Very interesting. So it seems some people don't know what default means or perhaps the definition changes as it suits them depending on the situation. Just to be clear, default means, out of the box. It doesn't matter who does what, how it was paid for, which company was involved, all of that means zilch, as long as the software offers the feature to consumers, by default, it's default, whether it's satellite imagery streaming or the iniA321. I can understand why this reality may make it difficult for some people to sleep at night but that's the reality.

Default would pretty much end the longevity of any platform ... is that really what you want?  Don't really understand you point of distinction.

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

Default would pretty much end the longevity of any platform ... is that really what you want?  Don't really understand you point of distinction.

My post was about the distinction of what is and isn't default. Any platform can only put so many default features in it and in most cases a third party dev can still do it better. There's nothing wrong with setting new standards for what a default feature is and MS has done a very good job of that and it makes the platform more attractive to new comers. 

8 hours ago, Krakin said:

Any platform can only put so many default features in it and in most cases a third party dev can still do it better

Most of the “Default” aircraft in MSFS 2024 are from contracted 3rd party developers.  I’ll disagree, $199 for the Aviator version was disappointing and frankly a waste of “default” additions.  I would recommend the base MSFS 2024 and then get higher quality content that one wants.  Bunch of mediocre aircraft isn’t really what I wanted for $199.  For example GB North, South Center from Orbx is considerably better than “default” scenery in the Aviator version.

7 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Most of the “Default” aircraft in MSFS 2024 are from contracted 3rd party developers.  I’ll disagree, $199 for the Aviator version was disappointing and frankly a waste of “default” additions.  I would recommend the base MSFS 2024 and then get higher quality content that one wants.  Bunch of mediocre aircraft isn’t really what I wanted for $199.  For example GB North, South Center from Orbx is considerably better than “default” scenery in the Aviator version.

Well you're cherry picking things. You opted for the aviator version with aircraft that need work but that does not take away from the fact that 2024 still has the best default line up of aircraft by a very wide margin. The inclusion of Working Title's avionics alone makes this a fact.

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

The inclusion of Working Title's avionics alone makes this a fact

Why?  WT avionics is no better than any quality 3rd party product.  

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

Well you're cherry picking things

Not sure what this means, doesn’t seem to make any sense in this context.  What am I cherry picking?

I think “Default” depends on the buyers focus, if you’re a casual simmer/gamer, then Default might work for you.  If you’re more into details and flight physics and systems, then more Default is just a waste to money.  But if one if financially strapped then Default could be an attractive option.

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

Why?  WT avionics is no better than any quality 3rd party product.  

Ok I don't even know what you're talking about or trying to disagree with at this point. If the WT avionics are just as good as any 3rd party product then you are actually reinforcing my point. WT avionics are default.

You're focusing on planes in the aviator pack when there's a ton of other really good ones in the lower packages. That's the cherry picking I'm talking about.

Now, just for clarity, my original point was that a default plane or feature is default no matter how it found its way in the base sim. Someone was trying to argue that since iniBuilds made the default A321, it's not default and that's a load of nonsense. It's offered with the sim so it's default. That's all I was saying.

xp12 -  a320 neo /  a330 neo / a321 neo 

ms2020 - fenix /  pmdg b738 and 777w / inibuilds 350  (although parked as its rubbish) 

Use both, like both for different reasons...

They're both great.

Also own Condor 3 and Aerofly FS4... And DCS and IL 2

Edited May 31, 20251 yr by jcomm

P3D (5.4) ,XP 12 ,MSFS 2020:

P3D

Highly customizable ,with new mesh  and ortho 12 t.b. of world wide ortho scenery and made by a single guy in Chile make it competitive to the scenery in MSFS .Still has the most awarded aircraft and when made for 5.4 outshine all the other platforms. It needs tinkering and patience and time……

XP 12 :

Incredible weather and atmospheric vibrant and lively community.Dated scenery make it a lFR only Simulation 

It can be moved from drive to drive without uninstalling and it can be driven by a modest pc specs .

MSFS 2020:

The only one you need when  you need it 

A gold mine of scenery  whether modules on and on

Compatibility with a wide range of apps 

Call it a Sim or a game 

It’s the best 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 20251 yr by Stefti

14 hours ago, Stefti said:

Dated scenery make it a lFR only Simulation 

So, you praise P3D saying it can be modded up with mesh and ortho and then say that XP has dated scenery? It was at that point your mini comparison lost all credibility. 

Edited June 2, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

Indeed that description of XP12 is not really correct there 😕

I mean, P3D has the most outdated scenery of all current sims by far, if we talk about default content. Now, if we consider adding the famous ortho sceneries that were mentioned here, then the scenery does become a bit more pleasant indeed... but then that's not default anymore. The very same action can be performed in XP12.

Let's also remind that contrary to P3D, XP12 provides good looking lighting and good looking clouds, two things I have not seen in any recent screenshots or videos posted from P3Dv5 or v6. Based on this, I would say that P3D is in fact the real "IFR-only" simulator, like  "don't get your eyes away from these gauges or your eyes will bleed - IFR" sim. 🙂

EDIT: that being said, if I remember correctly, P3D includes some specific landclass data by default which might bring some degree of accuracy compared to the default world in XP12. On the other hand, the scenery gateway in XP12 does bring much more detailed airfields to its default content that anything in P3D...

Edited June 2, 20251 yr by Daube

On 6/2/2025 at 2:15 AM, Daube said:

Let's also remind that contrary to P3D, XP12 provides good looking lighting and good looking clouds, two things I have not seen in any recent screenshots or videos posted from P3Dv5 or v6.

Yes, but...

It seems like LM have significantly improved the visuals of v6, at least from what I've seen. Not to the same degree as XP/MSFS, but...

Sadly, my favorite P3D addon, the MilViz T-38C, is forever stuck on v5.

And I'm not adventurous enough to gamble in being able to hack it to work in v6 to justify the purchase.

On 5/30/2025 at 6:43 PM, CO2Neutral said:

$199 for the Aviator version was disappointing and frankly a waste of “default” additions.  I would recommend the base MSFS 2024 and then get higher quality content that one wants.  Bunch of mediocre aircraft isn’t really what I wanted for $199.  

The Aviators extras were never Defaults.  They were always paid add-ons and IIRC, each one of them ended up getting a review since they were originally standalone payware releases.

And they were never billed as nor sold as Hi Fi add-ons, and certainly all the reviews reflected that (especially e.g. the AH 707).

I bought the Avs Ed and think it was a pretty good way to score a great discount on a bunch of uncommon aircraft that are otherwise unavailable.

Maybe not a good value if you're strictly a flight simmer seeking realism, but definitely good for someone like me who just likes aircraft and history.