Saw that one too. 

Pretty good video and he's overall pleased with XP helo physics (unsurprisingly 😉 ).

BUT...he made a few mistakes in his testing methodology, and I think it bears consideration (in a constructive manner).

1. the biggest mistake is choosing addons to compare based on your emotional desire. He chose the A-Star for XP because of IRL nostalgia, rather than the level of fidelity of the addon. The proper method is to choose based on generally accepted fidelity level, whether Default or "Study Level".

2. He then compared a Payware addon in XP to a Default addon in MSFS (also the A-Star). While I understand the desire to compare "apples to apples", this is almost always a mistake, particularly if you're after comparing flight dynamics/physics. And indeed, it did show in the somewhat lesser physics of the MSFS Default A-Star.

BUT: was that a problem with MSFS or is it a problem with the Default addon...?

Well, let's ask that question a different way: the Default Bell 407 in MSFS has had rather poor physics ever since it released. If I compared that to the excellent JRX Bell 407 in XP, I'd come away with a very poor perception of MSFS helos (especially if I limited it to just that one comparison, as with this video).

HOWEVER, the MSFS Default Cabri G2 is actually rather good in all regards. So I'd genuinely miss out on a fair comparison if I never tried that one at all.

Or the flip side: If I compare the outstanding Taog's OH-6/H-500 to the old, unmaintained, and barely updated for XP12 CowanSim MD500, again, I'd come away feeling that MSFS was the better helo simulator.

And heck, even comparing CowanSim's OWN 2 MD500's for XP and MSFS would lead me to believe MSFS is the better helo simulator!!!

One last flip side e.g., if you fly the JRX MD902 back to back with the vSkyLabs MD902, BOTH in X-Plane, it's almost immediately apparent that the JRX has a higher fidelity flight model than the vSL.

So right there we see that even comparing the same Developer across sims, OR the same helo within sims can give false impressions of the sims themselves.

3. It's far more valid to compare helos of similar CLASS than choosing the same airframe. 

So really, a better test would be between the XP Default R22 and the MSFS Default Cabri G2, since they are quite similar piston engine, 2 seat, primary trainer helos.

Or, the Payware SA 315B in XP to the Payware Taog's OH-6. Again, very similar helos, as both are extremely high-fidelity renditions of light, high performance turbine helos with "stick and rudder", non-stabilized handling.

4. In conclusion, I'm not gonna complain too much because here we have a Dyed In The Wool MSFS pilot who gave quite a favorable review of X-Plane, he did back to back reviews under the same atmospheric conditions, went pretty far in terms of flight dynamics, AND he kept the graphics comparisons to a bare minimum 🙂 👍.

But it does show how easy it is to unintentionally create false impressions of simulator fidelity simply by which addons are chosen for comparison.

Now, excuse me while I go and make a fool of myself pretending I know how to fly the DCS Mi-24 Hind! 😎🤙

 

Edited March 23Mar 23 by UrgentSiesta

@UrgentSiesta, excellent points and exactly what I thought when I finally got the slot to watch the whole stream.

He is comparing a top addon for Xp12 with a default heli for MSFS, and yes, Taog's helis are simply astounding in MSFS 2024 too !!!

Then there's that Portal we cross and we land in DCS's Wprld, where, well, the UH-1H, the Mi-8 and even the CH-47F are all amazing, not to forget the great free : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSyLqRxdFZE

This being said, the UH-1H and the Bell 214 for Xp12 are IMHO, perfectly in pair with the DCS products...

 

Edited March 23Mar 23 by jcomm

16 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

So really, a better test would be between the XP Default R22 and the MSFS Default Cabri G2, since they are quite similar piston engine, 2 seat, primary trainer helos.

The default R22 is a stinkin' POS. If the real thing flies anything like that, its type certificate should immediately go to the shredder and all 4,800 examples built to the scrap yard.

Edited March 24Mar 24 by Bjoern

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

The default R22 is a stinkin' POS. If the real thing flies anything like that, its type certificate should immediately go to the shredder and all 4,800 examples built to the scrap yard.

🤣

2 hours ago, Bjoern said:

The default R22 is a stinkin' POS. If the real thing flies anything like that, its type certificate should immediately go to the shredder and all 4,800 examples built to the scrap yard.

it’s not my personal favorite, either.

But IDK, Belatu42 seems to think it's okay, and he regularly flies them IRL. 

