I've been using XP12 now for a few weeks.  every time I load it I marvel how it portrays the world, but many simmers never get to see what's possible with it.  They see comparison videos that often try to show XP12 in a poor light.  MSFS cannot create a scene as realistic as this screeshot.

I had a discussion on the MSFS forum where an individual tried XP12.  He compared the default XP12 with the default MSFS2024.  I suggested he try the Map Enhancement Tool to better compare the two products, but his thought was why bother installing and configuring an addon when he already has worldwide satellite imagery in MSFS - a valid point.  Secondly he noted how soft the clouds looked close up, where MSFS clouds were sharper, again a valid point.

I am so glad I persevered with XP12, installing and configuring addons to get the exceptional visuals.  I may have missed a topic like this, but has/is Laminar considering integrating a tool like the Map Enhancement tool into XP12?  Just this one step would probably get a lot more simmers onboard.  Other comments are the excessive Haze, with some really negative comments about it, another reason why many don't get past the demo.  I am using the Lua script 'Haze Adjust' to just tame the haze a little, resulting in a view more likely to please, especially when anyone is used to the clean skies of MSFS.

I have no idea how well XP12 is doing in the market place, but it must be losing out many sales to MSFS from what I have described above.

I kind of agree with you, namely in that Laminar doesn't have the best "marketing", but given their team is so much smaller, their budget even more that MASOBO, I'm glad they give their users the support they give.

Some of them are actually active af forums like AVSIM and the ORG, and you don't have anywhere near that from ASOBO, quite on the contrary...

Then they all seem to focus a lot more in details that are important for aviation simulation, like systems, weather, ATC and their strongest component - aerodynamics - contrarily to what appears to happen with ASOBO where their knowledge in many areas of aviation appears rather superficial, non professional.

It's two Worlds!

It's like War Thunder and DCS, and yet War Thunder as a lot more users Worldwide and surely gives their software house a lot more income than ED get's from their paid modules for DCS, and yet in terms of detail, accuracy, etc... no one will even try to put War Thunder ahead of DCS...

I play MSFS.... and learn using Xp12... 

I was also engaged in that particular discussion as OP mentioned.  I was taken back by the simplistic view of the person referred to that discounted XP12 after a demo test.

I have both sims, I fly both sims.  I enjoy both sims for different aspects of their functions. With Map Enhancement, I am getting results that are in some aspects far superior to MSFS.  This really holds true in northern Canada, which in MS is faked textures and unrealistic.  I love flying in poor weather to small Apts up north in XP with real satellite scenery. One carrier works best for this over the others available, one just needs to test on the fly which works for them.

Anyway I support the opinions of OP, and am unbiased in my views.  I just use which sim works best for me for particular reasons.  I also have found that MSFS requires plenty of fussing and add-ons to get the most out of it, so this is not a reason to abandon a sim at a whim.  We are recreating the world here, it's a big thing and has lots of complexities, so the sim needs help along the way.

38 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Then they all seem to focus a lot more in details that are important for aviation simulation, like systems, weather, ATC and their strongest component - aerodynamics

Yes, these have pulled me in.

3 minutes ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

I have both sims, I fly both sims.

I thought I would continue with 2024, yet I haven't touched it since I had that XP12.02.b6 'Eureka' moment.  I never really flew in large parts of the world in MSFS because of the poor satellite imagery with awful colouring.  I'll have to give Canada a go - I find Bing better in most areas, how about Canada?

XP12 is great. I find the majority of people who say otherwise dont have any real time with it or they get that idea from only using a previous generations of XP. Its like compairing P3D to MSFS2024

Edited June 15, 2025Jun 15 by YukonPete

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I have no idea how well XP12 is doing in the market place, but it must be losing out many sales to MSFS from what I have described above.

Austin has fully accepted that MSFS will outsell X-Plane.  

The irony is that some people on the other side of the fence will never accept that X-Plane is still around.  

In a weird kinda way, they're the ones that motivate me to go above and beyond in detail for the add ons I make.

Edited June 15, 2025Jun 15 by GoranM

I first tried the XP11 demo in 2019 when P3d for me was nothing but trouble.

I had retired in 2016 after 40 years in various cockpits (fixed and rotary wing) and sometimes at the end of one's career you get "elevated", I say with a sense of humor, into an position that is mainly office and little flying.

Part of my deal going into the office px was i was to remain on a flying status ( a govt job ) and i flew a Cdn govt king air C90b* from 2010 till I retired. This was one of the gutless ones with the Pt6-21 which on a warm/hot day will never be accused of being over powered. The only king air 90 I had flown many years before that had had the engines upgraded to the -28 - a totally different machine imho.

*I wanted to get assigned to the citation but you go where you're told. In the end getting put on the king air was a blessing.

Anyway, I loaded up the demo, chose the XP king air 90 and off I went. I was beyond surprised at just how closely the engines behaved (temp limited) and thus getting nowhere near max torque. Also other than not having a stormscope*  and a KLN90b the cockpit was just about identical. I was then and am now really impressed with it. That first flight with the XP king air was what sold me on XP. Visuals then were really nothing to write home about but the flying experience worked for me. XP12 has come a long way with both scenery and add-on aircraft.

