I hear that you can make XP11 looks as good as MSFS

[fppilot 4,350]

Check out KUMP and let us know how many of it's published approaches are available in MSFS. 

Set up an approach to RNAV 24R at KBKL, arriving from the west and entering the published hold at the IAF (SICID) using the MSFS GPS and autopilot. 

Fly from KMKC to KSUS on V4 planning on an approach to RNAV 08R and once off of MKC and clear of LEXIN intersection execute a Direct-To to FTZ with your GPS and autopilot. 

Fly that same route loading the RNAV 08R approach but delay activating the approach until 2 minutes after you clear HLV VOR.  

Fly from KMDW to KIND, picking up V24 at EON (Peotone).  Using your GPS and autopilot while enroute, enter a 2 minute hold at JAKKS intersection.

Edited March 20, 2021 by fppilot

[Bobsk8 12,543]

3 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Check out KUMP and let us know how many of it's published approaches are available in MSFS. 

Set up an approach to RNAV 24R at KBKL, arriving from the west and entering the published hold at the IAF (SICID) using the MSFS GPS and autopilot. 

Fly from KMKC to KSUS on V4 planning on an approach to RNAV 08R and once off of MKC and clear of LEXIN intersection execute a Direct-To to FTZ with your GPS and autopilot. 

Fly that same route loading the RNAV 08R approach but delay activating the approach until 2 minutes after you clear HLV VOR.  

Fly from KMDW to KIND, picking up V24 at EON (Peotone).  Using your GPS and autopilot while enroute, enter a 2 minute hold at JAKKS intersection.

I can do all  of that with Avliasoft EFB and I don't have to look at Pac Man type scenery on approach/ 

[jarmstro 2,402]

9 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Check out KUMP and let us know how many of it's published approaches are available in MSFS. 

Set up an approach to RNAV 24R at KBKL, arriving from the west and entering the published hold at the IAF (SICID) using the MSFS GPS and autopilot. 

Fly from KMKC to KSUS on V4 planning on an approach to RNAV 08R and once off of MKC and clear of LEXIN intersection execute a Direct-To to FTZ with your GPS and autopilot. 

Fly that same route loading the RNAV 08R approach but delay activating the approach until 2 minutes after you clear HLV VOR.  

Fly from KMDW to KIND, picking up V24 at EON (Peotone).  Using your GPS and autopilot while enroute, enter a 2 minute hold at JAKKS intersection.

All the above are available in MSFS if you have a Navigraph subscription or soon will be? And forthcoming planes will make full use of it.

Edited March 20, 2021 by jarmstro

[andy1252 3,774]

XP-11, Orbx True Earth, a bit of fiddling with X-Vision and it's pretty good. I still way prefer MSFS and these are old XP shots - I haven't flown there since last August. (all 4k screenies)

out of KSEA

and out of KEYW (apart from the XP trees, I prefer Florida here to MSFS's version)

[fppilot 4,350]

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

All the above are available in MSFS if you have a Navigraph subscription or soon will be?

No.  I have the Navigraph beta.  It takes care of the published approaches to KUMP.  It does nothing to provide MSFS with GPS capability to fly holds that the Navigraph beta database does not contain.  It does not contain a hold at SICID.  The Navigraph beta does nothing to the Direct To function of the GPSs in the simulator.  It does nothing to the "turned me around" flaw in the GPS/Autopilot.  It does nothing to add the capability to manually enter a hold, such as at JAKKS.

[Bobsk8 12,543]

3 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

XP-11, Orbx True Earth, a bit of fiddling with X-Vision and it's pretty good. I still way prefer MSFS and these are old XP shots - I haven't flown there since last August. (all 4k screenies)

out of KSEA

and out of KEYW (apart from the XP trees, I prefer Florida here to MSFS's version)

Looks like I am seeing it with glasses that are ten years old. 

[jarmstro 2,402]

5 minutes ago, fppilot said:

No.  I have the Navigraph beta.  It takes care of the published approaches to KUMP.  It does nothing to provide MSFS with GPS capability to fly holds that the Navigraph beta database does not contain.  It does not contain a hold at SICID.  The Navigraph beta does nothing to the Direct To function of the GPSs in the simulator.  It does nothing to the "turned me around" flaw in the GPS/Autopilot.  It does nothing to add the capability to manually enter a hold, such as at JAKKS.

That's just the planes. They will come in due course. And if you can't wait I would suggest you stick with X-Plane until they do.

Edited March 20, 2021 by jarmstro

[fppilot 4,350]

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

That's just the planes. They will come in due course.

My point is that they are not there. Until then...  whenever then is......

[Dyno152 51]

1 minute ago, fppilot said:

My point is that they are not there. Until then...  whenever then is......

I don’t get your point. Are you saying flying those procedures are any different between sims? Autopilot is not required to fly any of that. You can fly any unpublished hold, without gps. 

[Bobsk8 12,543]

3 minutes ago, Dyno152 said:

I don’t get your point. Are you saying flying those procedures are any different between sims? Autopilot is not required to fly any of that. You can fly any unpublished hold, without gps. 

That's if you know how to hand fly an approach. 