But also another reason that Default aircraft shouldn't be used as exemplars.🤙

On 3/24/2026 at 9:20 PM, Bjoern said:

The default R22 is a stinkin' POS. If the real thing flies anything like that, its type certificate should immediately go to the shredder and all 4,800 examples built to the scrap yard.

🫠So it's not my fault can't fly with any wind over 5kts?

9 hours ago, C2615 said:

🫠So it's not my fault can't fly with any wind over 5kts?

No, it's not.

After spending some time with it and in Plane Maker, the good news is, that the R22 is simply improperly set up by Laminar. The bad news is that setting it up properly triggers a nasty X-Plane bug in some situations on the ground. In the air, however, it flies as it should.

On 3/27/2026 at 3:37 PM, Bjoern said:

The bad news is that setting it up properly triggers a nasty X-Plane bug in some situations on the ground.

Had a chat with Austin about this. It's not a bug (extremely high gear forces when engine mass is close to the CoG on light airframes) and the FM works as designed, with the only workaround being more flight model iterations per frame (ca. 5). This and the (technically) improper setup of the default helicopter fleet will not change. Asked if we can at least set FM/frame per aircraft to not waste CPU cycles on aircraft that are otherwise fine, but got shot down on that as well.

All in all a huge waste of time that could have better been spent on going outside.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by Bjoern

On 4/11/2026 at 8:10 PM, Bjoern said:

Had a chat with Austin about this. It's not a bug (extremely high gear forces when engine mass is close to the CoG on light airframes) and the FM works as designed, with the only workaround being more flight model iterations per frame (ca. 5). This and the (technically) improper setup of the default helicopter fleet will not change. Asked if we can at least set FM/frame per aircraft to not waste CPU cycles on aircraft that are otherwise fine, but got shot down on that as well.

All in all a huge waste of time that could have better been spent on going outside.

I'll try that next weekend, as I'm mostly GPU limited in VR anyway.

8 hours ago, C2615 said:

I'll try that next weekend, as I'm mostly GPU limited in VR anyway.

Tweaking instructions with a bonus script for a bit of hands-off flying capability: https://forums.x-plane.org/forums/topic/345994-default-x-plane-12-robinson-r22-improvements/

On 4/11/2026 at 2:10 AM, Bjoern said:

the only workaround being more flight model iterations per frame (ca. 5).

This is a boon for most XP helos, TBH. Was particularly helpful to tame the Ubben/Khamsin AS315. 

Going from the default 2-ish fms to 5-ish isn’t too much of a drag on overall sim perf, IMHO. Depends largely on the scenery density where you’re flying. And that’s generally a trade off I’m happy to  make 😎🤙

 P.s.: THANK YOU for taking it to Austin. I’m glad he was willing to engage directly. 🙏

 

Edited April 14Apr 14 by UrgentSiesta

23 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

This is a boon for most XP helos, TBH. Was particularly helpful to tame the Ubben/Khamsin AS315. 

Sadly, yes. And that model is another good example for a very light airframe.

 

23 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Going from the default 2-ish fms to 5-ish isn’t too much of a drag on overall sim perf, IMHO. Depends largely on the scenery density where you’re flying. And that’s generally a trade off I’m happy to  make 😎🤙

I've scrounged for every last frame per second yesterday while testing the new X-World Pro in VR, so I figure there are scenarios where the additonal overhead is not particularly welcome.

 

23 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

 P.s.: THANK YOU for taking it to Austin. I’m glad he was willing to engage directly. 🙏

He always is when you have some flight model related question. Although he directly replies to only half of what you send him. But then again, it's Austin.

 

P.S: He said the ultimate plan is to have the flight model run asynchonously from the rendering engine, making the "FM/frame" setting superfluous.

21 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Sadly, yes. And that model is another good example for a very light airframe.

 

I've scrounged for every last frame per second yesterday while testing the new X-World Pro in VR, so I figure there are scenarios where the additonal overhead is not particularly welcome.

 

He always is when you have some flight model related question. Although he directly replies to only half of what you send him. But then again, it's Austin.

 

P.S: He said the ultimate plan is to have the flight model run asynchonously from the rendering engine, making the "FM/frame" setting superfluous.

Yeah, VR is at least 2x as hard on your rig! 😁

I used it for awhile, and when the gods of rendering are feeling benevolent, it’s wondrous!

But ultimately it was too much of a hassle for me, and then MS killed the vr stuff, and…🤷‍♂️