Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 vs XPLANE 12 - Attention to details Comparison

[@hairsiluet]

This will improved with the upcoming SIM Updates for MSFS… You are the best! 💪🏻

[@kedwyd6535]

U mean for xplane 12 full release aswell

[@FritzWeinrebe]

Yes, and when Helicopters come out more people are going to witness these MSFS flaws up close and personal.

[@BotanistOnDuna]

orthoscenery has too many bugs for this to be the case. for these details, autopen is a must.

[@Steve31000]

You are not comparing like with like at all there. You chose a photogrammetry area in MSFS and a bad one at that. Why not compare normal MSFS buildings, roads and bridges? And normal forests? Clearly you did your best to make MSFS look bad. I like both sims. XP12 of course has some details that MSFS doesn't which is great but overall, MSFS looks far superior than XP12 in its current state. Anyone who can't see that needs their eyes checked.

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

i compared the default scenery

[@burgadahz17]

@@FULTONOFFICIALKFV but you compared something that has photogrametry with something that it hasn't No sense

[@Steve31000]

@@FULTONOFFICIALKFV Yeah but most of the MSFS world is not photogrammetry by default. Choose a big city like Dublin,Ireland to compare with for example. It's not photogrammetry.

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

@@Steve31000 the next time :)

[@kaszkatv3992]

XP12 looks good up close but you realise its shit as soon as you move your camera away and roads start looking ugly and their layout and shape is not even close to what is there in real life. In XP12 most cities in Europe look like american cities because roads are square grids

[@MikeInNorCal]

I find it difficult to see street signs from 35,000 feet..... But thats just me

[@djtaylorutube]

Lame, I can tell a vehicles tyre pressure from 10,000', sir, I suggest you're just not trying hard enough!

[@TheMrBitsy]

Cessnas and Pipers are flying at 35,000ft? You never stope learning!

[@pendolinofan643]

@@TheMrBitsy lmao

[@beautyofflightsimulation2349]

@@TheMrBitsy Well the Cessna Citation can go even higher and the Piper M500 reaches 30.000 feet. But of course you are talking about the smaller prop variants. To be fair, even at 2000 feet you won't really notice the large highway direction signs unless you really look for them. The smaller signs are as good as invisible from that altitude. So they are only adding to the scene while landing or during helicopter flights. I would love to someday see this level of detail added to MSFS, especially when helicopters are getting a bigger place within the sim in november. But for now I rather have higher altitudes look great as you see them most of the time.

[@pacmantravel2158]

In real life, If you had to make an emergency landing in let's say an Airbus A320, and you're flying low...at least you can alert ATC that you're "gliding directly over I-15, no traffic, I'm proceeding to land there".

[@FahimAuvro]

The last scene you chose that says xplane 12 won looks like something from fsX. And that says a lot

[@darrinward4699]

Rather have MSFS... You should have compared cities in this video. Xplane's cities don't represent the real deal. Yes MSFS is built on bing maps images, but they are true to the layout of the land. For VFR rules there is no other choice

[@yasinparti4385]

R in VFR stands for rules, so you just said visual flight rules rules lol. However i do agree with the point you are making 😂 MSFS all the way.

[@aileronsintowind6835]

That’s not quite accurate.. for VFR flying we use VRPs and the magnetic compass coupled with a timing device or some sort and our nav chart. VRPs which aren’t always buildings, they can be and are bridges, motorway junctions, railway systems, lakes, rivers, reservoirs and a very common one masts! The map in xplane 12 has all these points mapped out and I believe it’s starting to come to msfs as well after two years. We don’t fly looking at the ground or look at at how nice that roof looks from 2000ft you’re too busy looking out the windows for traffic, birds and anything else that may end up ruining a nice flight out on top of managing and monitoring the aircraft. You fly a course heading for X minuets / hours and then time your next course all of which including the winds aloft you have planned for in your pre flight and filed flight plan which you must do every flight including your weights and balance and fuel criteria, you can pick up your VRPs in the distance ( msfs struggles with LOD) and re adjust your course if needed If your gonna refer to real world VFR flying then you should know how real world vfr flying is done. I can just as easy fly a VFR flight from say cardiff to Huddersfield in default xplane 12 as I can in msfs and if I add Orbx to xplane 12 it’s even easier as I have the masts in the distance that I can see from miles out. Ever wondered why cat d sims don’t use photoscenery ? Because they aren’t needed to complete the training

[@DOGOID]

You took thw best examples from xplane and compared it to the worst examples from MSFS. not a fair comparison.

