FSX Steam edition VS XPLANE 12

[@flyin_with_ryan]

“I don’t see any difference” - Swiss001

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂😂😂😂

[@BotanistOnDuna]

we meet again lmfao

[@flyin_with_ryan]

@@BotanistOnDuna haha, indeed we do

[@LeadNarrator]

Wow. It's amazing. Aircraft in the FSX days used to have invisible forcefields, creating a bubble around them and preventing the rain from getting in. Now THAT'S technology. XD

[@jackl593]

Can you do msfs 98 vs X-Plane12? Thanks!

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂😂😂 why not ? 😂

[@activex7327]

Hahah please do ahhahaha, XPlane fanboys will be mad though

[@Steve31000]

@@FULTONOFFICIALKFV Actually a comparison with a modded FS 2004 would be really cool!

[@hakanr339b]

@@activex7327 there is no need to be mad ;) as there is no "the best sim" ever. I use both MSFS and X-Plane, but my focus is X-Plane since it's allowed for pilot education.

[@activex7327]

@@hakanr339b "there is no need to be mad" - Arm chair pilot and Xplane fanboy misrepresenting what I said, please tell me where I said I was upset. After all, you're the one who's paying $60 again for Xplane 11 🤣🤣😂😂

[@jamessv5020]

Ah... for a moment I forgot that this was comparing FSX to XP12... :) Comparing to FSX is kind of unfair, being that the technology in FSX is over 15y old. I'd like to see XP12 (final, not early release) and MSFS compared. That should be something. TBH, I already like XP12 over MSFS. XP12s clouds are nowhere near MSFS' clouds, but XP12 is also not in its final build.

[@VirtualAviationAviator]

Interesting... XP12 scenery is much closer to FSX than MSFS. Who would have thunk it? 8d Audio - love that song.

[@feeble6997]

I don't see differences

[@hakanr339b]

*X-Plane 12 is early access, doesn't represent final result, clouds, lightning engine, lit textures, trees, global scenery and much more aren't finished yet. These comparisons are just to spark toxicity more in community.* That's the reason why I hate the most part of flight simming community.

[@classydave75]

I think indeed it is representative of the final product, save for debugging and tuning. It is a beta, meaning all the big parts are assembled thus making it out of alpha. That's from the mouth of Supnik himself... You could make the argument about it being not representative of the final release if it were still in alpha. But even then, when you compare the early alpha footage of 6+ months ago and what we have now, the difference is not major at all. It is in fact a lot of under the hood updates. Problem is calling it an "early access" and making it paid for. Laminar Research never did that before if I'm not mistaken. But correct me if need be, I don't remember for sure. It is as if Meyer wants to raise false expectations about the final release by making his customer base think the product will change significantly between now and the final release... That's disingenuous. My guess is that Meyer, instead of acknowledging MSFS as serious competition, first bashed it (he did) and then swept it under the rug up until he probably saw the results of his behavior on the sales numbers of X-Plane. That would explain his early access paid move with the excuse of involving a large user base. Don't get me wrong, Laminar Research is doing its best with the resources they have and the limitations and/or direction Meyer imposes. Supnik asked Meyer at one point (related by Austin himself) to completely stop X-Plane 11.5 onwards development and start immediately working on XP12, after the MSFS announcement, because if not, they would start to lose money. Meyer brushed him off initially but finally took the decision to start XP12 dev. Think about it... Too little too late. Like it or not, most newbies will be attracted by the shiny new toy that MSFS is. And to be fair, the toy looks amazing and you can't even use the excuse of a shitty flight model anymore. Sure, XP keeps the flight dynamics crown, but for how long? The visual gap is irreversible due to the pile of money Microsoft is sitting on and the flight model gap is progressively shrinking. I think Ben Supnik and the others at Laminar know that. Except maybe Meyer. My opinion is that Austin Meyer and his arrogance have unfortunately become the worst enemies of X-Plane, in the current context. As for this video comparison, well XP12 is obviously better looking but the gap between the two is akin to the gap between XP and MSFS2020 but that may be a bit harsh... But you are right about one thing, no need to be toxic. But that's how internet goes... I don't use XP11 anymore (with HD Mesh v4 and simHeaven X sceneries, that was nice) nor am I using MSFS 2020. Just enjoying simmers streaming's and following both product developments. And I don't think things look that good for XP in the next couple of years. Hopefully I'm wrong... People should just use what they like...

[@hakanr339b]

@@classydave75 Laminar Research has always worked with feedbacks since the simulator is "early access" now. I also can say that I sent Austin emails at least 10 times and he didn't reject my features, one of them was about night lightning like moon illuminating the night atmosphere so its not pitch dark anymore, which turned out by Ben that moon lightning being one of their feature aims too in the comments down of blog texts, and Austin also says they have a lot planned in the development of X-Plane 12 but before bringing them, they should bug fix to not break simulator to make it a safe environment, flyable one for beta testers to discover more bugs.

[@hakanr339b]

@@classydave75 In the graphics side Austin also confirmed they look for new global scenery technology with Ben to at least say goodbye to X-Plane 11 global scenery, even himself admitted that X-Plane 12 uses X-Plane 11's global scenery too, since they also work with other pilots and instructors, the details in new stock aircrafts carry features even payware ones don't carry too which amazed me a lot.

