8 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

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.

This ^^^^^^^^
You must spend a fortune on airports for MSFS, yet I'm fully satisfied with default XP11/12 airports. In other hand, when using Autoortho or similar, there will be elevation issues, either on hte runway, or the whole airport being flattened, below or above the nearby scenery. Saw it many times, and it kills the immersion. Truth to be told, it doesn't happen with default scenery (which is awful to say at least).

5 hours ago, Bjoern said:

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).

Thanks for the correction! 👍

Slight deviation, as I still see MSFS v2024 Standard as $70.00, and v2020 Standard as $60, and XP as $80.

As you say, though, practically the same price. 🙂

In re that, I was picking up on OP's statement that money is really tight, so even the $10 savings might be important to him (though it's a small amount when spread over the years of use).

The Default aircraft in MSFS v2024 are of varying quality, with the older ones (generally) being the lowest fidelity.

The newer ones are definitely Payware quality, though. Not necessarily "Study Level", but definitely deep enough to remain engaging over time.

XP v12's Defaults are, IMHO, somewhat similar. E.g., the old 737 definitely needs a refresh, but then we did get a good A330 added, and I genuinely enjoy most of the rest of them (except that ancient S-76. It should go to wherever the B-52 went).

All that said, I think the main advantage of MSFS comes down to high fidelity scenery, as well as the regular addition of new content (like the 40th Anniv planes, the world & city updates, etc.). No, I don't think it's just a "scenery game", as there are a growing list of High Fidelity aircraft addons available over there. 😉

On the flip side, I generally get more enjoyment out of flying in XP, and I find myself willing to go to the work of modding the scenery to look more photo realistic, or picking up the TrueEarth regions when on sale. And let's not forget that the Default airports in X-Plane are generally better than in MSFS, too. 🙂

Combine that with addons like SimCoders REP, AirFoil Labs, or Hot Start, and X-Plane remains a GREAT simulation experience!

Oh, and did I mention helicopters? 🙂

 

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta
correction

21 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, sir.

According to Steam, the base simulators cost is:

X-Plane v11 = $30

MSFS v2020 = $60

MSFS v2024 = $70

X-Plane v12 = $80

14 hours ago, Damian Clark said:

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.

I overall agree with your sentiment. HOWEVER... 😉

MSFS v2020 and v2024 are significantly more accurate flight simulators than Prepar3D.

Yet Prepar3D is in use RIGHT NOW to train IRL .mil and .com and .gov pilots.

So....

(ETA: same with DCS World. Not as realistic a flight simulator as X-Plane or MSFS, yet still in use for IRL .mil training)

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta
2nd point

12 hours ago, Franz007 said:

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.

Yes, but...

There are an astounding number (many thousands) of FREE airport sceneries available for MSFS on FlightSim.to

So the cost argument is moot.

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

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.

 

Agree with your sentiment, but... 🙂

Add the FSR500 and A2A Sims Comanche to MSFS (and thank me later).

I have both. MSFS2020 was a really good simulator. I can't say the same about MSFS2024 as it's RIDDLED with horrible bugs. On some aircraft (XCub, 737 MAX), the lighting doesn't even work. As in you can't turn on NAV and BEACON and see anything... or landing lights for that matter. It's bonkers how broken default aircraft in 24 is. XP12 is always enjoyable. 

49 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Yes, but...

There are an astounding number (many thousands) of FREE airport sceneries available for MSFS on FlightSim.to

So the cost argument is moot.

True but I think many end up buying the best they can. And there are tons of freeware addon-aircrafts for XP, so the argument of more default aircrafts is moot too.

Edited December 15, 20241 yr by Franz007

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

MSFS v2020 and v2024 are significantly more accurate flight simulators than Prepar3D.

I just don't agree, but it's just my outlier opinion, I guess. I think the terms "accurate" and "flight simulator" are subjective. I'd likely define those terms much differently than you, and that's perfectly ok.  Cheers.

1 hour ago, Damian Clark said:

I just don't agree, but it's just my outlier opinion, I guess. I think the terms "accurate" and "flight simulator" are subjective. I'd likely define those terms much differently than you, and that's perfectly ok.  Cheers.

Well, there's certainly room for subjectivity in a topic as broad as flight simulation.

