First of all I want to apologize for my bad English, I hope you guys can understand me well. Also I want to say that I don't only use X-plane for civil Aviation I also have MFS, both simulators have very high level addons and it is silly to close with only one simulator, but it is true that I spent 80% of the time with XP12.

1 The first and fundamental reason to use X-Plane as the main product is because we do not have to depend on the cloud, that some servers work well or the whim of some shareholders who decide to close the game service tomorrow.

2 Another point almost as important as the first. All development is focused on what I personally care about in this type of product, which is the most realistic simulation possible within the limitations of a software for home use, other players will logically have other personal preferences.

3 The economy, many complain that MFS addons are cheaper in general and it is true but it is also true that X-plane default airports are good enough to not need paid airports. In MFS I have had to invest quite a lot of money to have a minimally satisfactory airport experience and it takes a lot more airports than planes unless you are a guy who always travels to the same places.

4 Graphics. Personally as I have my simulator set up from 3k feet X-plane is much better than 2024. I usually fly in europe with ortho4xp with Sony mesh and orthos from Here Maps (-30 color saturation) is by far the best current combination for orthos because it has the most realistic colors (in the areas I know), if you add simheaven and Global Forest 2 the result is very good. Bing Maps very inferior in most places where I fly because of the less realistic color, saturated greens in mountains, burnt or melted buildings but mostly PG problems especially jungles of giant trees in semi desert or even desert climates makes me not feel comfortable flying in familiar areas.

5 Trust and closeness. I put this as the last point but it is of vital importance for me. I don't trust Asobo or Microsoft, it's as simple as that. This is not new but after seeing how they have acted with 2024 if I had little trust in them now my trust is 0 and we return to point 1, I have already commented here my experience with Google Stadia.

I will not go into the debate of flight model, interface and other topics that we have discussed ad nauseam, as I have already said there are good addons for most simulators and I really think you can have a very good experience in any oft hem.

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 20251 yr by Aglos77

What is the goal with this topic?
We all have different preferences, with how it is written it almost seems like you are looking for a fight, haha

I agree with you with a few caveats but I just don't see a point in starting this conversation, on AVSIM especially, there will always be someone to fight you on anything and everything you say.

1 hour ago, Base2Final said:

What is the goal with this topic?

To help some people uncertain to make a choice, based on discussed pros and cons.

Well, @Aglos77, thanks for sharing your thoughts, which are 100% my thoughts.

What you wrote above could have been written by me, no more / no less...

And, answering @Base2Final above:  Because a Forum is the best place to share our views an opinions, provided we do it in a respectful way, just as @Aglos77 did in his post.

For me the reason I poll AVSIM every day, sometimes many times per day, is to read or write posts about our hobby / passion and how it is lived by us simmers.

Great post @Aglos77 👏

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

To help some people uncertain to make a choice, based on discussed pros and cons

This post is unlikely to do XP12 any favors, especially when you talk about “trust” and don’t really support your opinion of better with specific examples.

However, these topics are usually deleted/closed pretty quickly as the X vs. Y vs. Z tends to devolve into distraction, chaos, and people not actually reading anything other than seeing “Xplane is better”.  People just avoid or ignore evidence of issues or divert to “well it does this better” … anything other than accept platform flaws/issues.

Showing video or image examples of X vs. Y is rarely tolerated.  And never ever use the word “game” … some seem to live by other’s justifications — the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I recall seeing a video and images showing the short detail load radius for buildings in MSFS 2020 vs. P3D, P3D was clearly rendering distance cities building in much greater density than MSFS.  But users of MSFS didn’t care and deflected to MSFS looks better. 

P3D, XP12, MSFS have good and bad but at the end of the “sales” day, the visuals and simplicity always win over anything else … many people (not all) are very much skin deep (for better or worse).

P3D, Orbx, AIG, HiFi, 42 (chaseplane), FSLabs A3xxx, MJC Q400, A2A is my preferred experience.

XP12, HotStart Challenger 650 and TBM 900 ($125+$70), IXEG 737, AutoOrtho, Orbx Global Forest, but still missing accurate buildings is my 2nd preferred experience.

MSFS + Google Map + 42 + AIG, PMDG is my 3rd preferred experience.

