16 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Not even close. 

Subjective opinions always vary.  Overall, for me, Auto Ortho takes it.  I'm not too interested in the Burger King up the road from my house being represented properly, or my house having the right roof tile color.  I'm interested in landmarks that are used in VFR navigation.  

What really kills it for me is the molten buildings and solidified bridges in MSFS.  Some people can accept them.  I can't.  In the same breath, I can understand people, perhaps such as yourself, putting more priority on other things, and molten buildings and closed bridges (possibly) not being a big deal.

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by GoranM

10 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

The reason I watched this comparison video, is that I have toyed with the idea of moving to X Plane, especially since I have heard about the recent beta updates. I noticed in the recent survey on this forum that many users are using Map Enhancement Mod along with X world, both of which are supposed to be free add ons, to upgrade the scenery.

My feeling, is if something is free, and easy to install in a sim, then it would be fair to compare that to another sim, as long as either sim doesn't require any costly or complicated add ons. Any one have any opinions on this?

Bob, 

X-Plane is a great sim. 

I wouldn’t move to it myself, tho, because it’s fair to say I never left it!

For me, it’s worth it to make time for multiple sims and use each for how its strength matches my mood or goals. 

The one thing I’ll caution is simply that AO + XW is simply no substitute for MSFS scenery.

In XP, I pretty much stick to the Orbx TrueEarth regions, even though the majority haven’t been updated to take advantage of v12’s advances. 

which for me is acceptable because that’s still a LOT of ground to explore.  

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Subjective opinions always vary.  Overall, for me, Auto Ortho takes it.  I'm not too interested in the Burger King up the road from my house being represented properly, or my house having the right roof tile color.  I'm interested in landmarks that are used in VFR navigation.  

What really kills it for me is the molten buildings and solidified bridges in MSFS.  Some people can accept them.  I can't.  In the same breath, I can understand people, perhaps such as yourself, putting more priority on other things, and molten buildings and closed bridges (possibly) not being a big deal.

Good points and valid. 

I’ve said in many other posts (and often in the MSFS forum) that I find XP’s Default VFR-ability to be perfectly adequate for training. It has all necessary geographic and anthrographic features to get around just fine. 
and it’s obviously excellent at anything IFR/IMC. 

However , I have this unfortunate addiction to helicopter & bush flights (😂) and in that milieu, I’ve switched to MSFS for flights outside Orbx coverage areas  

at the same time, there are few rotary experiences that are as good as the Ubben SA 315 Lama for literal VFR or the X-Trident AW109 for incredibly sophisticated IFR capabilities. Pair either of those with TE GB v12 and the immersion is incredible. 

But for flying in my neck of the woods, it’s the Taogs OH-6 or occasionally the HPG 145 (it just never really “clicked” for me like the XT AW109 has). 

I frequently see MedEvac, FD/PD, and Mil helos doing all sorts of cool stuff around here. But flying local MedEvac in particular is (for me) intolerable. Can’t even take patients to the hospital because the 50 year old hospital isn’t modeled in XP…!

The hospital in MSFS is indeed melted PG, but at least it, and the helipad, are there. 

bridges? Couldn’t care less as long as they’re in the right place 😉

Each does well for me, just need to be a bit selective to have the most fun in any given scenario. 🤙

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by UrgentSiesta

MSFS 2024 together with XP12 is the best combination I could have hoped for in almost 30 years of simming.

The constant evolution of X-Plane is a joy to witness, and I’ve been using it more and more, to the point that my flying time is now almost split 50/50.  

Since we are on the X-Plane forum, I’d like to highlight a few areas where there is still room for improvement:

When it comes to scenery, MSFS is still well ahead, even when „grey-zone“ utilities such as Map Enhancement are used. People often forget that the satellite data pulled directly from the sources is not corrected for color shifts or cloud coverage. Flying over certain regions, such as the northern part of South America, can be a complete mess because of this. Innovations in this area can’t come soon enough, ideally directly from Laminar.

In terms of high-end add-ons, I also feel that X-Plane lags behind in the overall quality of finished products, especially regarding textures.

I recently purchased the ToliSS A330 for 90 USD, and using it was quite a shock after spending so much time with the Fenix. In VR you can get past it, but when comparing side by side in 2D, the ToliSS looks like something from the mid 2000s.

I keep asking myself whether the market for XP is simply too small to sustain add-ons that deliver both high-fidelity systems and top-notch graphics. None of the add-ons I own really compare to what Inibuilds or Fenix offer when you are sitting in the flight deck.

All in all, it’s great to have competition in the market, and I don’t think XP would have evolved at this rapid pace if MSFS had not been released. 

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by GCBraun

Since we are on an xplane forum, lets just stick to talking about xplane. I only have one dont care about the other. In the end its all ones opinions on what ever pro pilots can agree on

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

MSFS 2024 together with XP12 is the best combination I could have hoped for in almost 30 years of simming.

A very well written summary.

This matches perfectly with how LR assesses the situation internally - the largest area to catch up on is the visual aspect, specifically scenery (which is very difficult due to the known reasons and why we have not seen this being addressed even 5 years after MSFS2020 came out).

In the add-on market it is not viable to have a "team" of devs work on a single aircraft, as the smaller consumer base does not reap in the same profits, and that is simply the reason why devs need to decide where to focus on.

Consumer base is also the reason why Laminar can´t just "hire 100 people to work on avionics". 

Microsoft basically threw an overwhelming force of money and resources at the problem, creating a huge market that is serving as "critical mass" to keep the ecosystem of consumer base vs third-party revenue going and Laminar - despite pedaling hard and throwing themselves into the breach - can only do so much to match that onslaught.

