7 hours ago, qacmemphis said:

I just downloaded MFS and played it for an hour or so..... MFS doesnt have (or at least I wasnt able to find) "Cold startup"

These two lines right here indicate some people truly didn’t give it a fair chance, used it for a short given amount of time and came here to complain....Give it a chance, take your time, set it up properly, play around with it, play with the settings, figure it out before burning it down. Can’t just jump in and expect it to be setup to your personal liking...I’m not saying there are no issues, but give it more than an hour.

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by flyinpilot212121

7 hours ago, qacmemphis said:

I just downloaded MFS and played it for an hour or so. For people who are wondering, how it compares to X-Plane 11 - it really doesn't. MFS feels like a game. The only hyped thing about - the 2 PB graphics - they are surely better than X-Plane, but nothing amazing (I am talking not about special places like N.Y. or so, but actual random cities, which were not hand crafted). MFS doesnt have (or at least I wasnt able to find) "Cold startup", the controls with keyboard and mouse are possible, but only by using keyboard to steer (system doesnt seem to detect GlovePIE virtual joystick). Rudder also goes full left - center - full right. No inbetween like in X-Plane. Of course, if you have full joystick or even hotas you dont care about that, but I do. The camera controls are very dull, overally it feels just like a game. If you like X-Plane for its simulation capabilities and not graphical awesomeness - dont even look at MFS. The menu too looks like it belongs to a game, not a proper simulator. Personally I missed mostly the "Cold start" option and mouse steering.

Some good points, well it's certainly a game if you want to steer with a mouse lol

5 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

At the end of the day we're just sitting in our comfy chairs in front of a PC screen

Yep flight Sims are all smoke and mirrors for sure

I love XP11 ! If you want realistic terrain download XXXX gigs of ortho or pay ORBX. If you want rain/icing effect hope Kiselkov write another update to support Vulkan. If you want good looking clouds, get good combination of weather engine, art, and hope they will work together after next update. If you want snow hope xEnviro can render it in Vulkan. If you want camera effects  go ahead and pay for XpRealistic. If you want good 737 get Zibo and hope that next update won't brake anything again. If you want ATC hmmm just listen to radio chatter or fly online.

In contrast, in MSFS has everything listed above on board from the start. Yeah MSFS is buggy and messy, but XP11 had 4 years head start of constant updates and bug fixes.  But yet taildragges still don't fly  quite right!

 

So the button line choose one sim you like! Or keep both. If you not happy get a refund and leave in peace one way or another ! Simple solution for all!

3 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

Even in my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine a real world pilot chosing FS over X-Plane for training.

That is nice to hear. MSFS will cast a very broad net and have many types of people that will want to fly the friendly skies of MSFS including a bunch of gamers. From all of these people who buy MSFS will come revenue and from that revenue will come money to continue to improve the platform. From that improvement will come more buyers and revenue to fund more improvement by the Asobo studio. Also, MS will make money on add-on sales and that will be used to invest in the platform. 

X-Plane will see a drop in people who purchase X-Plane 12 (let's be clear that Austin does not make money if you fly his app after you purchase it) and that reduced revenue will impact that amount of money he will have available to hire people to help out Ben, his main developer. 

1 hour ago, kapitan said:

it does, its general, it affects you also, everyone. Unconsciously.

 

LMAO. I can't tell if you're describing a flight sim or causes for ED.

The original post had to be troll bait. 

4 minutes ago, MikeT707 said:

That is nice to hear. MSFS will cast a very broad net and have many types of people that will want to fly the friendly skies of MSFS including a bunch of gamers. From all of these people who buy MSFS will come revenue and from that revenue will come money to continue to improve the platform. From that improvement will come more buyers and revenue to fund more improvement by the Asobo studio. Also, MS will make money on add-on sales and that will be used to invest in the platform. 

X-Plane will see a drop in people who purchase X-Plane 12 (let's be clear that Austin does not make money if you fly his app after you purchase it) and that reduced revenue will impact that amount of money he will have available to hire people to help out Ben, his main developer. 

I would not rule out however, that the surge of flight sim users caused by Asobosim is also beneficial to Laminar. Nobody knows what XP12 will bring, better weather for sure, and you know what they say about competition.

Also, from a financial angle, the "gamers" will get the game pass option for $1 before they get bored and there is no money to make there.

 

19 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

There's three (albeit major) components in which FS2020 easily beats X-Plane 11.