What would be nice is if all 3 platforms shared common scenery file specification so I could use a single download data set for all.  As it stands right now I have about 10TB for XP12, 3TB MSFS, 8TB P3D.  I mean think of it, sharing scenery file specifications … it’s just data, but hey let’s keep the X vs. Y vs. Z going … I mean what else is there to do? 😉 

15 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

This post is unlikely to do XP12 any favors

Why?

16 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

However, these topics are usually deleted/closed pretty quickly as the X vs. Y vs. Z tends to devolve into distraction, chaos, and people not actually reading anything other than seeing “Xplane is better”

That‘s exactly what you did with your reaction.

17 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Showing video or image examples of X vs. Y is rarely tolerated

Where have you seen such?

17 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

And never ever use the word “game” …

The word game is mostly used by users of another sim, who have the mindest „nevef use the word flightsim“. I also don‘t see the how that is related to the topic discussed here.

20 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

I recall seeing a video and images showing the short detail load radius for buildings in MSFS 2020 vs. P3D, P3D was clearly rendering distance cities building in much greater density than MSFS.  But users of MSFS didn’t care and deflected to MSFS looks better. 

Happy to see that you also had to deal with such hardcore-believers.

21 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

P3D, XP12, MSFS have good and bad but at the end of the “sales” day, the visuals and simplicity always win over anything else

That‘s exactly what we wanted to emphasize here: what are XP‘s pros. And I disagree that visuals will win over, otherwise we wouldn‘t see so much users using XP.

23 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

P3D, Orbx, AIG, HiFi, 42 (chaseplane), FSLabs A3xxx, MJC Q400, A2A is my preferred experience.

XP12, HotStart Challenger 650 and TBM 900 ($125+$70), IXEG 737, AutoOrtho, Orbx Global Forest, but still missing accurate buildings is my 2nd preferred experience.

MSFS + Google Map + 42 + AIG, PMDG is my 3rd preferred experience.

It would have been interested to know more about the reasons for your choice for XP.

Trust... We can talk about the abandonment of FS for years, the premature death of Microsoft Flight, the downgrades due to Xbox, the hidden status of 2024 that can't even be considered Beta (what a coincidence that just before su15 and 2024 there are no more public tests and just now they are again), videos like this.... etc., etc., etc..

This is just my opinion other people may think differently but I already have a few years and as they say in my land "I've seen all colors" in this world of video games.

Edited February 16, 20251 yr by Aglos77

5 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Why?

Because very few care about "trust", so long as whatever it is they bought brings them some form of enjoyment that's enough.  You can get more interest and/or show the world XP12 by making nice videos demonstrating XP12, unaltered screen captures of XP12, show features that many probably didn't even know existed in XP12, basically show all the things XP12 can't do and avoid anything regarding another simulator platform.  Show users how to quickly get the best out of XP12 ... I personally don't mine "tweaks" at all, but for some tweaking is a big turn-off.

No guarantee that will bring awareness because some will say the video was "edited" (without any context), but for those more astute users it might develop into more interest in XP12.

But going on about MSFS and "trust" and other platforms only brings attention to those platforms and not XP12.

My choice to use XP12 was primarily driven by those aircraft I listed.

My choice to use P3D is primarily driven by planning full trip from A to B with high degree of accuracy in time, distance, fuel consumption, weather.

My choice to use MSFS is because it's fun and has pretty good visuals and global coverage.

 

Edited February 17, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Because very few care about "trust", so long as whatever it is they bought brings them some form of enjoyment that's enough.  You can get more interest and/or show the world XP12 by making nice videos demonstrating XP12, unaltered screen captures of XP12, show features that many probably didn't even know existed in XP12, basically show all the things XP12 can't do and avoid anything regarding another simulator platform.  Show users how to quickly get the best out of XP12 ... I personally don't mine "tweaks" at all, but for some tweaking is a big turn-off.

No guarantee that will bring awareness because some will say the video was "edited" (without any context), but for those more astute users it might develop into more interest in XP12.

But going on about MSFS and "trust" and other platforms only brings attention to those platforms and not XP12.

My choice to use XP12 was primarily driven by those aircraft I listed.

My choice to use P3D is primarily driven by planning full trip from A to B with high degree of accuracy in time, distance, fuel consumption, weather.

My choice to use MSFS is because it's fun and has pretty good visuals and global coverage.

