I'll get to watching the video, but I would like to add this one here "in defense of msfs2024".

Its the first MS video ive seen ever where there is quite a few things I would say XP could and should copy [take inspiration from].

That tablet looks great, very VR friendly, far better than we have in XP atm.

The animals have very simplistic logic compared to what I already prototyped for XP a couple of years ago:

But everything else about them is better. I'd love to see more of that kind of content in XP.

I dont think there is much in it in terms of looks anymore, for sure XP has it far superiour in terms of not stuttering.

If xbox was capable of VR I'd get, but that isn't news.

 

 

Photogrammetry is not quite there yet from a technological standpoint.  From melted buildings to mismatched colors, I find it to be too distracting and hence have it turned off.  It’s also a performance hog, at least in my experience.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Why do so many comparison videos default to stock XP scenery? Doing so gives the misleading impression that X-Plane is graphically inferior, when in fact it only takes a few widely available enhancements to achieve visuals on par with, and in many cases superior to, MSFS. This creates an unnecessary barrier for MSFS users who assume XP “looks bad” based only on default footage.

From my perspective, Laminar would be better served by continuing to refine the autogen system rather than adopting photogrammetry. Photogrammetry in MSFS can look excellent in some areas but is inconsistent and often poor elsewhere. Autogen, when varied in type, footprint, colour and placed accurately using regional data, provides more consistent visual quality worldwide. It also scales better with rendering performance and avoids many of the immersion-breaking artifacts photogrammetry can introduce.

Because in order to be a fair comparison it must be default vs default.

Anyway, the new scenery is comming, probably in part already durin xp12(?) so in an year or so we will probably have a much better default scenery in XP.

Btw on fs2024 I set PG to Off

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by jcomm

13 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Because in order to be a fair comparison it must be default vs default.

Anyway, the new scenery is comming, probably in part already durin xp12(?) so in an year or so we will probably have a much better default scenery in XP.

Btw on fs2024 I set PG to Off

I don’t really agree that “default vs default” is the fairest way to compare. To me, the point of these comparisons is to showcase what each sim can actually deliver for the end user, and in X-Plane’s case that almost always includes a few well-known, widely used scenery add-ons.  Those enhancements are easily accessible, and in many cases free, and they dramatically change the perception of XP’s visuals. With them, XP doesn’t just match MSFS in many regions, it can actually surpass it in consistency, performance, and accuracy.

So rather than locking the comparison to stock content, I think it makes more sense to look at what each platform realistically brings to the table once you’ve spent a small amount of effort setting it up the way most users do. That gives a much clearer picture of the true potential of each sim.

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by MrBitstFlyer

If you aren’t comparing default vs default then where does it end.  There are hundreds of mods for both sims that can completely change many aspects of the sim.  A default airport in msfs is inferior to one in XP, so do we start comparing a good quality freeware msfs airport with stock XP?  Or now we need to find an equivalent XP airport mod to showcase its “potential.”  You can see this goes down a rabbit hole real fast.

You an expert at comparing one to another or is simply an OPINION?

I made the mistake of posting this video on another forum, because I thought it was interesting and informative and a great deal of work went into making it.  A few people on that forum immediately started having a tantrum, requesting that the thread be locked, and the moderators went along with that. Sad, that people can't act like adults. 

Anyway, I think the comparisons were pretty good between the two sims, and I have to admit that X plane does have some really good qualities. 

 

I don't know why there's always a debate about which of the two is better. Why is this important? I have both. When I feel burned out with one, I move to the other, and viceversa. At times, when I feel burned out with both sims,  I do other fun things. Life is too short to argue about which is better....

Be warned this topic is being monitored. Keep to facts rather than opinions and you’ll be fine.

Anyone who steps out of line… well, you know the consequences.

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

Because in order to be a fair comparison it must be default vs default.

Default vs default is only a small not so important comparison imho.

Far more important is a wider eco system comparison, who is doing what, who does what best, what works and what doesn't and when, however that is also much harder to do well and fair and with a level of maturity befitting aviators.

For example, I really didn't see anything in the OP video that would make me think either is worth my time, nothing he compared there is a reason I am passionate about xplane and have never even had an opportunity to install any Microsoft centric sim since FSX.

Actually, a "reasons jcomm unistalled stuff" would be awesome.

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by mSparks

46 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I made the mistake of posting this video on another forum, because I thought it was interesting and informative and a great deal of work went into making it.  A few people on that forum immediately started having a tantrum, requesting that the thread be locked, and the moderators went along with that. Sad, that people can't act like adults. 

Anyway, I think the comparisons were pretty good between the two sims, and I have to admit that X plane does have some really good qualities. 

 

That’s why I posted it here. I have faith in the X-Plane community talking about things, rationally and objectively as possible. And it struck me as an interesting topic to talk about. 

28 minutes ago, flyforever said:

I don't know why there's always a debate about which of the two is better. Why is this important? I have both. When I feel burned out with one, I move to the other, and viceversa. At times, when I feel burned out with both sims,  I do other fun things. Life is too short to argue about which is better....

Some people want to know other’s opinions, and Micah is one of the good guys with honest opinions. People base their whole decision on feedback from people who own the product. I know I do. I’ve based the last 16 years on that very foundation. Word of mouth. Free videos seem like a good way to make an informed decision.  Even Bob is making a few positive comments on X-Plane 12. Something I never thought I’d see. 

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by GoranM

1 hour ago, Gilandred said:

If you aren’t comparing default vs default then where does it end.  There are hundreds of mods for both sims that can completely change many aspects of the sim.  A default airport in msfs is inferior to one in XP, so do we start comparing a good quality freeware msfs airport with stock XP?  Or now we need to find an equivalent XP airport mod to showcase its “potential.”  You can see this goes down a rabbit hole real fast

IMHO, comparing a typical setup for each sim gives a much clearer picture of what they can really offer. Jumping straight into stock only comparisons can give the wrong impression, like thinking XP12 can’t match MSFS. A serious simmer would want to know what a typical XP12 setup looks like, otherwise they might miss out on a sim they could enjoy just as much. More detailed comparisons can still focus separately on airports, weather, or other addons.

Comparisons are useful to show the potential of each sim, rather than which is 'best' - which of course will always be down to what an individual requires.

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by MrBitstFlyer

1 hour ago, flyforever said:

I don't know why there's always a debate about which of the two is better. Why is this important? I have both. When I feel burned out with one, I move to the other, and viceversa. At times, when I feel burned out with both sims,  I do other fun things. Life is too short to argue about which is better....

No need to argue about which sim is ‘best’, because they’re both great. For the way I flight sim, XP12 fits me better right now. I think comparison videos are more useful when they show what’s possible in each sim, rather than trying to declare a winner.

I agree that it is ultimately important what the user experience is after a reasonable amount of "add-ons" was applied - be it scenery or aircraft or other stuff. This is representative of the fun he will have in using the product in day to day use.

What is reasonable? Freeware, payware, how much to spend, how difficult to find and install...this can be debated.

The one danger I see is developers relaxing on certain aspects, counting on "third party" to pick up the slack - like saying "oh, we don´t provide good scenery, people can buy that if they want to"

But even this is a valid point to a certain extent. If you want that perfect A320 with the latest SDAC standard, you are likely willing to pay 50$ or more for it - but should this be a standard for every sim (increasing it´s price considerably) and everyone - even those not interested in airliners need to pay for this content?