I found the stormscope when used in addition to wx radar was nice to have.

In short that first demo flight in XP11 and the king air sold me.  I still fly XP as much as I do MSFS2020/24.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I thought I would continue with 2024, yet I haven't touched it since I had that XP12.02.b6 'Eureka' moment.  I never really flew in large parts of the world in MSFS because of the poor satellite imagery with awful colouring.  I'll have to give Canada a go - I find Bing better in most areas, how about Canada?

ArcGIS! is the best.

5 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I've been using XP12 now for a few weeks.  every time I load it I marvel how it portrays the world, but many simmers never get to see what's possible with it.  They see comparison videos that often try to show XP12 in a poor light.  MSFS cannot create a scene as realistic as this screeshot.

I had a discussion on the MSFS forum where an individual tried XP12.  He compared the default XP12 with the default MSFS2024.  I suggested he try the Map Enhancement Tool to better compare the two products, but his thought was why bother installing and configuring an addon when he already has worldwide satellite imagery in MSFS - a valid point.  Secondly he noted how soft the clouds looked close up, where MSFS clouds were sharper, again a valid point.

I am so glad I persevered with XP12, installing and configuring addons to get the exceptional visuals.  I may have missed a topic like this, but has/is Laminar considering integrating a tool like the Map Enhancement tool into XP12?  Just this one step would probably get a lot more simmers onboard.  Other comments are the excessive Haze, with some really negative comments about it, another reason why many don't get past the demo.  I am using the Lua script 'Haze Adjust' to just tame the haze a little, resulting in a view more likely to please, especially when anyone is used to the clean skies of MSFS.

I have no idea how well XP12 is doing in the market place, but it must be losing out many sales to MSFS from what I have described above.

Well, it's a classic conundrum, and one I don't think Laminar can "fix".

And I will readily "admit" that High Fidelity scenery matters to me as much as High Fidelity aircraft do.

The irony is that I've paid Orbx and other XP scenery devs MANY times more than I've ever paid Laminar Research. E.g., just for True Earth, I've paid the equivalent of buying every future version of X-Plane through XP v17!!! 

Now, this isn't Austin's "fault", because many of us did exactly the same thing for FSX and P3D. And even before MSFS was even rumored.

But it's a new reality...(As ever for everyone 😉)

There's got to be some sort of solution where Laminar can facilitate improved ground textures without bankrupting LR to do it.

Maybe it's something like bundling the Pro version of Map Enhancement. Where ME isn't incorporated into XP, and the end user opts in at their own expense, etc.

Or, LR partners with a scenery dev for something like the Orbx Innsbruck regional scenery, and that's treated as a sales channel for Orbx.so Orbx agrees to sponsor it as part of the base install.

All of which where LR takes a percentage of direct & future sales because it all goes thru the (still!!!) pending XP Marketplace.

Anyhow, XP is great as is, but in today's world, let's face it, it's sadly become an "acquired taste".

1st Fltsimguy,

Canada in Bing is very good. SimAddOns has created good quality airports from cost to coast and up into the arctic - I have most of them. P3d, MSFS2020 & 24. They are priced reasonably.

6 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Anyhow, XP is great as is, but in today's world, let's face it, it's sadly become an "acquired taste".

I think it has always been this. 

I don’t really care if some folks don’t want to even try some freeware addons to massively extend the ground-scenery (one of the few areas where XP lacks, together with antialiasing).

Including satellite-imageries like for example World enhancement offers, is not going to happen, since this would be illegal and Laminar would get in big trouble if they didn’t licence the data (that can easily cost a few thousands a year. Per user! So way too much).

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

can facilitate

Reminder that XP "facilitated" "free" and easy ortho long before any other sim package. In fact, that's the sim platform that showed us what was possible.

 

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

bankrupting LR

Yeah those legal fees would add up quickly! Now...if only Austin would get busy and conjure up some sort of billion-dollar government-funded satellite-based visible-light acquisition project (with a healthy side of military application), for which XP could be a fun side-gig/advertising-front for...

2 hours ago, dbw1 said:

1st Fltsimguy,

Canada in Bing is very good. SimAddOns has created good quality airports from cost to coast and up into the arctic - I have most of them. P3d, MSFS2020 & 24. They are priced reasonably.

I love SimAddOns for MSFS...Ralph will not convert to XP unfortunately.  The MSFS market not doubt bigger.

I have used MSFS up north BC and into Yukon and much of what I have in 2020 is "fake" stuff not actually satellite images, perhaps it's in 2024.

I have the entire north in imagery, and there are dozens of (not SimAddons) small GA strips, mining, forestry camps and such, these are depicted exactly as they are in XP12.

Images of Yukon and Great Bear Lake, Sawmill Bay using MET in XP12, old 1950 airstrip

https://imgur.com/a/jyPIwvo

 

Edited June 15, 2025Jun 15 by 1st fltsimguy