 

Yes! This is the way- Use multiple sims for their different strengths. I use X-Plane because; I have easier IFR proficiency training in X-Plane with built in foreflight/garmin pilot connections, easier to set myself up on an approach with the click of a button on the control pad, I like the modification available for X-Plane so it can be tuned to my visual expectations, whereas MSFS has GREAT VFR Out of the box and it is a more "fun feeling" GA simulator to fly around with friends on. Two sims, two different reasons to do them.
The way sim "debate" should be done. Without unneeded biases

9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Porque a muy pocos les importa la "confianza", siempre y cuando lo que hayan comprado les proporcione algún tipo de disfrute que sea suficiente. Puedes conseguir más interés y/o mostrar al mundo XP12 haciendo buenos vídeos que demuestren XP12, capturas de pantalla inalteradas de XP12, mostrando características que muchos probablemente ni siquiera sabían que existían en XP12, mostrando básicamente todas las cosas que XP12 no puede hacer y evitando cualquier cosa relacionada con otra plataforma de simulación. Muestra a los usuarios cómo sacar rápidamente lo mejor de XP12... Personalmente, no busco "ajustes" en absoluto, pero para algunos los ajustes son un gran desincentivo.

No hay garantía de que esto genere conciencia porque algunos dirán que el video fue "editado" (sin ningún contexto), pero para aquellos usuarios más astutos podría generar más interés en XP12.

Pero hablar de MSFS, la "confianza" y otras plataformas sólo atrae la atención hacia esas plataformas y no hacia XP12.

Mi elección de utilizar XP12 estuvo motivada principalmente por los aviones que enumeré.

Mi elección de utilizar P3D se debe principalmente a la planificación de un viaje completo de A a B con un alto grado de precisión en tiempo, distancia, consumo de combustible y clima.

Mi elección de utilizar MSFS es porque es divertido y tiene muy buenas imágenes y cobertura global.

 

The problem is when a product is sold as a service and one of the parties has the button to unilaterally disconnect when they decide to do so, then the enjoyment ends. 

That's why trust is important for me at this point because apart from buying the simulator you can spend a lot of money on addons and that's why for me it's a critical point, other people won't care and everyone can value their money and their time as they prefer.

46 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

The problem is when a product is sold as a service and one of the parties has the button to unilaterally disconnect when they decide to do so, then the enjoyment ends. 

That's why trust is important for me at this point because apart from buying the simulator you can spend a lot of money on addons and that's why for me it's a critical point, other people won't care and everyone can value their money and their time as they prefer.

My decision although I fear exactly the same was - since I purchased FS 2024 Standard and enjoy it so much, I will use it the most I can just as I use X-Plane 12 ( which I enjoy as much as I do MSFS, for different reasons ).

I stopped worrying about what will happen to either X-Plane or MSFS, and instead I concentrate on how much I can get from both, which are AMAZING flight simulators, and both give me, never at the same time, because I can't play two sims at the same time, and prefer to spend 15 days with one, then 15 days with the other, wash and rinse...

In Xp12 I have the best feel of flight, the best colours, in some aspects the best weather effects, the best default ATC, and some really great addons, some actually free !

In MSFS I have an astoundingly close to reality scenery, even if not as well coloured and lighted as in Xp12, great functionality with even some of the default aircraft, Career mode, Activities and Challenges, and a couple addons that complement it's major limitations like ASFS and RealTurb, BATC or FSHUD and FSLTL or AIG.

I stopped blocking myself from enjoying the present and fearing about the future 🙂

 

Edited February 17, 20251 yr by jcomm

22 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

First of all I want to apologize for my bad English, I hope you guys can understand me well. Also I want to say that I don't only use X-plane for civil Aviation I also have MFS, both simulators have very high level addons and it is silly to close with only one simulator, but it is true that I spent 80% of the time with XP12.

1 The first and fundamental reason to use X-Plane as the main product is because we do not have to depend on the cloud, that some servers work well or the whim of some shareholders who decide to close the game service tomorrow.

Agreed 100%. This cloud thing is a Damocles sword over MSFS users heads.

22 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

2 Another point almost as important as the first. All development is focused on what I personally care about in this type of product, which is the most realistic simulation possible within the limitations of a software for home use, other players will logically have other personal preferences.

