14 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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

It really depends on what each user wants. Personally, I use the Map Enhancement Tool with Orbx TrueEarth, with the ortho layers turned off. This way, I get sharper terrain while still keeping all the autogen features from TrueEarth. I’ll admit the terrain colours in True Earth look great, but I just can’t get on with the lower resolution.  

7 hours ago, Gilandred said:

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!

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure if Laminar has to fully catch up on the scenery level but at least massively improve it. MS will always have more ressources to use modern AI-technology, that’s why I don’t expect Laminar to offer the « same ». It will be different but good enough and not looking as outdated anymore. I am very happy with the way LR prioritizes other important things that matters in aviation. And regarding default avionics I have mixed thoughts…at least the « hardcore simmers » will always end up purchasing study-level planes.

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by Franz007

Well I downloaded the XP demo today and spent a couple of hours setting it up and flying the C 172SP around.  A great deal to learn, I can see already. 

Interesting video and comparative view of two sims. No opinion at all on MS do not have it do not use it. So more interested in some unknown and biases of the simmer and hence his allocation of a rating of better worse I guess. Interesting interpretation of the clouds and light did not see anything in XP that was not very accurate - the MS sky was somewhat same. I noted that he failed to either notice or comment on the take off and the response of the two sims. In XP runway slope or undulations are evident visually and in the motion of the aircraft - no comment on that but the MS response was flat. The XP responses were also more sensitive or shall we say accurate. The MS is sedate and predictable, the XP Cessna more lively and correct, as for sound neither are particularly good! Other than that both sims model a Cessna C172 - hard to go wrong with that aeroplane anywhere. Scenery well I thought XP was visually less shall we say realistic but nonetheless coast lines etc were accurate as was terrain. Texture differed and XP roads stood out in a non complimentary way. Above 2000 ft the difference is vanishingly small. Apart from trees and general landscape textures of the area I saw nothing amiss with the XP default airport used maybe less clutter but thats all. 

So I would have give XP the tick for clouds, weather, model and flight response. Equal for terrain and airport representation. Give MS the tick for scenery accuracy consistency and realism. 

But then all said and done - I am flying a simulator. XP wins that hands down. See above why!

25 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well I downloaded the XP demo today and spent a couple of hours setting it up and flying the C 172SP around.  A great deal to learn, I can see already. 

Give it about a week or two.  Get used to its nuances and the UI. Try not to feel like you’re turning your back on MSFS. I remember I did. 

On 9/13/2025 at 11:24 AM, Franz007 said:

I really hope that they won't go that photogrammetry-road

Unfortunate you don’t want as much realism as possible.  But I did say an “improved photogrammetry”.  Recent polls of users of MSFS here at AVSIM and elsewhere prefer Photogrammetry 71%:

Other survey’s have it at 90% usage case.  So it’s clearly what the majority (by a good margin) want and in terms of financials of operating a business (aka LR) I believe it would be unwise to ignore such metrics and the technology.

What I’ve notice with some XP users, they don’t seem to want it to grow user base which I do find a little puzzling?  I enjoy XP, but it’s always my 2nd sim not my primary.  I think if MSFS 2024 never happened, XP12 would be my primary and P3D my secondary.

DX 12 Ultimate vs Vulkan … Vulkan is behind in terms of high end GPUs and late to get DLSS and FSR support (even though I don’t use either technology).  For those of us who are on the higher end scale for CPU/GPU, we get support sooner with DX12 Ultimate and then at some later point in time it may come around to Vulkan.  But Vulkan is always one or two steps behind the evolution of graphics rendering pipeline.  Not a bad thing, as Vulkan does very well on low to mid tier GPUs where most of the user market resides.

 

4 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

What I’ve notice with some XP users, they don’t seem to want it to grow user base which I do find a little puzzling

And they told you that?????

20 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

but it’s always my 2nd sim

The funny thing about comments like these is that they don't actually matter. You purchased the sim. You're already a notch on the post for XP sales.

 

25 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I believe it would be unwise to ignore such metrics and the technology.

This has been rehashed various times. They don't ignore it. They're simply too small to afford it. Here's yet another statement from LR about why it won't be happening (unless of course you personally are aware of a legal/cost-effective route):

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/673490-the-x-plane-demo-is-not-persuasive-for-many-simmers/page/6/#findComment-5496755

 

38 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Vulkan is behind in terms of high end GPUs

Any substantiation to this vague declaration? Rather contradictory given that the mid-tier GPUs are the target market for upscaling. 

Funnily enough, DLSS4 long ago beat FSR4 into Vulkan. 

https://www.vulkan.org/news/auto-23676-574fc4d693c51106906cc0287881e870 ,

which you don't use and therefore wouldn't benefit from dx12 regardless. After the extensions do arrive in the Vk spec, performance tends to be roughly equal in the few apps that support both.

