How well XP11 performance predict FS 2020 performance

[FlyingInACessna 656]

MSFS runs better than XP11 for me. You should be solid.

[fppilot 4,352]

Is this really happening again?  

[JBDB-MD80 1,470]

14 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Is this really happening again?  

Yep some can't just leave well enough alone. Just begging for controversy.

Edited September 10, 2021 by jbdbow1970

[MrBitstFlyer 3,830]

6 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Default X-Plane running Vulkan runs very well. The problem comes when you add all the additional payware addons you need to bring the graphics up to an acceptable standard. Then there is a big problem with performance.  You need a super computer to do it justice.

I purchased just two addons costing $20 (SimHeaven X-America and  SFD Global) to have world landclass which puts trees and autogen in the correct places to make VFR flight possible.  The autogen goes way out to the distance.  Buildings are not in the exact same place as they would be in MSFS, but each town, village and city is in the correct place and size.  Orbx True Earth products can make ground scenery like MSFS. 

I agree the performance of MSFS is smoother with higher FPS, but XPlane is still playable. 

[JYW 2,977]

I think a key factor, where those who have tried XP11 and got poor performance is, was this before Vulkan came to X-Plane?  Because for me Vulkan made a huge difference.  As someone who loves both sims equally (more into MSFS at the mo, but still love them both, for different strengths they have), I can say that presently MSFS gives better performance for my specs - but XP11 is not far behind; it's become far better performing over the last year. 

I also only fly XP11 in areas with Orbx TrueEarth regions, on high settings, so it's a comparable demand to what we have on MSFS.   As mentioned above, one weak area - performance wise - in XP11 is still weather.  In MSFS I can fill the skies with huge clouds and barely see a performance drop.   In XP11, a high volume sky will definitely drag down performance.   I certainly don't need to fly "blue skies only" but I do need to consider clouds while flying XP11, whereas in MSFS I don't even have to think about the number of clouds affecting performance.

TL:DR - If you have XP11 running to a satisfactory level, you're like to be even happier with MSFS's performance (at the moment!).

Edited September 10, 2021 by JYW

[OneOfMany 314]

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Buildings are not in the exact same place as they would be in MSFS,

It's funny, but this feature is what brings this sim to life for me. Sure it may be the wrong color, or the facade is not the same, but the location, especially in less inhabited locales, always makes me wonder why people live somewhere, what on earth they do, and how someone calls it home. 🌎

But they do, just like I do

Edited September 10, 2021 by OneOfMany

[MrBitstFlyer 3,830]

1 hour ago, JYW said:

I think a key factor, where those who have tried XP11 and got poor performance is, was this before Vulkan came to X-Plane?  Because for me Vulkan made a huge difference.  As someone who loves both sims equally (more into MSFS at the mo, but still love them both, for different strengths they have), I can say that presently MSFS gives better performance for my specs - but XP11 is not far behind; it's become far better performing over the last year. 

I also only fly XP11 in areas with Orbx TrueEarth regions, on high settings, so it's a comparable demand to what we have on MSFS.   As mentioned above, one weak area - performance wise - in XP11 is still weather.  In MSFS I can fill the skies with huge clouds and barely see a performance drop.   In XP11, a high volume sky will definitely drag down performance.   I certainly don't need to fly "blue skies only" but I do need to consider clouds while flying XP11, whereas in MSFS I don't even have to think about the number of clouds affecting performance.

TL:DR - If you have XP11 running to a satisfactory level, you're like to be even happier with MSFS's performance (at the moment!).

Agreed about poor performance with weather.  I did buy a weather addon but performance was very poor.  I find the default weather in XPlane ok - not as authentic as MSFS of course but good enough.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,830]

3 hours ago, David Mills said:

I totally agree with @abrams_tank. Most of us remember when, last year, we saw the first pre-release videos of MSFS. We were all stunned by the spectacular quality of the graphics. We suspected that the Asobo teaser videos were somehow artificially "glammed up." They weren't really straightforward screen captures from the game itself. We were almost universally skeptical that such a gorgeous simulator could ever run adequately on our current hardware. We'd all need to spend thousands of extra dollars just to run the sim at all. It seemed totally impossible back then that we'd actually gain more FPS using MSFS than we then experienced with X-Plane or P3D. So, now, we MSFS users definitely enjoy the best of both worlds -- best sim for graphics, best sim for performance. I might add that, because you don't need to spend hundreds of extra dollars to make the sim look acceptable (as you do with X-Plane and P3D), MSFS is also the most economical sim.

I agree with your comments regarding MSFS, a truly amazing advance in flight simulator. I do disagree with your comment regarding the cost of making XPlane 11 'acceptable'.  Just twenty dollars will give world landclass and autogen.

[alexcolka 183]

9 hours ago, w6kd said:

It doesn't, really--different graphics engine entirely, different simulation.

You can always get a subscription to Gamepass for $1 and answer that question for yourself.  Personally, though, if you then decide to buy it, I'd uninstall that and get the Steam version instead.

Hi,

Would you care to elaborate why the Steam version over the MS Store one? thanks,

[captain420 3,099]

11 minutes ago, alexcolka said:

Hi,

Would you care to elaborate why the Steam version over the MS Store one? thanks,

If you ever plan on getting an Xbox in the future, and if you purchase the MS store version, you will also get it for free on the Xbox. That's one of the benefits of getting the MS store version.

[alexcolka 183]

44 minutes ago, captain420 said:

If you ever plan on getting an Xbox in the future, and if you purchase the MS store version, you will also get it for free on the Xbox. That's one of the benefits of getting the MS store version.

Don't have Xbox and not planning to do so, the fact is I own the Store version and recently used again Steam for an old game that always liked and now I'm curious of what is the benefit of the Steam version of MSFS, how about your Marketplace purchases in the MS Store version? Those will be owned too in the Steam version? Thanks,

BTW Sorry if the main topic is another in the thread.

Edited September 11, 2021 by alexcolka

[Ricardo41 5,936]

One of the key differences between P3D and MSFS 2020 is the significant trade offs in P3D between visuals and performance: nicer clouds, shadow effects, etc. - turning those on or up came with sigificant frame hits. Not so in MSFS 2020. 

[Greazer 1,320]

Default X Plane graphics and performance is a shocker compared to MSFS. Requires a bunch of add-ons and tweaks to make look better. And even then it still looks very mediocre. As for XP12 it will be just XP11 with a few tweaks. Nothing revolutionary.

[jcomm 5,890]

It's imo useless to take xp11 as basis for such comparison. It's comparing a 6+ yo simulator and technology to something released last year. 

Only makes sense when xp12 gets available. But one aspect that can already be compared is that of the fluidity of the instruments display, smoother and crisper on xp11 even being 6+yo...

Edited September 11, 2021 by jcomm

[turbomax 3,269]

x-plane is "plausible", MSFS is unbelievable

Edited September 11, 2021 by turbomax