[@tedburg6042]

The worst areas in MSFS were picked for this vid to create this discussion. MSFS updates all the time.

[@Cozzyhane]

It's a flight sim not a driving sim I could careless about the details from the air. They have their own advantage and disadvantage. Some real world pilot prefer x plane some msfs. It's a matter of preference plus third party add-ons is the real meat and butter for both games. At this point with msfs budget and exposure third party developer on msfs are getting much more exposure and revenue.

[@kittealand]

It is quite funny actually, if you have a license in IRL it seems you are obliged to prefer XP to MSFS or P3D. IMO sure there are states of the flight where XP is more true to life but for the most part MSFS performs in a believable way, at least compared to the planes I used to fly (light-sport aircraft/UL). What you have instead in MSFS is immersion that I think XP totally lacks.

[@hakanr339b]

Yeah it's a flight sim but people care about too much live satellite imagery & photogrammetry lol

[@darrenbrown3128]

Well, I'm a real world GA pilot and I have to say that I prefer MSFS's dynamics and flight modelling 100% more than X-Plane. I loaded up X-Plane 12 demo the removed it again 10 minutes later. I'm shocked that they could release such trash! I am also a VFR pilot in real life so I prefer MSFS's scenery too.

[@hakanr339b]

@@darrenbrown3128 MSFS doesn't even use a real world flight model, otherwise X-Plane does use ''Blade element theory''' which explains real world flight models. X-Plane's development team Laminar Research also consists of flight instructors and real world pilots which is why their simulator's flight realism is at top notch at the moment. This flight simulator is shaped depending on FAA requirements such as foggy conditions failures and mostly flight modelling, which is why X-Plane is preferred by flight schools at the moment. Even Bridger Aerospace prefers X-Plane for firefighting pilot education, else aviation companies like Gleim Aviation and much more to count. I also should say there is a LEVEL D X-PLANE project too. This simulator shines in pilot education mostly.

[@darrenbrown3128]

@@hakanr339b I really couldn’t care less tbh. As a RL pilot, MSFS feels a lot closer to real life for GA aircraft as far as I’m concerned. So you stick with what you think is real, and I’ll do the same 😉

[@TheToppestGee]

X plane looks like npc city and msfs looks like they just survived zombie apocalypse

[@karamich75]

XP12 world engine as per this demo shows that it is more relevant and effecient for a walking or driving simulator wheras MSFS world engine is more relevant for VFR navigation... with photogrammetry or without it (because you can disable it)

[@ComdrStew]

It was disabled in this video, lol. Paid MSFS scenery kills all XP paid scenery, which is what you are seeing in this video. Most of the XP world is flat twenty year old scenery.

[@megawave79]

@@ComdrStew it wasnt though lol

[@PositiveRateAv]

⁠@@ComdrStewI hope you realize that with free scenery you can have ortho tiles, also most of the xp world is handcrafted scenery that is mostly recent. If you want more details look up X-Plane scenery gateway

[@lucasbi]

Completely unfair comparison 🤦‍♂️

[@Keestral]

What's unfair about it?

[@makskk6spm275]

@@Keestral Same question. What exactly was unfair ? Everything is better in XP12 - details, airports, physics(airborne and on the ground).

[@jorldan5440]

@@makskk6spm275 your joking right 😂

[@Greasytrap4]

Why? Because X-Plane has better roads and details? Why is it only unfair when X-Plane has something better then fs2020? Have you seen google maps or bing maps? This is what it looks like so idk what you were expecting

[@jorldan5440]

@@Greasytrap4 but you can’t say everything is better in X-plane 12 that’s just being a fan boy all msfs need is to improve physics

[@sendyofindia]

MSFS is based on real world and is generative based on maps. These are not handmade elements but are computer generated based on Maps. Also for a flight simulator, going this close to objects is not that frequent.