If the new scenery system coming with xp13 or already along the 12 rum remains independent from streaming then I'll prefer it over a streaming-based solution for any company without the IT infrastructure of MS / GOOGLE / APPLE...

And I will be more than happy if it looks better than the one we have today.

This doesn't mean I will move from MSFS to XP, but rather that I will have yet another reason to enjoy even more XP.

I have PG turned OFF in FS 2024.

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Unfortunate you don’t want as much realism as possible

I tried it for quite some time and either didn‘t notice it when approaching for landing on a RWY being most of the time outside a big city. Or often it felt more disturbing than the usual autogen, because it looks like a grey mass from far away with pyramid-looking buildings popping in, fading into melted down ones. Very eye-disturbing. Only from very close it looks good and realistic. I always said that for helicopter flights over a big city it‘s for sure a nice feature. Other than that I don‘t see the advantage and prefered it turned off. Other people may think differently. And I prefer Laminar spending time for improving what really matters from an aviation point of view first.

I want XP to grow but not by offering exactly the same thing as in another sim. I want them to grow by offering something different and more related to the flight dynamics and interaction with the weather or in general what really matters when you plan a flight from A to B. Otherwise we will also soon start to speak about underwater-pebbles that MS has modelled and some perhaps will want to have in XP as well (it‘s realistic after all). So I would prefer having more true aviation-fans in XP rather than the millions of users more casual-game-oriented, absolutely.

 

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by Franz007

8 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well I downloaded the XP demo today and spent a couple of hours setting it up and flying the C 172SP around.  A great deal to learn, I can see already. 

Didn't you download it already earlier? 😄 And didn't you write earlier stuff like "the C172 in X-Plane flies like sh.t"? How could you judge that 😂? Let's see how long your “flirtation” with XP lasts this time 😁.

And don't forget - how long did it take you to get accustomed to MSFS, to learn its in and outs? I bet it wasn't only 1 day or so - thus, give it some time ...

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by flying_carpet

@Bobsk8,

I believe the C172 is a good way to evaluate the GA props in X-Plane 12, but I wouldn't suggest you to try most other GA props inflight because the "anti-torque" / "wrong rolling moment" bug hasn't yet been fixed in the betas, although supposedly, and as Austin personally told me by private message, he did fix that bug a few months ago already.

Any rw prop pilot will find, due to that bug, that instead of having a left rolling tendency, most single CW-rotating prop aircraft or multi prop aircraft with non counter rotating props, will exhibit a wrong tendency to roll to the right instead of left, which is not expected... (the symmetric applies if it's a CCW rotating prop...).

The default C172 is one of the few props that doesn't suffer much from this bug. But I'd say that if you're a picky simmer like me, you'd better try the rotaries, the default glider (AS K-21) or even the default A330 which is now very nifty !

Or... you can download for free some really great helicopters, jets, .... if you have a "x-plane.org" account.

Another feature to try, and for that purpose the default 330 is a very good option, is the new Weather Radar, with all of it's features.

Ah! and if you're up for the rather improbable IRL challenge of approaching or even entering a big / active convective system, then you will also see how much much more unforgivable under such circumstances Xp12 is compared to MSFS...

Since you are a seasoned GA pilot, probably with experience in free castering tailwheel aircraft, specially if taildraggers, given that most Cirrus SR22's have a free castering nose gear, and the default Piper Cub and Stinson L-5 Sentinel also have free castering tailwheels, take them for a ride...

All of these aircraft when compared to their counterparts in FS 2024, even with the new ground physics, act a LOT more realistically, requiring good management of power having the tail surfaces in the propwash, rudder and differential braking.

The SR22 and the free castering tailwheel aircraft in FS 2024 can easily (and unrealistically) be taxied and taken off without you having to worry about the free castering nose or tail wheels - just with the crosswinds and some prop effects...

 

 

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by jcomm

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Didn't you download it already earlier? 😄 And didn't you write earlier stuff like "the C172 in X-Plane flies like sh.t"? How could you judge that 😂? Let's see how long your “flirtation” with XP lasts this time 😁.

And don't forget - how long did it take you to get accustomed to MSFS, to learn its in and outs? I bet it wasn't only 1 day or so - thus, give it some time ...

I flew the c172 yesterday and my initial impression remains exactly the same. I have hundreds of hours flying real life in a C172, to think otherwise.

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by Bobsk8

27 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew the c172 yesterday and my initial impression remains exactly the same. I have hundreds of hours flying real life in a C172, to think otherwise.

This might interest you.

With a video demo... (It's an old video, but it gives you a guide of what to expect.  They have updated it numerous times throughout the years.)

 

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by GoranM

@GoranM, 

thx for your suggestion for REP, because I own that expansion since 2017 but wasn't even aware it was compatible with X-Plane 12.

Will surely give it a try, although I find the default C172 good enough already 🙂