1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Jumping straight into stock only comparisons can give the wrong impression

A straight 1 to 1 comparison is the most honest way to do a comparison. It allows users to know what they are getting when they purchase, and you don't end up with a lot of "unhappy" customers. Imagine someone saying, "This car competes lovely with those other fancy cars". But you have to rip out the interior, install new carpets, put new seats, upgrade to power window, install new lighting, maybe tweak the engine a little bit etc. You want to know what you are getting up front so you can make an informed decision.

If you start throwing in a bunch of addons it gets confusing real fast and the whole comparison becomes pointless. First, many users prefer to keep their sim as close to default as possible. Throwing in a bunch of addons, especially those using hacky methods is a quick way to destabilize your sim. Second, the question becomes did you keep one default and used an addon for the other? How much are all these addons going to cost? How much time and effort is it going to take to configure? If you are comparing weather/lighting, are you going install Rex Atmos for MSFS and keep Xplane's default. Are going to install ActiveSky in Xplane and keep MSFS default? Are you going to install in both? I think you get the point.

 

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by brinx

@brinx, Exactly my point.

And even when I add auto-ortho to Xp12 it doesn't come anywhere near what I see around when flying in FS 2024, specially if I'm not flying an airliner in cruise but rather a glider in a task, even more a task over territory I know so well from Real Life !

In that area FS 2024, at least for me, beats Xp12 hands down, and hence why I am really looking forward into whatever their new scenery system / engine will bring.

Then, yes weather can be more "active" in Xp12 in some areas but then and again for the area I use FS 2024 quite often these days - soaring - again FS 2024 default weather with it's thermals, both blue and cloudy, does a very nice job. Add to it ridge effects and, altogether FS 2024 is a better soaring experience.

Now, some aspects of cloud rendering, their forms, lighting and colours, terrain and aerodrome lighting, Xp12 looks sometimes so true to real that it's trullly astounding, and IMO way better than FS 2024.

Default ATC is mixed feelings ... There are interesting aspects of default FS 2024 ATC, but Xp12's default ATC has grown a lot more consistent and sound than at release date. Also FS 2024 ATC has progressed very well along the 3 SUs and interim updates. 

Flight dynamics, I could talk a lot about it, but being honest, with myself, I can't say which one I prefer. Both have limitations, bugs, inconsistencies and at the end of the end of the "evaluation and testing" road, they're on par for me, I can't say I definitely prefer one or the other.

So, at least for the time being, I ma really enjoying and trying to get the most out of both.

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by jcomm

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?

14 hours ago, SayAgain said:

FYI, this got locked earlier so likely to get locked again.

My hope is that this video will motivate Austin to embrace Photogrammetry … just don’t know how he will be able to pay for the servers and data to provide to users.  

On a technical level I know Austin and his development team are more than capable of implementation, just not  sure how they will be able to make Photogrammetry financially viable?

I really hope that they won't go that photogrammetry-road. It's absolutely unnecessary in my opinion or only in very rare occasions.

8 minutes 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, my honest opinion is that even with MEP Xp12 doesn't looks as good as FS 2024, scenery wise.

There are aspects though where Xp12 does a much much better job, like the  daylight colours, the lighting, in particularly aerodrome lighting systems, the reduced visibility conditions which can be more precisely defined in Xp12.

But scenery, other than payware scenery areas, like Orbx True World, it simply isn't up to the level MSFS has achieved.

5 hours 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

Knowing that almost every "hardcore" simmer will tune his sim a lot, I don't think comparing default with default is so much telling. The end result resp. the way most of users will use it at the end, is what is relevant in my opinionand should matter way more.

4 hours ago, Gilandred said:

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.

I'm a big advocate for photogrammetry. Not everyone likes photogrammetry, but I believe those are the minority. When I'm not cruising at FL350 in MSFS, I'm a "virtual tourist", as Jorg says. I have a map of all the photogrammetry cities in the SIM so that I can virtually explore them(hundreds). When a new city is added, I find the nearest airport to explore it. Many are places I'll never visit in real life so touring an accurate rendition virtually is quite amazing in my opinion.  I remember hoping to be able to do that with google earth many, many years ago. While photogrammetry is not required, it adds to the immersion for me.

  

27 minutes ago, jcomm said:

In that area FS 2024, at least for me, beats Xp12 hands down, and hence why I am really looking forward into whatever their new scenery system / engine will bring.

I'm very curious as well. I think it will be a long wait though, most likely Xplane 13.

 

For me, the most important improvement that XP would need, is better antialiasing. I know that TAA is planned but it needs a lot of work and time to set up in the background (vector motion). With autoortho or map enhancement, the ground textures are really not the priority anymore for me. There is a very little bit of potential left to improve some clouds-artifacts that I would also be happy to see improved. So for me the most required improvements right now are (in order of importance):

- Antialiasing
- fine-tuning clouds-depiction
- ground-scenery (including roads and autogen)
- grass! Thats something I always found pretty good in MSFS 🙂

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by Franz007

1 hour 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?

I feel XP12 is best judged the way many people actually use it - alongside a few of the common free addons. That’s really when XP12 shows its best. You do have to ‘tune in’ to how XP12 presents the world, but once you give it some time it definitely feels more dynamic. For me, that kind of comparison gives a much clearer picture than just stock vs stock.

I’ve always loved MSFS, but after spending more time in XP12 I’ve kind of tuned out of the way MSFS presents the world. That’s why I think it’s important to see XP12 in its ‘improved’ form rather than just default—otherwise you might never discover if it’s the sim that better suits you.

Enjoy experimenting with XP12, and let us know how you get on!

Orbx Global Lc for Xplane 

That’s it !

Please and thank you 

1 hour ago, stefti said:

Orbx Global Lc for Xplane 

That’s it !

Please and thank you 

We will get better and included in the sim. No need to purchase a scenery-addon like Orbx Global.

2 hours ago, stefti said:

Orbx Global Lc for Xplane 

That’s it !

Please and thank you 

Where is a link to that, I couldn't find it? 

22 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Where is a link to that, I couldn't find it? 

No such product exists.  I believe it was just being wishful.

10 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

is that I have toyed with the idea of moving to X Plane

This is not something that needs to pondered for a long time. 

All it takes is to download the demo (it is free and lets you fly the FULL simulator, albeit in limited but fairly large areas for an hour...with as many restarts as you want) and try it. 
You can also install ANY add-on you want into the demo to get the full impression. 

It may even be viable to just keep the demo installed (alongside your main flight simulator) and just fly it once in a while and to check out new developments when an update drops. 

I am happy that the discussion has stayed civil so far and I am convinced that there is no definite answer as to "which sim is better". Not only does this differ in various areas (scenery, aircraft, flight model, airports, weather,...) it is also heavily dependent on the user´s preferences. 

It´s a bit like asking which car is the best in the world 😆

On 9/12/2025 at 6:18 PM, GoranM said:

But once you factor in AutoOrtho for X-Plane, I’d say X-Plane takes the win.

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.