[@FritzWeinrebe]

XP12 is based on OpenStreetMap data which is also real world. Every major version they make a new road cut from real data. GA flights at low level is frequent. Jetliners don't see these issues.

[@sendyofindia]

@@FritzWeinrebe got it :)

[@caribbaviator7058]

​@@FritzWeinrebe Yeah but I can't even recognize the roads in xplane in my practice area irl 🤷

[@FritzWeinrebe]

@HomeSchool Dre On my first flight in MSFS I found my house too. There was a factory building there. Nice touch.

[@FritzWeinrebe]

@HomeSchool Dre I found the street where my house is bit sadly the house is autogen. But what was nice was to see some features in the sim that I have edited in OpenStreetMaps was in the sim. Like a park and a communication tower at my workplace.

[@burgadahz17]

Xplane fanboy detected

[@kittealand]

naah, I think "Fulton Official" just likes to stir the pot and have a good time! ;)

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

It's all about having fun 🤣😊

[@l3gion437]

yeah... i really like both but x-plane 12 is just an update of 11, at least X-plane 12 could have online but they didn't even put that in the simulator, MSFS has improved with every update and besides being more and more realistic it is also fun to fly with friends!

[@cousins6933]

Its so funny how everyone in this comment section is getting so pissed because XP 12 won and not msfs

[@megabitegaming9655]

This is why xplane 12 has the best all round sim msfs is ok but me personally love the feeling of landing and seeing traffic along proper roads

[@mrfraudel]

msfs fanboys getting triggered cl, i own both, proud to say that i prefer xp12

[@darrenbrown3128]

To be fair, you are comparing X-Plane autogen scenery with MSFS Photogrammetry scenery. You need to compare the X-plane scenery with MSFS's default autogen scenery. That would be like-for-like. Please can you redo the video accordingly so we get a true picture.

[@leobosboom]

X-plane 12 is the absolute winner. MSFS 2020 looks very poor to me.

[@dn1z336]

Bro why msfs geeks are crying in the comments lmao u might preffer msfs or xp but just admit the facts bro

[@danitheiler2402]

Visuals in MSFS are in a completely different league🤩 Of ourse they use a completely new technology to recreate the whole planet. A digital twin of our world. Only possible thanks cloud streaming. Fantastic job from Asobo and Microsoft👌🏼

[@caribbaviator7058]

Xplane is still not the best choice for VFR pilots when the scenery doesn't bare any resemblance to the real thing.

[@FritzWeinrebe]

Agree. MSFS is a great sim for a tour through a country or continent. XP does not come close. But if you are in a helicopter chasing a car or train then XP is better.

[@TurboNeon185]

@@FritzWeinrebe why is that what I did every time I played the XP demo? lol I chased a cop car in a 206 and he got away.

[@FritzWeinrebe]

@@TurboNeon185 looks like you need a faster helicopter. Have fun and look out for the power lines. :-)

[@pilot.sergio4]

That is one of the downsides of allowing AI to do a lot of the work on the scenery from the photogrammetry provided. It makes it look amazing from a distance and more like real life giving it a true 1:1 representation of the actual world but as you shown once you get up close it completely degrades. Same thing for the bridges, that is unfortunately all because of the AI. Only way that is fixed is with 3rd party sceneries and such to get those things fixed.

[@michaelkuepper66]

What do you see at 30,000 feet? Are detailed signs and cars there important? These are flight simulations. No walking or driving simulations. This comparison is nonsense. Are you walking or are you already flying?

[@Sheza58]

It's a flight sim, not a ground sim.

[@alexgoodfellow6785]

Well done for adding old footage from MSFS bridges especially??

[@oyungurmesis5847]

Xplane 12 nextgen roads,traffics,ground textures is netxgen Msfs looking prepar3d and fsx

[@koolebro7285]

those are old msfs videos, and I never notice any of that at fl390

[@FritzWeinrebe]

Come down to earth when your fuel runs out. Then you will see it.

[@ComdrStew]

Now show the default XP scenery and not the paid ones, lol. You see all this with MSFS paid scenery also. XP default scenery in 90% of the world is flat twenty year old scenery.

[@baseleggjaxx]

Great objective comparison video. I have a suggestion for your next video - you should compare space flight in MSFS to that of Kerbal Space Program, or maybe even Star Citizen.

