I will tell you one thing, that hits me every time I spent an hour if VR flying in MSFS20/24. The same thought after every MSFS session, and I still keep crawling back to MSFS, especially 2024 version, because of the scenery. There is something crazy about flying low and slow, seeing all the ground clutter and detail, land in an open field near a forest, exit the helicopter, walk in the the forest, seeing all the 3d modelled branches and every leaf, and even on one occasion seeing a deer running deep into the forest. It's really an experience in VR. But based on this, I call it scenery simulator, or even better - a world simulator. I don't enjoy flying majority of aircraft MSFS20/24, but I enjoy the "immersion of being in the detailed virtual world", so I stubbornly keeps crawling back. And almost after every session in MSFS20/24, I fire up XP11 (or lately 12), and gets blown away how much I enjoy FLYING there, how real it feels. Aircraft feel alive, and you can feel the air, and practically feel everything you should feel in the flight sim. In the end, both titles are flight sims, but only XP checks the "Do you want to enjoy flying?" box.
So yeah, when I want to look around and explore the world, I fire up MSFS, when I want to pretend being a pilot, I fire up XP11/12. It depends on my mood, what I want to do on a particular day.

And this sentence became boring and repetitive - why not have both sims, and enjoy both, like I do?

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by Pe11e

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

As a BIG fan of X-Plane for many, many years, take my advice: if you only have money for one sim, get MSFS.

Also, MSFS is cheaper than X-Plane v12 ($60 vs $80), so not sure why you think MSFS is "overbudget"...?

This isn't to say that MSFS is "better" than X-Plane or vice-versa, but simply that for the most immersive experience with the least amount of money and/or messing about with configuring freeware visual improvements and such, MSFS is the literal Easy Button.

I'm sorry for the confusion but in my research MSFS is actually more expensive than xplane, I believe MSFS is 80 bucks and Xplane is 60. 

I use both but prefer 2024. I fly everyday and only had 1 crash(a conflict with fsuipc and inibuild a300). If I want fly offline I use xplane. If I want fly online I use 2024.

Why not get both they both have good and bad points. XP12 is really starting to shine, I mostly fly MSFS 20/24 but still often will take a Toliss or FF777 for a flight in XP12

A long time simmer and dev as well as IRL pilot's opinion: MSFS has always has a priority on mass appeal, and this takes a certain approach with compromises that can conflict with those wanting more depth or traditional flight simulation aspects. XP focuses on depth vs mass appeal, and this also has compromises in the opposite sense.

Both platforms offer a lot. I can't really do "very realistic simulation" things in MSFS, IMO like I can in XP12. I'm not referring to graphics, scenery and "living earth simulation" which MSFS excels at. I'm referring to important procedures, aviation/piloting aspects, and experience. While I spend time in both platforms, appreciate them both, and develop add-on software for both, I treat MSFS as a visual feast and "light" flight simulator, and XP12 as an actual flight simulator with decent graphics but not MSFS caliber.

One thing I do regularly to keep proficient is fly IFR procedures in simulated IMC with flight sim, and I can even log this if I want on a certified BATD/AATD installation running XP. I can't get close to this with MSFS. 

I don't ever open up XP though when I want to show a non-pilot how cool flight simulation is and how far it has come. MSFS gets going on an XBox controller and they have a blast.

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by Damian Clark

7 hours ago, sfaviation said:

I'm sorry for the confusion but in my research MSFS is actually more expensive than xplane, I believe MSFS is 80 bucks and Xplane is 60. 

No, X-Plane is $79.99 whereas MFS has 4 different versions (each one offering more default aircraft). 

42 minutes ago, tonywob said:

No, X-Plane is $79.99 whereas MFS has 4 different versions (each one offering more default aircraft). 

That‘s true. On the other side I realised that we have to spend a lot more for airport sceneries im MSFS because default airports are really not good in general compared to XP12 where I only have a few payware sceneries for the most used airports. The other ones are good enough in 90% of the cases. So this results in higher overall costs from my experience with both sims.

My only problem with MSFS is that it is not a FLIGHT simulator... I used to call it a "Scenery Browser", and I try my best not to fly other than the Fenix A320, without having 2nd thoughts about even simulating a simple engine failure 😕

• It leaves so much to be desired in terms of a consistent modelling of certain aspects of flight dynamics, and even with the fine tuned ground model, it's ground physics are still so basic, that, as @Cameron hints, JCOMM the UNINSTALLER strives not to uninstall it after each sim session 🤣or loads Condorsoaring or XP12(*) to wash the effect ....

(*) Austin really has to sort out what's going on for so long with the multi-props and that right rolling bug 😞 This is preventing me from flying the twins in XP12, and, @Cameron, just in case you have any influence there at their "bureau" ... not even the LES DC-3 escapes it ... and flying twin props with CW rotating props that bank right madly, although not as bad as flying any fixed wing aircraft or heli in MSFS, doesn't feel right to me ... 