It'd be good to hear your definition of why P3D is a more accurate flight sim than MSFS, and by extension it seems, as good as X-Plane...?

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Well, there's certainly room for subjectivity in a topic as broad as flight simulation.

It'd be good to hear your definition of why P3D is a more accurate flight sim than MSFS, and by extension it seems, as good as X-Plane...?

Quote

Yet Prepar3D is in use RIGHT NOW to train IRL .mil and .com and .gov pilots.

In this context you spoke of, for military, commercial and government pilot training, I don't think MSFS is suitable at all. The reasons are many and obvious I think. P3D is and is actively being used for that and has certified options. Compared to the other certified alternatives, it's not a bad value for many tasks. That is why I think it's more accurate than MSFS in this way. As for XP vs. P3D in this context, I prefer XP since it's being actively developed and likely always will be. I also like LR, and how they are very open and responsive to the 3rd party development community, and are trying to encourage it, which is always nice to see. 

13 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Agree with your sentiment, but... 🙂

Add the FSR500 and A2A Sims Comanche to MSFS (and thank me later).

I have the Comanche @UrgentSiesta... honestly didn't like it in FS 2020 😕 and haven't ported it to FS 2024...

The FSR500 I never tried, but simply picking the SR 22 reveals how much more limited modeling wise MSFS is compared for instance with X-Plane 12... For instance you simply STILL CAN't ( since fs9 ) correctly model free castoring wheels ! No way !

In the SR 22 and many other GA aircraft you have that type of wheel and have to rely mostly on asymmetric braking and propwash as soon as it becomes effective over the tail surfaces, to control your aircrat, during taxi and during takeoff.. Forget about that in MSFS... 

You can't model, at least not yet and it doesn't look like it has ever been mentioned, skewed engines, vertical stabilizers, or even use ground set trim tabs to overcome, for instance, prop effects. Actually most of the time you don't actually have to worry about prop effects in MSFS because they're practically non existent above Vs(1)... same as since fs9....

You can firewall the throttle in the most powerful aerobatic prop, and it'll follow along practically without any hint of bank or yaw (inflight), or have totally uncontrollable prop aircraft on the takeoff run that simply don't match at all their real world counterparts, like even the most sophisticated WW2 addons for FS 2020 and 2024 ...

Gliders / soaring are simply a joke in MSFS - I don't even load them or try to soar because it's going to end up in an uninstall...

It's so far @UrgentSiesta... so so far ... and yet, at the same time, I love it's graphics and World Scenery so much 😞 , yet if I try to use other than the Fenix 320 I always end up washing my stomach with Condorsoaring or XP12 or DCS, or even IL2...

Rotary wing are certainly better than they ever were before MSFS 2020 BUT! still far from acceptable as a coherent example of rotaries... with excessive / totally unrealistic rotor inertias, and so on and so forth, but at least yes, better than up to FSX / P3D...

In terms of functionality as a whole, MSFS is very good, BUT! there are simply unacceptable limitations, some functional and with impact on the way you can deal with instruments, like when you pop out a gauge and when interacting with it you lose control of the aircraft because as your mouse overs on a popped out gauge you no longer have access to your controllers 😕

MSFS is pretty much a War Thunder of civil flight simulation. I played War Thunder with the same mindset I play FS 2024 - it's load and play, has great challenges that OFC feel arcade when it comes to the way the aircraft behave, even has this new Career mode ( haven't tried it... ), but that's about all, and yes, it's much in terms of scenery, but no good if you're after a more realistic **FLIGHT** experience.

 

Edited December 16, 20241 yr by jcomm

9 hours ago, jcomm said:

I have the Comanche @UrgentSiesta... honestly didn't like it in FS 2020 😕 and haven't ported it to FS 2024...

The FSR500 I never tried, but simply picking the SR 22 reveals how much more limited modeling wise MSFS is compared for instance with X-Plane 12... For instance you simply STILL CAN't ( since fs9 ) correctly model free castoring wheels ! No way !

In the SR 22 and many other GA aircraft you have that type of wheel and have to rely mostly on asymmetric braking and propwash as soon as it becomes effective over the tail surfaces, to control your aircrat, during taxi and during takeoff.. Forget about that in MSFS... 

