying with my Dad in small GA planes, looking out the window at the world below, and XP just cannot deliver that "feeling" to me. The systems and "Study Level" stuff is less of a buying factor for me, but seeing how Asobo is open to engaging 3rd parties like Working Title to patch those gaps... it's only a matter of time before MSFS takes the top spot away from Austin.

​@@BloodSteyn Exactly. Some may not like it but the visuals/environment are a big part of the immersion. I would say it is as important as the avionics simulation for "study level" A/C and I would put the flight model in third place even, as controversial as it would be. A desktop PC can only give an approximated translation of the flight model behavior through your joystick... It is what it is. So as long as the flight physics involved are good enough to suspend your disbelief, like with XP and now MSFS as well, the other parts of the sim are going to be more prevalent for immersion. If visuals were not that important, products like Orbx sceneries wouldn't exist... That's just an opinion but I think I'm not that wrong... I flew Cessna 150/172 in the past, MSFS 2020 honestly isn't that far of the real deal in terms of flight model as some make it to be (as much as desktop simulation can provide). And the room for improvement is there... XP keeps the crown, sure , but for how long?

But... fly at 1000 ft and all of a sudden MSFS looks much closer to life and XP looks like Kerbal Space Program. You can VFR anywhere in the world with MSFS... doubt you can on XP. It's great for Airliners on IFR, sure, but low and slow... MSFS wins.

​@@BloodSteyn No. It doesn't. You just don't look closely. At any distance it looks not realistic at all. Cities look burnt and dead. Especially airports. Bridges and houses. Roads. Almost everything. And I don't talk about flight physics and physics on the ground during taxi. XP12 is much, much better. Not to mention a huge number of glitches and problems in MSFS which they even after TWO years still didn't fix. XP12 won for sure. XP12 brought new standards to this industry.

@@BloodSteyn 1000 ft, aha... especially over NY where buildings are tall then 1000 ft. you better don't argue.

@@BloodSteyn The devil is always in details. If details are not important to you, then MSFS is your choice. For me the details are very important. Flying in an airplane is not only a calm and straight horizontal flight at a altitude of a 6000ft or more. A flight consists of a mass of details such as - launching an aircraft, taxiing along the runway, precise detailing of airports(all of them), but not only large like in MSFS (in MSFS, only large airports are well detailed, the rest are terrible). takeoff and climb and then landing and taxiing to the parking lot. In MSFS well implemented only straight flight at high altitude. The detailing on the rest of the levels is terrible and disgusting.

Wait for November when Helicopters are launched in MSFS. Since more people will fly below 1000 feet, they will start complaining more. But when touring the country I would choose MSFS anytime. Having fun close to the ground I would choose XP anytime. Each has their own strengths.

I was flying VFR in XP12 and was looking into the haze for the M1 motorway. First thing I noticed was the moving traffic, but I knew there was another road next to it. Next thing I saw were the blue overhead motorway signs which confirmed it was a motorway. Why can't people just accept something as good, rather than saying its bad because its not in their sim of choice?

I just said these things are less important for flight simulation. Well ok maybe important for recognising a motorway from a normal road..but in the end its a flight sim we talk about...not a world traffic sim..or an inside airport sim. For VFR its important you recognise special points in the landscape. For IFR you should at least be able to recognise the area/city you are in. But more important to me would be accurate airports, navigation aids, and flight dynamics/models. And yes both Sims have their highs and lows there.

You kind of can. Turn off crash detection. Some of the bridges have a poor physics model and some don't do for those that model a box, yes you collide. With damage off, you just pile straight through.

Agreed there 100%

The crashing system and lack of good bridge hit boxes makes msfs seem like a very sanitized flight sim the current way crashes and low level stunt flight is handled is the main turn away for me

@@zihad2133 What would you like with crashes? I mean, considering its a simulator... If you crashed in real life, what would expect to see after the moment of impact? At the point where flying has ceased, other than being a game, what else should it do and more importantly, why? Bridge collision models? Depends on the model. Yes certainly many could be better.

@@djtaylorutube honestly I just want to experience the crash instead of the screen just going black. For example you clip your wing on a building flying low so you eat dirt and instead of the screen going black you hit the ground and Maybe there is a little bit of a fire particle effect kinda like X-plane 11 I’m not asking for Beamng levels of damage just a small amount of fire coming from the engine.

😂😂😂😂

No I’m not, watch my other videos you will find out 😂