MSFS Vs. X-Plane 12: Superior Flight Dynamics and Realism? You decide!

The whole video felt like your mind was made up before you even purchased X-Plane.

One thing I like about X-Plane though is the soundscape. The sounds you hear from a jet from afar matches what you hear in real life, like you notice the sound pitch decreasing as it gets closer. I haven’t noticed that in MSFS

Thanks! Suscribed, nice content, and delivery

love you man, even if the content is boring (it is not, but in the extreme event it will ever be), you make it funny to watch and until the end.

MSFS is the only sim without a fly byview.. says enough!

Xplane needs to be scrutinize not just be defended at all cost. Xplane needs work especially in the scenery and proactive and honest criticism could expedite the efforts from Laminar because 3rd party add ons are sadly not available

Doing a side-by-side comparison is never easy and requires tedious work and editing. You have done a terrific job and provided us with a very informative and interesting insight into these two fabulous flight simulators. I like the availability of choice and healthy competition afforded by these two products and hope they both continue to get our support and improve.

Huh? The Cessna 172 loves to fly. It wants to fly. At rotation speed, it will become airborne without back pressure. Seems realistic to me and to everyone else. Also, I'm surprised you can't tell the difference between a hard landing and a crash. I guarantee you that if you crash the airplane, you'll get something that looks dramatic. MSFS beats XP12 hands down in scenery generation, airports aside. The PMDG 737, Fenix A320 and the A2A Commanche airplanes are incredible. XP12, a vastly different sim from XP11, has just become stable, and more good stuff is starting to come. Too many high-fidelity airplanes to list. Seems to me that your critique is somewhat biased. Nevertheless, I know how much work it takes to produce a video like this; the production value is nicely done.

Appreciate this great video on the subject of comparing & showing that both sims have some big flaws in comparison tio real life! Looking forward to your follow-up vids! Thanks Again!

Good stuff, thanks! I agree one of the more disappointing items is the lack of stress/crash detection. Not that I go out and want to crash when flying but it would add a bit of "stress" factor to the experience. On a separate note It would be interesting if you compared weather using Active Sky in XP12 vs the new AS in MSFS.

I agree on xp 12. It’s way too similar to 11 and 10 and you can barrel roll the Zibo mod like a fighter. The terrain is similar to xp 11 The planes are way too bouncy. That needs to be fixed. My problem with MSFS is the on rails flight feel. An F86 flies exactly like a cargo plane or Cessna. It feels like the cockpit screen is sliding across the horizon and every cockpit flies the same. What’s your opinion of Prepar3d- is that obsolete?

too bad you didn't try the one thing xplane has and msfs doesn't do other than visually, flying in icing conditions! Try with a ga to stay on the ground for half an hour in 2 degrees, freezing rain and take off in the clouds and let's see what happens on both! In America, ice is among the leading causes of tourist flight accidents

"HYPER HYPER, REALISM REALISM"

I agree with Short Final, you seem VERY biased against X-Plane, so be it. Your video's don't reflect that much difference. I am new to home grown simulators (and I can tell that you are an old hand at it), but I've been around the real world hanger (retired ATP). Both simulators work well for what they do. Later, good luck with your mission.