I agree as well that Austin is focusing on the simulation part most of the times. However I'm also glad that with XPlane12 they finally decided to bump up a bit the graphics side, because it was really needed, and not only for the fashion. I can tell you that the XP11 flashing ground shadows and 2D clouds in VR were a complete pain. Graphical advances are sometimes also part of the realism.

22 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

3 The economy, many complain that MFS addons are cheaper in general and it is true but it is also true that X-plane default airports are good enough to not need paid airports. In MFS I have had to invest quite a lot of money to have a minimally satisfactory airport experience and it takes a lot more airports than planes unless you are a guy who always travels to the same places.

Indeed, the XPlane scenery gateway makes the default airports very pleasant. However, I think your way to describe the situation on the MSFS side a bit unfair. There are tons of freeware sceneries for MSFS, and within the world updates you also get some payware-quality airports for some well-known places. So the "must get payware or get nothing" description is not very adequate.

22 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

4 Graphics. Personally as I have my simulator set up from 3k feet X-plane is much better than 2024. I usually fly in europe with ortho4xp with Sony mesh and orthos from Here Maps (-30 color saturation) is by far the best current combination for orthos because it has the most realistic colors (in the areas I know), if you add simheaven and Global Forest 2 the result is very good. Bing Maps very inferior in most places where I fly because of the less realistic color, saturated greens in mountains, burnt or melted buildings but mostly PG problems especially jungles of giant trees in semi desert or even desert climates makes me not feel comfortable flying in familiar areas.

The SimHeaven autogen is really excellent, and yes indeed you can get very nice orthoscenery using the correct tool and source. However, you can also choose your source for orthos in MSFS as well. Some use Google, Arcgis or Bing latest, not sure about the other possible sources, but it just depends on where you're flying.

Finally, about the photogrammetry, I don't understand why you include it in this comparison ? If you don't like it, just disable it and enjoy full autogen. People saying "XP12 scenery looks much better because in MSFS the PG buildings are melted" make it sound like the PG is mandatory. For the uninformed readers out there, not only PG covers only very specific and limited places on the globe, but it also an option that can be turned OFF. 

22 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

5 Trust and closeness. I put this as the last point but it is of vital importance for me. I don't trust Asobo or Microsoft, it's as simple as that. This is not new but after seeing how they have acted with 2024 if I had little trust in them now my trust is 0 and we return to point 1, I have already commented here my experience with Google Stadia.

Agree 100%. I use both XP12 and MSFS, and for MSFS it's like "enjoy it while it lasts" kind of mentality for me.

22 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

I will not go into the debate of flight model, interface and other topics that we have discussed ad nauseam, as I have already said there are good addons for most simulators and I really think you can have a very good experience in any oft hem.

Ah yes, let's avoid talking about the MSFS2024 UIs. I've just finished my lunch and I would hate to loose it 😄

On 2/16/2025 at 3:05 PM, Base2Final said:

What is the goal with this topic?

The goal? the Nothing.
It's the same old "XPlane vs MSFS" story where someone entertains the crowd by highlighting the merits (but not the defects) of a product compared to another competing product (of which only the defects are highlighted, not the merits). 🥱

41 minutes ago, efis007 said:

The goal? the Nothing.
It's the same old "XPlane vs MSFS" story where someone entertains the crowd by highlighting the merits (but not the defects) of a product compared to another competing product (of which only the defects are highlighted, not the merits). 🥱

The "this sim is better because I like it more"

5 hours ago, Daube said:

Finally, about the photogrammetry, I don't understand why you include it in this comparison ? If you don't like it, just disable it and enjoy full autogen. People saying "XP12 scenery looks much better because in MSFS the PG buildings are melted" make it sound like the PG is mandatory. For the uninformed readers out there, not only PG covers only very specific and limited places on the globe, but it also an option that can be turned OFF.

Just watched an on/off comparison video from 2020 and 2024 and it's interesting how limited the autogen object pool is. Good facade textures and generic buildings, but not even generic landmarks like churches or TV towers. Maybe I watched videos from the wrong areas, I honestly expected more detail and variety out of the box, especially from a simulator that prides itself on its scenery. Considering that OpenStreetMap as a source is free, it shouldn't be too hard for MS to use the data in their autogen system instead of just their footprints. But maybe they're providing better autogen data with their region updates... 🤷‍♂️