6 hours ago, Rodster said:

As an X-Plane and MSFS player, there are tradeoffs with every product, right? Microsoft Flight Simulator uses real maps and has better graphics out of the box. Why doesn't X-Plane have that? They charge a similar price for X-Plane as MSFS 24. Why not incorporate that into their product to compete graphically with MSFS 20/24?

Because, unlike Microsoft with Bing Maps, they don't own the data.

I'm sure they're aware this is a big feature gap for them, and it's not super hard to implement (see Ortho4XP etc.), but I assume buying the data is prohibitively expensive for them.

Edited September 28, 2025Sep 28 by martinboehme

On 5/9/2025 at 18:07, abrams_tank said:

Según lo que he leído y también en las transmisiones y videos que he visto, el viento cruzado, la pérdida y el giro han mejorado en MSFS 2024. También se modela la turbulencia de estela en MSFS 2024. La ausencia de turbulencia al volar entre nubes siempre ha sido un problema, tanto en MSFS 2024 como en MSFS 2020. Pero creo que la dinámica de vuelo ha mejorado significativamente.

I still remember that broadcast I posted here in 2022 where they said that climate change was a priority for them.

 

The biggest disappointment of 2024 for me has not been the shamelessness of releasing a game that could not even be considered a beta; the biggest disappointment is that I can still fly through a large storm front in a Cessna 152 and not have to worry about anything.

Please moderators! Put a lock on this thread! Again XP vs MSFS. Useles thread. The OP should leave MSFS and playing XP. It is ALWAYS a choice. Do not bother anyone else...pffff

1 hour ago, bbking said:

Please moderators! Put a lock on this thread! Again XP vs MSFS. Useles thread. The OP should leave MSFS and playing XP. It is ALWAYS a choice. Do not bother anyone else...pffff

Please stop calling for locks.  If the moderators want to take action they can weed out the annoying threads. 

By continuously locking threads you just end up throwing the baby out with the bath-water and spoiling it for the rest of us, which maybe plays in to the hands of the disruptors.

If anything the mods could change the inaccurate thread title, which I think attracts the kind of posts we don't come here to see.  It's not that 24 doesn't HAVE wx radar (it does!), it's that it's not as good as we would like, which should be the center of discussion.   

9 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I'm sure they're aware this is a big feature gap for them, and it's not super hard to implement (see Ortho4XP etc.), but I assume buying the data is prohibitively expensive for them.

I don't think simply having ortho or satellite data is enough now.  MSFS 2024 has raised the bar:

Everything in this video was generated by AI, or procedurally generated, except for the hotel (I believe the hotel was handcrafted).  Now, you need to analyze the satellite data, and using AI and other technology, generate scenery like the above.  You can fly around to other places outside of cities in MSFS 2024, and it can look as good as this.  The bar has been raised by MSFS 2024, and simply having ortho is not good enough anymore, IMO.

Edited September 28, 2025Sep 28 by abrams_tank

How many more times are you going to post that video!? 😆

7 minutes ago, MarcG said:

How many more times are you going to post that video!? 😆

As many time as needed.  It's a very good example of the capabilities of MSFS 2024 and it perfectly explains my comment of how just having ortho is not enough, because the bar has been raised.

X-Plane gets a few things right, but the rest it gets wrong, starting with the ghastly looking scenery. Even a highly "potato shopped" trailer by the Aviation Lads still makes it look like a mix of FSX and P3D. 

On 9/27/2025 at 8:03 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Nice one👍

Weather question asked. Let's keep 'em coming. 

I also asked.

20 hours ago, martinboehme said:

Because, unlike Microsoft with Bing Maps, they don't own the data.

I'm sure they're aware this is a big feature gap for them, and it's not super hard to implement (see Ortho4XP etc.), but I assume buying the data is prohibitively expensive for them.

Then pay for the license and add it to the cost of the product. When I compare MSFS 2020/24 vs X-Plane 11/12 graphically, it's no contest and MSFS 2020/24 runs smoother and looks better than X-Plane 12. Instead we are given updates to enhance the exterior look of the planes. The Cessna Skyhawk looks like it just finished leaving the detail shop and has been waxed 7 times.

I'm not a real pilot but I had friends who were and I went flying in small Cessna planes. The paint was usually dull or weather beaten especially in the brutal FL sun. The exterior of the planes in MSFS look more accurate than those in XP12. The other thing I would really like  is for them to update the windshield look. It is hard to see at night or during the day and the muted colors that X-Plane uses makes it hard to see stuff at times. Perhaps Cessna windshields do look that weather beaten in real life but I don't remember that when I went flying with friends.

Again, i'm not knocking either product as I buy both and will continue to do so but XP needs to up its game. If they want more customers, they need to widen the net. MSFS is designed to cater to the novice and real pilots. You can easily select and create a flight plan or just hop from one airport to another. XP is way too barebones. Some may prefer that but as long as that continues, XP will greatly lag behind MSFS.

There's a Youtube channel called BigJet TV and Jerry Dyer (I hope I got the name right) had a show in London with a rep from XP. Instead he does a weekly show called Sim Challenge and guess what he uses? He uses MSFS 2024 instead of XP. So does his cousin who did the first Sim challenge on his channel and he did a show where his cousin flew in a real world flight simulator with a real British Airways pilot.  He learned from MSFS and not XP and the British Airways Pilot was massively impressed with his flight and communication (VATSim skills). Needless to say he nailed every bit of the test including knowing the process of operating the airliner. It was pretty cool but Microsoft gets the exposure while XP does not. So those who think that MSFS is inferior to XP might want to rethink that. If anyone is interested I can find that Flight Simulator video.

2 hours ago, Rodster said:

Youtube channel called BigJet TV and Jerry Dyer

Enjoyed that channel, very enthusiastic and he's always out there covering rain or shine or fog or snow or ... kudos to him, glad he is still going.

13 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Everything in this video was generated by AI, or procedurally generated, except for the hotel (I believe the hotel was handcrafted).

That tree would have taken the left wing off 🙂  

Would love to see either sim platform put more resources into damage simulation.  I've clipped a few trees and hit hard on the runway, but never any damage.  Perhaps the next step for realism?

Edited September 29, 2025Sep 29 by SayAgain

Phew! I’ve read through the whole thread and haven’t seen anywhere the explanation that Jörg once gave in a dev stream as to why the fully modelled weather radar wasn’t considered feasible (at least early on) - it was commercial, and nothing to do with the inflexibility of MS’ contract with them.

MS wanted to expand their contract with Meteoblue to deepen the radar functionality but MB were concerned that by providing the extra necessary data, even without an API, some enterprising parties might find a way to reverse engineer it to be able to extract the 3D precipitation data for their own uses, all for the price of an MSFS license instead of paying Meteoblue directly for commercial access to that data.

Edited September 29, 2025Sep 29 by Redge

TDS have got a big surprise coming for the GTN750xi.

Their keeping tight lipped about it, but maybe it's weather radar....

Just a thought 🤔