[@RivalGrimReaper]

😅 right!

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂😂🤣🤣

[@elyucatecoluke4095]

objective comparison ?... kids...

[@samymidou8488]

Yes it's easy to choose areas that are not updated in MSFS, this is not a genuine comparison ..................

[@FritzWeinrebe]

You can choose any area in XP12 and it will look like the video.

[@samymidou8488]

Yes generic and repetitive Objects only and they don't reflect the real world, I do prefer MSFS , I do agree that Xplane is better in Dynamics only and its graphic engine is too old.

[@darrenbrown3128]

@@FritzWeinrebe yes, all the same everywhere! Like legoland 🤣

[@tyronebrown4453]

I don't know how many of you guys are real pilots. I'm a real instrument rated pilot and X-Plane 12 is more real to life than MSFS2020. I find it hard to even finish a flight in MSFS2020 without the thing crashing. I hate going through a 2 hour flight about to land and the thing will freeze and crash! X-Plane 12 is more stable!

[@darrenbrown3128]

TOTALLY disagree. I'm a real word GA pilot and GA aircraft flight dynamics are 100% times better in MSFS. I installed X-Plane 12 demo and removed it again 10 mins later! Not sure where all this hype and crap is coming from but it's totally wrong. And not sure why it's crashing for you - obviously your PC as mine is fine - but that bears no resemblence of the accuracy of the simulation itself so not sure why you mentioned that.

[@Mista_Spicy]

him: finds the best of XP 12 also him: finds the worst for Microsoft Flight Sim

[@burgadahz17]

This Is why i hate xplane fanboys

[@DC3Refom]

This is a good fair comparison I see a lot of youtube fanboy videos doing comparisons zoomed right out at like 3000ft and no close up comparisons at all

[@laihimchan8540]

hello so both xp and fs 2020 is set to full world object ,right ? so it is details then mine

[@pedroisctube]

Still prefer msfs2020, and I was xplane 11 adicted user.

[@darrenbrown3128]

Same, plus a real world pilot too.

[@flightgamer7849]

This is funny and I love X-Plane but this new release of 12 has been very disappointing so far. I think the engine is just tired.

[@Steve31000]

It is indeed funny. What's funnier is how so many people want to tell everyone that XP12's ground textures, roads and autogen look life like when unless viewed from very close up, absolutely do not mix well together and look pretty bad from above (it's a flightsim afterall). And those ground textures and beaches everywhere. Oh man.

[@FritzWeinrebe]

The engine is fine. Its the artists that needs to improve the graphics.

[@Unknown-jw4gj]

They will probably update the cars and traffic for Microsoft flight simulator 2020

[@zephirusvideos]

Are you flying or driving in the simulators?!?! The comparisons are not fair, the approaches are different.

[@maxbouchard2241]

And now compare them with their fullest graphics possible

[@Arias_8]

XP12 wins

[@goblin2bis707]

X plane is autogen, so you have details but they are the same everywhere, much easier to use and friendly with low end machines....MSF2020 is photogrammetry in a lot of places, ajusted to the real terrain, and can be highly detailed on some places BUT it is depending of your machine which can support it !!!! very high end machine. Your melted building, houses show your machine does not go up to there in the place your are showing.

[@aileronsintowind6835]

Orbx ? Provides scenery for both sims to fix the shit in both sims.. with includes auto gen.. there’s also a ton of freeware libraries for both sims now but everyone claims that the photogrammetry is the greatest thing in the world in sim however it in many areas is represented by melted building appearances that look like they’re from the movie I am legend. Both sims have good and bad points but let’s give XP two years like msfs is currently and we can have another check.. My money is street lights will still be a ball hovering above the ortho in two years.

[@classydave75]

Not a good comparison sir. X-Plane 12 autogen shouldn't be compared to MSFS photogrammetry but put against the Blackshark Azure AI autogen to really see which one is doing it better. That would be interesting to see. Nice background music by the way...

[@BloodSteyn]

Exactly, Go for a flight around Table Mountain in Cape Town, and then tell me which sim wins on looks. XP doesn't give two shits about accuracy of terrain and cities, it's great for IFR Airliners with great systems simulation, but it sucks balls for low and slow VFR GA flying.

