X-Plane 12 | Beauty of Iceland revealed with AutoOrtho! London to Keflavik | Insane Realism 

Cant wait for 12.1.0 either!

Im looking forward to that too.

And A350 by Inibuilds, it will be something :)

Ah yes but simulating flight properly isn't important in a flight simulator

@@J00dy11 Of course it is, but what is physics if you have FS2004 graphics? Would you fly in a simulator with PERFECT PHYSICS if it's looks like the FS2000? It's all about fit. There is no perfect simulator. The Xplane looks like FS2004 and the weather engine is horrible, with clouds disappearing and appearing out of nowhere and star wars rain. MSFS is a simulator with graphics never achieved, with 99% of addon companies on the market focused on it, with 70% of simmers using it, with a 737 better than any of the Xplane and with the promise of an even better MSFS 2024. If you say MSFS has no physics, you certainly haven't flown FS9, FSX and P3D.

@@stefano738 I agree with you 100%. I've seen a lot of strange things also in relation to the physics of XP11/12. It's a beta simulator that even in its full version never came close to MSFS. There is no more space for the way the scenarios and addons in XP are installed, there is no more space for you to have to download cloud texture, sky texture in 3 different stages of the day, sun texture, moon texture and spend 2TB of your hard drive to have something that MSFS has by default. Many people who talk about physics have never been on a plane in their lives.

@@JohnWiggensteinner not to mention those weird LEGO cockpits that almost all planes have, with those glasses that reflect the same static image so much that we can barely look out.. It is confusing with simulators from 20 years ago.

@@JohnWiggensteinner Sorry but it's hard to understand what you want to say. First, almost every professional airliner-pilot having tested and compared both said XP's flightmodel felt closer to what they are used to and that it was one of XP's advantages over MSFS. I find it weird to see so many people trying to bash XP again and again If you don't like it why do you come here to comment on it? I don't like MSFS (have deinstalled it since XP12 and never looked back) and don't have the need to comment on MSFS videos how bad it is. Just let people use the sim they prefer. No one is better than the other, since it depends on what is important to you. Bot have cons and pros. I do fly GA's in real btw. And together with Autoortho, XP takes less space on my harddisk than MSFS used. Not sure also what you tried to express with 2TB and sun texture (never heard about such a texture). There is no such thing needed in XP. Believe it or not, i needed more addons to run MSFS, mostly because default airports are not as good as in XP.

I guess, by looks

Its a bug with iceland everywhere else has hills

@@stellarthings3435 It‘s because of Autoortho. They haven‘t a mesh in Iceland and there is a way to fix that manually. In the default XP-scenery all hills and mountains are there.

I agree the clouds of msfs is better. But for me, xplane 12 performs better than msfs in fps

„As for flight dynamics, as a commercial pilot, I enjoy the physics in MSFS a lot more than XP“. It may be your opinion but a bit weird tbh, when every professional airliner-pilot having tried both and streaming on YT have stated the opposite and all agree that XP‘s flightdynamics are better. Didn‘t you notice that MSFS doesn‘t simulate inertia accurately? Try to fly for example the A310 empty or full. It behaves in the air exactly the same as empty.

@@frankbyte I know many pilots, who agree with my opinion. Of course not every pilot is going to have the same opinion, it's all subjective. As for MSFS and inertia. When flying a heavier aircraft, the difference between a fully loaded aircraft and an empty aircraft in terms of maneuverability is apparent but not an extreme change, the biggest different is the change in your Va speed, CG, stall speed, etc.. The main intertia related factor is your ability to slow down and speed up which MSFS absolutely simulates and absolutely does simulate the effect on maneuverability relating to weight as you say it doesn't. I've loaded up the PMDG 737, (I've never flown a real 737) and it does fly different depending on how heavy you are, it's very small change but it is there. I think a lot of people tend to think MSFS is far behind in physics but that just isn't true, it has opened up the door for a whole new way of computing physics for aircraft with features such as CFD which makes GA planes mainly, so much better.

@@DiamondAviation727 As you say there may be different opinions, even beetween pilots. But from the ones streaming, the very vaste majority clearly stated that MSFS-physics were behind, at least when talking about airliners. One of them, an Airbus pilot and instructor eyplains in details what is lacking. He is doing his type-rating for the B787 right now and has a lot of contacts to different developpers for MSFS who told him how difficult it was to overcome/compensate the lacking in the base sim. PMDG themselves (having real B737-test-pilots) stated that the simulation of the atmosphere was inacurate (resulting in abrupt climb of rates or descend at certain altitues). And the inertia-problem is more apparent in heavy-aircrafts like the A310 or B787. Addons such as the A2A-comanche flies very good because they had to program its flight-model from scratch. I personnally also fly smaller aircrafts and the last time i tried MSFS to reproduce a flight with one of the default GA‘s i was shocked because it behave like a shoe-box…perhaos they have improve it now? Talking about CFD: this depends very much on the resolution used. To simulate proper CFD you would need a NASA-PC. No way to do it realtime on a simple PC, that‘s why it seems more of a marketing-thing for now. But thanks for your feedbacks and your personnal opinion. I wonder which planes you fly in real?