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by jcomm

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

My only problem with MSFS is that it is not a FLIGHT simulator...

How many here are "Professional Pilots," ?

1 hour ago, Torkermax said:

How many here are "Professional Pilots," ?

Far from professional here, just private, ICAO gliders, now EASA SPL presently waiting for a prof check because I failed the # landings in the last 24 months requisite for "recent experience" (have the hours, lacked 3 of the minimum 15 landings 😕 ) - ... 44 years flying gliders.

I don't mind what I listen to in Youtube, honestly... I don't care if it's an A320 or 737 or 744 pilot ** AND ** youtuber... If he / she says - "hey, this feels exactly like the real thing! " - and I don't think it does, I'll stick with my view... sorry ...

And no matter how some try to point out how "advanced" this or that sim flight dynamics model is, the feel I get from it, some coherency tests and good addons make my choice.

I believe @Damian Clark's opinion above is the best description of how I see it !  Agree 100% with all he wrote in his post, because he expresses there exactly what I feel.

In MSFS I don't even risk picking up a glider, or a powerful prop aircraft because If I do so it's for sure going to be wiped from my disk, so, if I use it, I use it with JUST the Fenix 320. 

In Xp12 I can feel comfortable with pretty much all rotaries, fixed wing, even gliders although I am critic of some limitations in the glider design limitations of X-Plane, but unless it's a really badly designed aircraft, the coherency is always there. The basic coherency tests give positive feedback, even if particular aircraft can have their quirks and modeling limitations. X-Plane 12 is, IMNHO, by far the best general purpose >> FLIGHT << simulator, and compared to it, flight wise, MSFS is pure arcade, just as War Thunder is compared to DCS World, and yet it can become addictive, and I myself played it for a while and WT was truly remarkable in functionality and ease of use.

Same applies for Weather effects - not the looks, although in some aspects I even prefer the looks in XP12. X-Plane offers believable / plausible simulation of effects like reduced visibility, which contrarily to MSFS, can be precisely defined according to RW observation, turbulence and convective effects (don't try to cross a Cb), effects such as that of low or high temperatures in the barometric altitude, runway contamination effects, and so on and so forth... No other flight simulator even added by some superb weather addons as Active Sky, does it so well IMO.

Then the airfields, their lighting, colours and overall scenery quality appeal a lot more to me in XP than in MSFS... I only really hope they can do something about the clouds at night ! Clouds completely vanish from view at night, and that's not realistic, and other sims like P3D and MSFS do it better.

Default ATC after the latest beta has become rather stable, functional and coherent. By far better in terms of details and coherency than default ATC in MSFS.

I just miss the possibility of having default XP12 ATC controlling traffic injected by external platforms, and the method used in X-Plane for native AI traffic injection is, IMO, heavy.

I am planning to buy monthly subscriptions of SayIntentions when I get the feedback from users that makes me think it's in good shape for me to try it. But it's an expensive tool 😕

 

 

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by jcomm

On 12/14/2024 at 7:31 AM, sfaviation said:

While I value the realism in planes X-Plane gives, I also want good graphics and a wide selection of aircraft that MSFS gives since addons for X-Plane are very much expensive. MSFS also is overbudget for me so thats why im debating if I should get that or X-Plane. Please give your thoughts on this.

If you ask this question in the xplane forums, you'll get answers tilted towards xplane. Likewise, if you were to ask in the MSFS forums you'll get answers tilted towards MSFS. Even among real world pilots you will get wildly varying responses on preferences. The best thing you can do is try both for yourself and make up your mind that way. With gamepass you'll be able to try MSFS for 14 days at the price of $1. You can also download the demo of xplane which allows you to fly for 15 minutes each session.

When it comes to the planes, I don't think that there is a general winner one way or the other. I personally find that your experience will come down to the specific planes you fly and the quality of the developers.

It seems like budget is a big concern for you though. If this is the case, keep in mind that third party planes for xplane is generally a bit more expensive than their counterparts on MSFS due to xplane's smaller userbase.

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by brinx

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Lejos de ser profesional aquí, solo planeadores privados ICAO, ahora EASA SPL actualmente esperando una verificación profesional porque no pasé el requisito de # aterrizajes en los últimos 24 meses para "experiencia reciente" (tengo las horas, me faltaron 3 de los 15 aterrizajes mínimos  😕  ) -  ... 44 años volando planeadores.

No me importa lo que escucho en Youtube, honestamente... No me importa si es un piloto de A320 o 737 o 744 ** Y ** youtuber... Si él/ella dice - "hey, ¡esto se siente exactamente como la cosa real!" - y no creo que sea así, me quedaré con mi punto de vista... lo siento...