[@classydave75]

@@BloodSteyn Yes. But even on systems and flight dynamics simulation, for how long is it going to keep the advantage? I can see Asobo ditching the "lookup tables" flight model in the future. They already use something similar to XP besides the old model which, as far as I know, is only there for compatibility with older FSX aircrafts. And they are now developing simplified computational fluid dynamics as well. The visual gap is already out of XP reach and the flight dynamics gap is shrinking fast... Austin Meyer has become the enemy number 1 of his own product. That's sad. Imho.

[@BloodSteyn]

@@classydave75 I agree, XP is great in it's own right, but it's fast slipping. MSFS implementation of CFD and NPS along with their 3D environmental airflow simulation is going to put a lot of pressure on XP's tried and tested, but quite old, BET that's still just a 2D simulation. I grew up flying with my Dad in small GA planes, looking out the window at the world below, and XP just cannot deliver that "feeling" to me. The systems and "Study Level" stuff is less of a buying factor for me, but seeing how Asobo is open to engaging 3rd parties like Working Title to patch those gaps... it's only a matter of time before MSFS takes the top spot away from Austin.

[@classydave75]

​@@BloodSteyn Exactly. Some may not like it but the visuals/environment are a big part of the immersion. I would say it is as important as the avionics simulation for "study level" A/C and I would put the flight model in third place even, as controversial as it would be. A desktop PC can only give an approximated translation of the flight model behavior through your joystick... It is what it is. So as long as the flight physics involved are good enough to suspend your disbelief, like with XP and now MSFS as well, the other parts of the sim are going to be more prevalent for immersion. If visuals were not that important, products like Orbx sceneries wouldn't exist... That's just an opinion but I think I'm not that wrong... I flew Cessna 150/172 in the past, MSFS 2020 honestly isn't that far of the real deal in terms of flight model as some make it to be (as much as desktop simulation can provide). And the room for improvement is there... XP keeps the crown, sure , but for how long?

[@canexfex5325]

what a stpd comparison, in the places of photogrammetry obviously it must be seen that way being very close because it is photogrammetry they are not made by hand, the vehicle thing is fine but the rest is absurd the comparison, even so fs 2020 is much better than x plane in everything, a more alive and realistic world with the fact of having photogrammetry makes it a thousand times superior to x plane

[@ismailhamza4721]

X Plane 12 feels like the MSFS 2004 I used to play when I was 6 years old

[@TheRenegadeAV8R]

How do the aircraft compare?

[@Humberto-F7]

I don't understand, you have shown other comparisons and the scenery, buildings, trees, streets in MSF2020 were even better than X-Plane12. This MSF thing you show looks like something not even finished.

[@liamparker0315]

Big downside for MFS is the bridges, if you feel like doing a few stunts flying under bridges etc you can’t

[@djtaylorutube]

You kind of can. Turn off crash detection. Some of the bridges have a poor physics model and some don't do for those that model a box, yes you collide. With damage off, you just pile straight through.

[@darrenbrown3128]

Agreed there 100%

[@zihad2133]

The crashing system and lack of good bridge hit boxes makes msfs seem like a very sanitized flight sim the current way crashes and low level stunt flight is handled is the main turn away for me

[@djtaylorutube]

@@zihad2133 What would you like with crashes? I mean, considering its a simulator... If you crashed in real life, what would expect to see after the moment of impact? At the point where flying has ceased, other than being a game, what else should it do and more importantly, why? Bridge collision models? Depends on the model. Yes certainly many could be better.

[@zihad2133]

@@djtaylorutube honestly I just want to experience the crash instead of the screen just going black. For example you clip your wing on a building flying low so you eat dirt and instead of the screen going black you hit the ground and Maybe there is a little bit of a fire particle effect kinda like X-plane 11 I’m not asking for Beamng levels of damage just a small amount of fire coming from the engine.