[@classydave75]

​@@hakanr339b Well, I think they aren't going to implement any new tech in that regard within the XP12 run. Meyer just said again "they don't know" what they will use and when they will ship it. So, probably for XP13... On a side note, honestly, I don't like some aspects of orthophoto, mainly backed shadows/clouds, non uniformity between tiles and stretching of textures on slopped terrains. And that is very difficult to correct. So I would be delighted to see Laminar come up with some alternative improving on that. I'm mainly thinking about pure procedural generation. An good example is the Outerra engine. Check it out... Problem is, it's been 3 years since the MSFS announcement and Meyer hasn't let Supnik at least try some experimental work on it, if his talks are any indication... I fear most of the newcomers will go the MSFS route (which perfectly fine) just because of the lack of visual immersion in XP12, _comparatively_ to MSFS. Which is a pity but you can't fault such a reaction. Thing is now that MSFS flight model isn't shitty anymore and certainly good enough for a desktop sim and the majority of casual users, the visual aspect is now brought at the forefront. I'm not sure Meyer realizes it. "Oh look at Joe's house!!" Speaking about MSFS... "I'm not using a simulator for that!"... Not you sure, but a lot of newcomers yes. And that big customer base is not going to stay on XP because you don't care that much about visuals... Did he bash (again) VFR and bush flight simmers? Shaking my head and rolling my eyes... At the same time, he will still talk about what could be done to improve VFR flight in future ground tech. Contradicting himself in the same interview. I'm sorry but the guy is in damage control... Nice for him to not reject your feature requests by mail. I'll put that on Meyer still having sense of good customer interactions. May be harsh, but that's what I think. That is what boggles me about Meyer. And yes, I still think his arrogance is an hindrance now. He clearly didn't take the opponent very seriously, imho. Whether that will continue to have a negative impact on XP sales remains to be seen. Without public data, it is difficult to evaluate but I think it is a safe bet to say that it already has. On the night illumination by the Moon you mentioned, that is one of the first strange thing I noticed in XP12. Why isn't the Moon treated as a light source like the sun, with proper parametric values, such as to interact with the atmosphere and the ground? That surprised me. If they can correct that for the final release that would be obviously great but I guess that will have to wait as well... So yeah, I appreciate your comments, I just hope Meyer isn't going to be the one who sinks the boat but I'm pessimistic.

[@derbars726]

I agree. don't lose hope, in the end, xplane is way better than mfs in terms of the interface (well, 4 me) and doesn't feel as heavy as mfs which has insane lag when zooming into the map with rtx graphics card and medium graphics. Yes, the scenery in xplane sucks, but man, they're not as rich as Microsoft to be able to afford detailed satellite imagery, so you can't really blame them for that :/ One more thing, the trees: Despite the fact they are 2d texture in mfs, they look super good. Xplane must work with foliage shading gradients and add varied color specter, + make trees leafier, and this will immediately enhance the entire look.

[@paulodestefani8223]

X-Plane improve it game to simulator , before X-Plane was a game physics, after X-Plane we see the difference.

[@johnmaguire2185]

LR XP12 the best home sim. Since FSX lol.

[@burgadahz17]

Mfs*

[@mikezuger8622]

They are both one of the same. No difference.

[@milanbalaz5053]

👍👍👍😀😀😀🇸🇰🇸🇰🇸🇰

[@LATENGOGRUESA30]

Fsx compared to 2023 flight simulator...... Cry about this but yes, graphics matters.... That why i switch from XP to msfs...freaking shame how laminar realese their sim...

[@garminbreak]

Nice video. But You compared uncomparable. XP12 is newest sim, FSX is more than 16 years old. It is amazing, how good looks that old software. And that old software runs very nice on old computers. Try to compare XP12 and FSX on the machine from year 2006. I very dislike XP12 too fuzzy and blured volumetric clouds, in P3Dv5 is this technology only bad joke, far better is in MSFS. Rain effect in XP12 is really nice, FSX's rain is very strange. In both sims I miss rain droplets on the tarmac. And trees - FSX ran on much less powerful machines than XP12, so trees are only 2D bilboards. My conclusion : FSX looks very nice for age, XP12 looks only slight better than FSX. It is wasted potential of the modern multicore CPUs and extreme powerful GPUs. And I have one very important ask - what about live weather in XP12 ? Abrupt changes from CAVOK to visibility limited to half mile is not uncomon in previous XP without any weather generator like Activesky XP or something similar. Yes, I know, FSX has same problem too. But it is 16 years old and I expect better features on modern sim out of the box.

[@activex7327]

Wow, FSX looks like XP12, Xplane fanboys are sad.

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂😂😂 very sad

[@activex7327]

@Alan Too bad that MSFS has addons and improved physics now. Watch the XP12 vs MSFS flight model comparisons. You have failed fanboy. Enjoy yours XP 11.6 for extra $60 at 30fps where MSFS since UP10 is now between 45-60fps on 4K hahaha

[@MeliokFR]

@@activex7327 which planes have CFD in MSFS by the way ? I know for the 172, but I haven’t heard of any other …

[@activex7327]

@@MeliokFR There was a MSFS team interview on twitch I think 2-3 episodes ago on this and they talked about which planes out of the box will use it.

[@MeliokFR]

@@activex7327 ok, I’ll have a look, thx. So, appart from the 172, currently all plane is MSFS have « FSX-like » flight model ?

[@DPWM]

Dude, how can you compare FSX and X-Plane 12? This is blasphemy on your part.😊