You can't model, at least not yet and it doesn't look like it has ever been mentioned, skewed engines, vertical stabilizers, or even use ground set trim tabs to overcome, for instance, prop effects. Actually most of the time you don't actually have to worry about prop effects in MSFS because they're practically non existent above Vs(1)... same as since fs9....

You can firewall the throttle in the most powerful aerobatic prop, and it'll follow along practically without any hint of bank or yaw (inflight), or have totally uncontrollable prop aircraft on the takeoff run that simply don't match at all their real world counterparts, like even the most sophisticated WW2 addons for FS 2020 and 2024 ...

Gliders / soaring are simply a joke in MSFS - I don't even load them or try to soar because it's going to end up in an uninstall...

It's so far @UrgentSiesta... so so far ... and yet, at the same time, I love it's graphics and World Scenery so much 😞 , yet if I try to use other than the Fenix 320 I always end up washing my stomach with Condorsoaring or XP12 or DCS, or even IL2...

Rotary wing are certainly better than they ever were before MSFS 2020 BUT! still far from acceptable as a coherent example of rotaries... with excessive / totally unrealistic rotor inertias, and so on and so forth, but at least yes, better than up to FSX / P3D...

In terms of functionality as a whole, MSFS is very good, BUT! there are simply unacceptable limitations, some functional and with impact on the way you can deal with instruments, like when you pop out a gauge and when interacting with it you lose control of the aircraft because as your mouse overs on a popped out gauge you no longer have access to your controllers 😕

MSFS is pretty much a War Thunder of civil flight simulation. I played War Thunder with the same mindset I play FS 2024 - it's load and play, has great challenges that OFC feel arcade when it comes to the way the aircraft behave, even has this new Career mode ( haven't tried it... ), but that's about all, and yes, it's much in terms of scenery, but no good if you're after a more realistic **FLIGHT** experience.

 

Well that's quite a bit more of a response than I expected!

The point isn't that those two add-ons raise MSFS to the level of X-Plane or beyond, but rather that they're the best I've found in MSFS so far - and they are both very, very good by ANY measure.

I'm mildly shocked that you didn't like the Comanche - as in P3D, there's no other light GA pistons id rather fly in MSFS.

The FSR isn't without fault, either (lack of prop drag is an issue), but it is a finely finished addon in all regards.

When combining either of those two (as perhaps you with the Fenix (I'm not an Airbus guy)), the overall flight sim experience is the most immersive outside of sitting behind an IRL bugsmasher yoke that I've come across.

And yeah, visuals are a HUGE part of immersion due to those two bags of jelly sitting just underneath our eyebrows 😁

AND I agree with you that XP generally does a better job on flight models and related physics. (I spent most of yesterday tuning up XP after a clean install to a new NVME drive, and of course my testing mount was the new JF Piper Arrow III + REP. It's a blissful experience - even on our normal gusty days).

Yeah - THAT combo in XP takes me back to my fledgling pilot days like nothing else. When it comes to "basic" pilotage, there's no other desktop training aid I'd rather have.

An interesting side question, though, is, "Why do we need REP in XP...?". That's for another time. 🙂

And I agree that there are highly sophisticated add-ons with incredible fidelity in XP for all types of aircraft. The list is both long and well known.

But that's where the rub comes in...

There are ALSO some absolute stinker flight models in XP, along with some stinker systems and stinker 3D models where one has to wonder where the add-ons dev obtained their reference information.

And as a fellow enjoyer of DCSW, I'm sure you can agree that XP mil jets, in particular, are standout exemplars of where XP consistently gets it WRONG (And have no doubt, MSFS is even more disappointing in that regard).

One has only to note Austin's own dev blog from V12 to see that he hadn't included accurate mil jet planforms in the aero model (and mil jet planforms aren't all that unique when it comes to high speed aircraft).

And that there had previously been significant gaps in the rotary model, too.

So while it's true that v11 had an excellent aero/physics model, it was far from perfect.

Just as I'm sure that v12's, while significantly improved, is still far from perfect as well.

BtW: as long as I'm dragging DCSW into the mix, let's acknowledge that it, too, has significant flight simulation problems. The primary one being Weather of any sort other than visually pretty clouds and ice halos.