[cobalt 798]

1 hour ago, Pastaiolo said:

There are fans of both simulators, and a good chunk are both delusional on different things. It's pointless to dive into those view, they will never reconcile. A lot of them also has to somewhat defend their own investment in money on a peculiar sim, they need to confirm their certainty about having picked the right sim.

Me, i used all Microsoft Sims until FSX, then switched to XP10 and XP11. And Aerofly. And DCS. And now mostly back in MSFS (but waiting for XP12). If people tried more things perhaps they would see there are advantages and disadvantages.. The issue is that they do not.

Without doubt, comparisons of simulators are subjective -- up to a point. But there are objective, hard facts that cannot be ignored, and the most important is this: MSFS, its flaws notwithstanding, is the only flightsim program that has real-world scenery based on satellite imagery, and therefore is the only one in which true VFR flight can be simulated and the world can be seen as it actually is, to a high level of detail. This will not change until another sim appears that has this feature.

[ThrottleUp 617]

I use XP11 and I like it very much, I fly it for hours every day and enjoy every second. 

However I am not a fanboi and I know once I get a powerful new rig I will get MSFS too. It will live peacefully alongside XP11 on my system. I'll use MSFS for low and slow back country flying and XP11 for airliner (Zibo) flights. They will compliment each other. 

I dont get the rivalry on forums between simmers. Who cares - use the one you enjoy, dont get worked up. Ours is a very niche genre. This is not COD Warzone or PUBG with their gazillions of users. Each new sim that comes is welcome. It exposes many to aviation. 

[CFIJose 5,485]

38 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

XP-11, Orbx True Earth, a bit of fiddling with X-Vision and it's pretty good. I still way prefer MSFS and these are old XP shots - I haven't flown there since last August. (all 4k screenies)

out of KSEA
 

 

and out of KEYW (apart from the XP trees, I prefer Florida here to MSFS's version)

The ORBX textures are an improvement, but the water looks flat.

MSFS's water looks so beautiful, especially when watermasks are present, because the water is alive with caps and wind motion.

[fppilot 4,350]

44 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

XP-11, Orbx True Earth, a bit of fiddling with X-Vision and it's pretty good. I still way prefer MSFS and these are old XP shots - I haven't flown there since last August. (all 4k screenies)

26 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Without doubt, comparisons of simulators are subjective -- up to a point. But there are objective, hard facts that cannot be ignored, and the most important is this: MSFS, its flaws notwithstanding, is the only flightsim program that has real-world scenery based on satellite imagery, and therefore is the only one in which true VFR flight can be simulated and the world can be seen as it actually is, to a high level of detail. This will not change until another sim appears that has this feature.

I agree that this sim is unique in the detail of its scenery and that it provides visual cues that are important in flying.  But you statement perhaps overlooks the fact that photoreal scenery has been around for several years for previous sims.  I hold and use Megascenery Earth v3 for all but two of the lower USA states.  From perhaps 8,000 ft on up it is difficult to see a ton of difference.  When cloud cover exists the difference swings in the other direction.  MSFS clouds are in no way a match for REX textures and AS16 weather rendering,

I have previously posted over in the screenshots forum, beautiful screenshot sequences taken in my own MSFS VFR excursions.  So I am truly enjoying aspects of MSFS as are others.  Excursions along the New Jersey coast, picking up mod added lighthouses and the Atlantic City cityscape; over the mod enhanced southwestern canyons and natural monuments parks; over and along the Delaware river from Wilmington, Delaware up through Philadelphia, taking in the view of the city of Philadelphia and I believe now 11 highly detailed bridges across the Delaware river, connecting NJ and Pennsylvania.  So I greatly understand and appreciate what MSFS offers.   Just wish others were not claiming it to be the best, because in many respects it is clearly not. 

My most recent flight was from KBJC in Denver to KSUS in St. Louis.  I was on top of cloud layers at 23,000 with only occasional breaks in the overcast to the Megascenery v3 below.  I had REX cloud textures, Active Sky 16 live weather, a pair of Reality XP GTN 750s, and I was flying a RealAir Turbine Duke v2, which has incredible depth in it's implementation of systems.  For that flight with that aircraft, with those addons, with those conditions MSFS would be no equal.  That flight is chronicled in the topic "Beating the major snowstorm out of Denver this AM" in the screenshots forum.

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by fppilot

[F737MAX 5,536]

32 minutes ago, cobalt said:

there are objective, hard facts that cannot be ignored [...]MSFS, its flaws notwithstanding, is the only flightsim program that has real-world scenery based on satellite imagery, and therefore is the only one in which true VFR flight can be simulated

Speaking of objective, hard facts:
I guess Ortho4XP, TrueEarth and MSE photoscenery users in both XP and P3D (and even in some cases in FSX) must have been imagining flying "true VFR" flights over orthophotograph scenery all this time...

Visually, MSFS is stunning. The daytime lighting, the water and the photogrammetry cities, from a certain distance, look fantastic.
But let's not make up stuff about the older flight sims. You can navigate VFR using freeware or payware scenery when it looks like this:

Edited March 20, 2021 by F737NG