Y por mucho que algunos intenten señalar lo "avanzado" que es este o aquel modelo de dinámica de vuelo de simulación, la sensación que me proporciona, algunas pruebas de coherencia y buenos complementos hacen que me decida por él.

Yo creo@Damian ClarkLa opinión de arriba es la mejor descripción de cómo lo veo. Estoy 100% de acuerdo con todo lo que escribió en su publicación, porque expresa exactamente lo que siento.

En MSFS ni siquiera me arriesgo a coger un planeador o un avión de hélice potente porque si lo hago seguro que se borrará de mi disco, así que, si lo uso, lo uso SÓLO con el Fenix 320. 

En Xp12 me siento cómodo con casi todos los aviones rotatorios, de ala fija e incluso planeadores, aunque soy crítico con algunas limitaciones en el diseño de planeadores de X-Plane, pero a menos que se trate de un avión muy mal diseñado, la coherencia siempre está ahí. Las pruebas de coherencia básicas dan una respuesta positiva, incluso si los aviones en particular pueden tener sus peculiaridades y limitaciones de modelado. X-Plane 12 es, en mi humilde opinión, con diferencia el mejor simulador de VUELO de propósito general y, comparado con él, en cuanto a vuelo, MSFS es un arcade puro, al igual que War Thunder lo es comparado con DCS World, y sin embargo puede volverse adictivo. Yo mismo lo jugué durante un tiempo y WT fue realmente notable en funcionalidad y facilidad de uso.

Lo mismo se aplica a los efectos meteorológicos, no a la apariencia, aunque en algunos aspectos incluso prefiero la apariencia en XP12. X-Plane ofrece una simulación creíble/plausible de efectos como la visibilidad reducida, que al contrario de MSFS, se puede definir con precisión según la observación RW, turbulencia y efectos convectivos (no intente cruzar un Cb), efectos como el de temperaturas bajas o altas en la altitud barométrica, efectos de contaminación de la pista, etcétera... Ningún otro simulador de vuelo, incluso añadido por algunos magníficos complementos meteorológicos como Active Sky, lo hace tan bien en mi opinión.

Los aeródromos, su iluminación, colores y la calidad general del escenario me parecen mucho más atractivos en XP que en MSFS... ¡Solo espero que puedan hacer algo con las nubes por la noche! Las nubes desaparecen por completo de la vista por la noche, y eso no es realista, y otros simuladores como P3D y MSFS lo hacen mejor.

El ATC predeterminado después de la última versión beta se ha vuelto bastante estable, funcional y coherente. Mucho mejor en términos de detalles y coherencia que el ATC predeterminado en MSFS.

Simplemente extraño la posibilidad de tener el ATC XP12 predeterminado controlando el tráfico inyectado por plataformas externas, y el método utilizado en X-Plane para la inyección de tráfico de IA nativa es, en mi opinión, pesado.

Estoy pensando en comprar suscripciones mensuales de SayIntentions cuando reciba comentarios de los usuarios que me hagan pensar que es una buena opción para probarlo. Pero es una herramienta cara 😕

 

 

I have said it many times on avsim, when Fenix came out and everything was wonderful for most of those pilots I stopped watching videos because either it had to be a lie that they are real pilots or they were blatantly lying looking as always for visualizations and other interests.

Then after a v2 and a few patches it turns out that V1 was not so wonderful.

PS Of course I have nothing against Fenix I think it is a great product I have it and I enjoy it.

 

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by Aglos77

22 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Also, MSFS is cheaper than X-Plane v12 ($60 vs $80), so not sure why you think MSFS is "overbudget"...?

The cheapest edition of FS2024 is 80€ on Steam, while X-Plane is 78€ (subject to currency conversion), so it's basically the same.

However, in terms of content, FS2024 has an advantage with its 70 aircraft (assuming they are all of equal quality).

8 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

I have said it many times on avsim, when Fenix came out and everything was rosy for most of those pilots I stopped watching videos because either it had to be a lie that they are real pilots or they were blatantly lying looking as always for visualizations and other interests.

Then after a v2 and a few patches it turns out that V1 was not so wonderful.

PS Of course I have nothing against Fenix I think it is a great product I have it and I enjoy it.

 

Hi,

One thing to keep in mind when referencing real world pilots... Through the process of elimination there is the best pilot that was every born and the worse pilot, I would imagine those that are touting the superiority of some aircraft as being close to real life are more than likely on the bottom end of that listing.

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

However, in terms of content, FS2024 has an advantage with its 70 aircraft (assuming they are all of equal quality).

Yes. And - as I said above - XP has the advantage of the airport sceneries because default ones are very good. In MSFS you will spend way more for airport sceneries. And since I am using way more different airports than addons, at least for me MSFS was more expesnive in general.