Very nice comparison between XP12 and MSFS. However, I would like to give my opinion as a regular user of XP12, having recently been able to try MSFS. To be honest, I specify that I am on Linux, and therefore I installed MSFS via Steam + Proton, XP12 running natively. I will therefore not put to the disadvantage of MSFS the possible small problems that I might have encountered because of this installation not supported by the developer, and in this case there are few, MSFS works very well out of the box with Proton. My config: Core i5-10600K, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, RAM 48GB, Internet 300Mbps, Monitor 3440x1440. In terms of general appearance, it must be said that MSFS is beautiful, with a graphically very attractive hangar that really makes you want to fly. But I find that the interface is sometimes a little confusing. The configuration possibilities are numerous and they are a little lacking on XP12, I will come back to that. I set it to "high" detail level to be in a configuration relatively similar to the one I use in XP12 (all sliders on "High" or "Maximum"). I leave Bing data and photogrammetry enabled, since I only use XP12 with orthophotos and Simheaven scenes. I have an Alpha Yoke and a Bravo Throttle Quadrant. The yoke is recognized without problem and correctly configured. On the other hand, the throttle is seen as an Xbox controller, good luck adjusting it. XP12 recognizes all my hardware without difficulty. So I launch a flight from my local aerodrome (LFOQ), with a clear sky at sunset. The rendering is beautiful, but the airfield looks nothing like the real terrain, unlike XP12 in which the buildings are fairly consistent with reality. XP12 is more realistic on this point. I switch to realistic weather, and there it's disappointing. I find that the image is too "plastic", not that it is ugly, just that if I look at the sky through the window, it does not at all resemble the one recreated by MSFS in terms of colors in particular. Out of curiosity, I try another flight, from LFOT, but it simply does not exist in the database even though it is an airport from which short and medium haul flights depart. On the flight model, I tried the DR400, with the most realistic flight model possible, because I practice the DR400 (add-on) with XP12. I put on the gas, the plane starts to roll, jolting as if it were rolling on a damaged runway. Strangely I don't have a lot of right foot to put on the rudder pedal, I can let it roll up to 150km/h without touching the controls, it stays stuck to the ground, even though the rotation speed is 100km/h. I take off, and notice that there is almost no overturning torque to counter, I can practically release the yoke, the plane remains straight. Maybe because it is less powerful than the one I use in XP12. The plane is shaken a little by the gusts of wind, but too brutally for my taste. I decide to land, and without any difficulty, from the first flight, I manage to land it on the first try and quite cleanly, far from the numerous attempts and go-arounds that I had to make in XP12 before arriving at achieve a nice landing with this plane. I notice a strange throttle behavior, it's hard to control the rate of descent with the throttle, with a lot of inertia. For the graphic rendering, the terrain from Bing Maps for MSFS and the orthophoto tiles from XP12 do the same job, I have a preference for the orthophotos but it depends on the source selected (IGN in my case, Bing Maps for the tiles generated by AutoOrtho). For objects at low altitude, photogrammetry produces more realistic results from a distance, but less clean up close. At high altitude it doesn't change anything. Water, on the other hand, is much better rendered by MSFS than by XP12. I then attempt a flight with the DR400 from La Guardia in New York. The plane finds itself resting on the threshold of the runway... on the roof! Bug? I restart the flight, it is well on its wheels. The photogrammetry does the job well, with the same drawback: you shouldn't get too close to the buildings, but overall the result is great. When it comes to performance in such an area, it's strange: MSFS produces more FPS than XP12 (~35 with the A320 vs ~20 with the 737 Zibo) but is not fluid, a lot of stuttering despite decent performance. And this is where I come back to the adjustment possibilities. In the menus XP12 does not offer many settings, but a simple LUA script (3jFPS) will modify the appropriate datarefs in real time to match the defined performance. As a result, I manage to get a rendering at 30 fps, certainly a little less beautiful than that of MSFS, but above all much smoother. I should point out that I have a lot of active plugins in XP12: Live Traffic, ShadeX, NOAA Weather, Python, FlyWithLua, ABCamera, etc. I'm trying an A310 flight on MSFS: CTD! Maybe related to Proton, but I've seen Windows users encounter this problem. In conclusion, my opinion is a little mixed, and rather in favor of XP12. If I had to make a rating: - Portability: XP12 - Ease of installation: XP12 (no need for a Microsoft account) - Ergonomics: XP12 - Graphical appeal of the menus: MSFS - Fine adjustments by the user: MSFS - Hardware recognition: XP12 - Beauty of weather effects: MSFS - Atmospheric realism: XP12 - Vegetation: MSFS (For the following two items, each of the advantages and disadvantages vary depending on the situation) - Terrain rendering: MSFS/XP12 - Object rendering: MSFS/XP12 - Water rendering: MSFS - Flight model: XP12 - Frame rate: MSFS - Smoothness: XP12 - Turnkey solution: MSFS - Total: MSFS --> 9 / XP12 --> 9 Each therefore has its advantages and disadvantages which will please or displease depending on the chosen audience. It must be taken into account that Laminar Research is certainly a much smaller structure than Asobo, and which certainly does not have the financial and technical resources of Microsoft. There are also certain bugs which are unacceptable after 4 years of existence of MSFS, especially relating to the price paid for Premium Deluxe. Today I cannot say neither MSFS nor XP12 is far superior to the other. Except for one important thing : I don't know how to say this but X-Plane gives me the feeling of flying more than MSFS. It's a subjective feeling. When I put full throttle on the Beaver or the Zibo, it's always a new challenge and a powerful feeling.

I appreciate a good comparison. While I could tell it was rather bias, it was decently done. I can't use MSFS due to the severe lack of multi monitor support (a comparison area you didn't touch on), so I really can't compare both myself. I've tried to get my hardware integrated to MSFS so I could give it a go, but there were so many additional programs that needed to be run to make it all work that I gave up on it. X-Plane handles all of it in a plug-in (hardware integration is another one you didn't touch on).

Try doing more takeoffs and landing comparisons in crosswinds, for the 737. Also, check out the visibility/haze simulation in places like Mumbai, and go high up with the drone cam in MSFS. X Plane still doesn't simulate visibility accurately out of the box, but using a rather cheap addon in visualXP just takes the cake.

I enjoy both for what they are but ultimately agree with your conclusions that there is significant room for improvement in many facets.

your videos are awesome, can't wait for the next, I'm an x plane fan and i still love your comparisons.

I am slowly approaching 50hrs in the 172 and both have their cons. The cons with both of them there is a lack of feel but I use both!