And that many DCSW flight models have problems, too. E.g., as good as the helo FM's are, VRS, et al, are reportedly quite over-done. Which is better than missing, but still problematic.

So, as with all things in life, it comes down to a matter of subjective and variable priorities and the compromises necessary to meet them.

And that the fidelity of the experience is determined as much by the addon developer as it is the sim itself.

We agree that XP is generally better for flight, but let us never delude ourselves that every addon in XP is a masterpiece of aero/systems fidelity. I.e., just because it exists in the sim doesn't mean every addon magically inherits the capability.

 

Edited December 16, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta
clarification

I agree @UrgentSiesta, and trying to answer your REP question, it's kind of simple in my way of looking at the XP platform.

It offers by default the tools ( PlaneMaker and AirfoilMaker ) that make it totally different from a game like MSFS, allowing users, and not only developers, to try and learn many aspects of aerodynamics, 3d modelling, etc... but it's a general purpose engine and tools, so, nuances that characterize specific aircraft performnaces, can easily be missed by it's approach, including BeT, and also in the systems modelling, which is probably more detailed than the default in MSFS, but can still lack specificities.

So developers will need plugins to overcome those limitations, or ask for "tricks" to be allowed, like hidden variable wing geometry to be able to capture details of performance of the real aircraft that they fail to achieve using the default tools provided by XP12 's SDK.

Talented and expert developers like Totoro do their thing externally, create sophisticated libraries for jet turbine modelling, etc...

Apparently in DCSW, the base model SDK is rather crude, and complex, and each aircraft is created almost from scratch and fine tuned way beyond the default SDK. That's why you can distinguish a special feel from ED or MILTECH compared top other developers who don't have access to the same sources of information, including sophisticated CDF tools. Yet some aspects of the simulations, like weather and it's "configuration", as you pointed out, still leave a lot to be desired, other than the looks, and approaches like turning crosswind components to zero bellow a given speed on ground while taxing, starting your takeoff run or at the end of your rollout, feel very basic and away from realistic.

But as you say, from it's base, X-Plane starts with an approach to flight dynamics, engine and even systems and weather that is much more professional and well structured than what we have in MSFS, which is more like a "patchwork" of the Legacy fsx FM with a "CFD" approach, which is far from being true CFD, although I can sympathize with their idea... 

In the end, and unless it's a FBW aircraft with all systems fully operational, if you pick the same GA, helicopter, etc and go flying it in X-Plane 12, it's a different league, a different feel, a session where you can use real world techniques to overcome it's tricky flight characteristics if they exist in the real thing. Not quite like that, not even by far, in MSFS.

 

Edited December 16, 20241 yr by jcomm

41 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I agree @UrgentSiesta, and trying to answer your REP question, it's kind of simple in my way of looking at the XP pltform.

It offers by default the tools ( PlaneMaker and AirfoilMaker ) that make it totally different from a game like MSFS, allowing users, and not only developers, to try and learn many aspects of aerodynamics, 3d modelling, etc... but it's a general purpose engine and tools, so, nuances that characterize specific aircraft can easily be missed by it's approach, including BeT, and also in the systems modelling, which is probably more detailed than the default in MSFS, but can still lack specificities.

So developers will need plugins to overcome those limitations, or ask for "tricks" to be allowed, like hidden variable wing geometry to be able to capture details of performance of the real aircraft that they fail to achieve using the default tools provided by XP12 's SDK.

Talented and expert developers like Totoro do their thing externally, create sophisticated libraries for jet turbine modelling, etc...

Apparently in DCSW, the base model SDK is rather crude, and complex, and each aircraft is created almost from scratch and fine tuned way beyond the default SDK. That's why you can distinguish a special feel from ED or MILTECH compared top other developers who don't have access to the same sources of information, including sophisticated CDF tools.

But as you say, from it's base, X-Plane starts with an approach to flight dynamics, engine and even systems and weather that is much more professional and well structured than what we have in MSFS, which is more like a "patchwork" of the Legacy fsx FM with a "CFD" approach, which is far from being true CFD, although I can sympathize with their idea... 

 

Yes, agree on pretty much all of this! 🤙

I'm "a bit" less critical of MSFS than you are, but we agree on the top line ideas.