Just like in a military situation of asymmetric conflict you have to allocate your forces and pick your fights wisely - and I think LR has done that in the last few years, creating "pockets" of local superiority and ceding terrain where it can´t be held. It has stayed in the fight and I think it will remain a viable alternative and further the progress of flight simulation.

The idea of "eradicating the competition" is - while popular with some - ultimately to the detriment of everyone invested in the hobby. What would happen if LR folded? Would Microsoft now need to innovate, to keep prices civil?

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by Litjan

Well done everybody. It’s nice to login on a Sunday morning and have no reports of misbehaviour. 😁👏

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Not even close. 
and even then, AO only works well paired with something like X-World. 

and even then, AO + XW doesn’t even measure up to Orbx TrueEarth (even the older ones)  

I do agree that XP lighting and atmospherics are fantastic, and probably better than MSFS. 

Under 4-5000ft MSFS‘s scenery is excellent and much better. But above that altitude and when using Autoortho, XP12 gives me better textures in overall on my PC. They are sharper in the distance and I find it more impressive, together with the fantastic atmosphere/clouds. MSFS‘ main advantage is really the scenery close to the ground where I absolutely agree with you. Since I am flying airliners, I find it personnally more immersive in XP. But I haven‘t tried SU4 yet…

I'd like to add my congratulations to the above posters with that of the Moderator for an illuminating discussion on a potentially contentious subject.

In thinking why the discourse represents such a statistical outlier in on-line behaviour I think I've hit on the reason.

The Forum is a virtual form of the UK Light Aviation Association whose president / chief officer noted in a recent interview that there were more over 80's members than there were under 40's.

Thanks for the interesting Sunday morning read.

Cheers Tim

36 minutes ago, thepitts said:

I'd like to add my congratulations to the above posters with that of the Moderator for an illuminating discussion on a potentially contentious subject.

In thinking why the discourse represents such a statistical outlier in on-line behaviour I think I've hit on the reason.

The Forum is a virtual form of the UK Light Aviation Association whose president / chief officer noted in a recent interview that there were more over 80's members than there were under 40's.

Thanks for the interesting Sunday morning read.

Cheers Tim

I mean this with the utmost sincerity, but I don’t think congratulations should even be necessary here. This thread just shows that, as a flight sim community, we’re more than capable of having a mature discussion.  Something that should really be the norm. Apart from a few toxic outliers, who shall remain nameless, I think everyone handled it well, and that’s exactly how it should be.

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by GoranM

I don't think it's maturity to enjoy everything our hobby has to offer; I would say it's common sense, and right now we have four very good aviation-focused simulators: X-Plane, Falcon BMS, MFS and DCS.

I don't need to choose between one or the other; I can enjoy them all.

I just did 4 back-to back flights between PANC-PAJN, 2 each with XP and MSFS 2020.  All using VR (Quest 3).  In MSFS the two airports are payware, and using Rex Atmos (Lupo preset).  Everything stock in XP except orthos/simheaven.  PMDG 737 in MS and Zibo in XP.

The edge for ground scenery goes to MSFS, but it’s not too far off.  Cloud depiction and lighting easily goes to XP.  However, the amount of flickering and artifacting in XP clouds when moving my head is proving to be too distracting.  I will file a bug report again on this.  
 

I also love the fact that I can fly into almost any airport in XP and not have to worry about buying or downloading an airport mod.  The stock XP airports, while not as nice as the MS payware, still hold up nicely.  And the textures just seem crisper.  
 

Another standout element in XP is the G-loads camera.  Flying through clouds with actual turbulence gives a great sense of immersion.  I actually have to pay attention to the weather enroute, something you can completely ignore in MS.  
 

Laminar was smart to throw resources toward weather/weather radar.  This is what we call a competitive advantage.  If they can catch up with scenery (we know they are working on this), and avionics (where Working Title in MS focused), then we have a real horse race on our hands!

 

On 9/13/2025 at 5:02 AM, GoranM said:

[video]

The C172 segments in FS24 look very inviting as the lighting and shading just suggests a nice summer after noon.

 

On 9/13/2025 at 2:22 PM, mSparks said:

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

[video]

Great, now I want dinosaurs in X-Plane.

I used FS2020 and FS2024 extensively, logging 30-50 flight hours per week. I went back to XP12 with this new version. XP will never become Arcade and FS2024 will never be a simulation. The rendering of the sky clouds and lighting is simply incredibly realistic and puts the competition far behind. XP's live weather is a challenge and a surprise on every flight, with meticulous attention to detail in every compartment of the overall environment. I am blown away. Every flight is unique, the visual diversity is sensational and endless. The vibrations of the cockpit camera during taxiing, cloud passage or any other situation are an incredible pleasure. I also use Google Map Enhancement Pro and the rendering is simply exceptional. After every landing, I only want to go back. XP's Discord is overflowing with over a hundred photos a day, each one more beautiful than the last. I've definitely uninstalled FS2020 and FS2024 without any regrets. It has nothing to do with the feeling I have now. I finally have the realism I've been looking for for a very long time. This version of XP is a masterstroke.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Under 4-5000ft MSFS‘s scenery is excellent and much better.

It’s definitely a subjective topic, but for me XP12 feels much more realistic at those altitudes for the reasons that matter to me. That’s why I think every sim deserves a fair chance before being dismissed - the first impression might not match what is found after a week of flying.

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by MrBitstFlyer