-ATC

-Scenery

-Weather

In everything else I can think of right now (including flight model, controls, default planes, interface, performance), it can't hold a candle to X-Plane.

Even in my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine a real world pilot chosing FS over X-Plane for training.

Maybe, but training is only one aspect of why people use simulators.  Some of us just think they're fun and love exploring a virtual world.

Those who don't have an imagination or wild dreams can always stick to button pushing, in which case they probably have all they need anyway with X-Plane, so what's the issue?

23 minutes ago, Dyno152 said:

I’m a real world pilot and I chose FS over X-Plane. 🤯

That's worrying. I hope you're not flying commercial.

2 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

 

Maybe, but training is only one aspect of why people use simulators.  Some of us just think they're fun and love exploring a virtual world.

Those who don't have an imagination or wild dreams can always stick to button pushing, in which case they probably have all they need anyway with X-Plane, so what's the issue?

No issue, fair enough.

I get it that for the vast majority, Asobosim will be much more attractive.

11 minutes ago, MikeT707 said:

That is nice to hear. MSFS will cast a very broad net and have many types of people that will want to fly the friendly skies of MSFS including a bunch of gamers. From all of these people who buy MSFS will come revenue and from that revenue will come money to continue to improve the platform. From that improvement will come more buyers and revenue to fund more improvement by the Asobo studio. Also, MS will make money on add-on sales and that will be used to invest in the platform. 

 

Yes, let's hope so! Maybe some of these newcomers will even branch out to other flight sims and support their future development so that we continue to have a diversity of different flight sims available, and each of them pushes the others to enhance the technology and push the boundaries of this great hobby.  

I will try to compare various aspects of both sims and to ignore your cold and dark war. Btw youre half-right because those two airliners (747 and A320) doesnt come close to cold and dark with half of systems not simulated/inoperative

‐----------------

I will compare current x-plane state with all the available addons up to date

Camera -for me its almost equal, i liked x-plane a bit better using quick views.  i have low standards as I dont record footage.

Weather & visuals - MSFS by far (xenviro is trying hard with the nextgen volumetric clouds but its only halfway there)

Ground textures - X-plane. MSFS is very nice up to 6000 ft AGL. Anything above, and especially FL300+ is ugly blurry mess. Sadly there is disproportionate ZL / flying altitude setting which makes the textures look worse the higher you are, which is exact opposite compared to x-plane photorealistic scenery where the higher you get, the sharper the image, because you dont get lower ZL based on altitude.

I am ditching my 8TB drive full of orthos , and i love that i wont have to spend time on this with msfs anymore but i am very dissapointed with quality (hopefully they will add possibility in menu for this).

Autogen - MSFS again by far (x-plane is comparable with its x-europe addon, but other than that It has no chance for msfss perfect objects combined with blackshark ai)

Lightning, reflections - MSFS

Jet liners - x-plane addons by far (sorry magknight, but even your 787 is better and more usable than msfs a320, 747). On the other hand compared to fsx, p3d default models they are on next level. In previous sims, planes didnt have half-functioning fmcs.

Performance - imo uncomparable due to total difference. Off course there is still space to improve.

 

---

Sims were tested on 9900K, rtx 2080ti, 32GB DDR4, mostly 4K resolution on various level of details, mostly ultra.

 

---

this post is written by uneducated non english native speaker from soviet slovakia so please bare/bear with me. 

 

With love

56 minutes ago, Freneticus said:

Ground textures - X-plane. MSFS is very nice up to 6000 ft AGL. Anything above, and especially FL300+ is ugly blurry mess. Sadly there is disproportionate ZL / flying altitude setting which makes the textures look worse the higher you are, which is exact opposite compared to x-plane photorealistic scenery where the higher you get, the sharper the image, because you dont get lower ZL based on altitude.

Almost can't believe this, but it's perfectly in line with my impression that heavy metal flying was an afterthought for Asobo. First the borked airliners, then the performance cost of their "system depth" (sorry couldn't resist), now this, which is a real showstopper. However, at least this seems easy to fix. Here goes item 5.076 on the list.

1 hour ago, Freneticus said:

Camera -for me its almost equal, i liked x-plane a bit better using quick views.  i have low standards as I dont record footage.

Agree with all your points except for this one. TrackIR out of the box is far superior in MSFS than in X-Plane. Also I hate how slow the camera panning is in external view in X-Plane.