[@oettinger31]

I‘ll use both Sims in VR. I’m using MSFS for 2,5 years now and will get X-Plane12 as well. With MSFS I will explore how Scenery looks like from the air and to see how e.g. traffic circuit visual marks look like to prepare for real life training sessions especially for places I’ve not been before. With X-Plane I will repeat, what my FI teaches me during RL training when it comes to actually flying the plane, to repeat the standard airwork and train T/O and LDGs. I will continue to use MSFS for airliners, the immersion of the PMDG 737 with FS2Crew in VR is just amazing 🤩 I have an X-Plane 11 license but never really used X-Plane, never liked the visuals. Now that I have real flight lessons I must admit, that especially the ground and near ground feeling during T/O and LDG in X-Plane really is more realistic. I think both Sims don‘t need to hide, both have their advantages and are worth buying, you get a lot for your money with both.

[@MOMAZOSPATO]

Can u give me the explane 11 licenze plss

[@MOMAZOSPATO]

Me so poor cant afford :(

[@MOMAZOSPATO]

Pls pls pls give android explane 11 lizense pls pls android

[@roborat2000]

It's a flight simulator, not a driving simulator. Laminar made the wrong sim.

[@alexagriculturevienne]

Non objective, you are juste a xplane fanboy...

[@FritzWeinrebe]

Why don't you make another video comparing a real commercial flight simulator to XP12 and MSFS?

[@TurboNeon185]

I appreciate your craftiness in your comparison but the building part just confirms why I prefer msfs. I have no clue where the XP example was from but the MSFS neighborhood is most likely Queens or Brooklyn. You focus on what's obviously a school given that you can see the playground painted on the asphalt. It's surrounded by apartment buildings and you can see project buildings in the background. You show those two clips to people that live in those neighborhoods I'm willing to bet that only one of them will recognize it.

[@makskk6spm275]

Thanks for this video! Great comparison.

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

Thanks

[@trip5003]

Explane is all grey and depressing looking . Clouds look like garbage . Yuck

[@wesleybenn4523]

Not once did I see you do a comparison in the same place across the two simulators. This has to be one of the worst examples I have seen of confirmation bias in the comparison. I can’t say which would win necessarily when you compare the two appropriately, but that is certainly something that you did not do

[@gozz7733]

The runway wasn't the same in the comparison?

[@wesleybenn4523]

@@gozz7733 No, I don’t think so. I actually went back-and-forth looking at that a couple of times… Check out the body of water in the background

[@gozz7733]

@@wesleybenn4523 Ok, but how many different looks can a runway have? The problem I'm having is that for years, MSFS users have been trolling X-Plane users about not being able to keep up with current tech. Now we have a sim that has done that, and people are complaining. Why can't we all just enjoy what we want, without the trolling??

[@wesleybenn4523]

@@gozz7733 I have both, and enjoy both, so which one “wins“ really isn’t something I am deeply invested in. However, if you’re going to do a comparison, then do it properly. This most certainly was not that.

[@iaexo]

@@gozz7733 What? MSFS has only been out for 2 years, and once it was released it was the X-Plane fanbois who couldn't help but belittle MSFS, following the example of their master Austin Meyer, the lead developer of X-Plane. For 2 years. Now that X-Plane 12 has released, it's reasonable to see it coming the other way round

[@makskk6spm275]

In MSFS2020 when you approach the surface, you get the feeling that there are ruins of cities after an all-out thermonuclear war. Really scary to see it. All cities, when viewed closely, look like burnt deserted ruins. Graphics in close watch is terrible. Not even close to XP12.

[@BloodSteyn]

But... fly at 1000 ft and all of a sudden MSFS looks much closer to life and XP looks like Kerbal Space Program. You can VFR anywhere in the world with MSFS... doubt you can on XP. It's great for Airliners on IFR, sure, but low and slow... MSFS wins.

[@makskk6spm275]

​@@BloodSteyn No. It doesn't. You just don't look closely. At any distance it looks not realistic at all. Cities look burnt and dead. Especially airports. Bridges and houses. Roads. Almost everything. And I don't talk about flight physics and physics on the ground during taxi. XP12 is much, much better. Not to mention a huge number of glitches and problems in MSFS which they even after TWO years still didn't fix. XP12 won for sure. XP12 brought new standards to this industry.

[@makskk6spm275]

@@BloodSteyn 1000 ft, aha... especially over NY where buildings are tall then 1000 ft. you better don't argue.

[@makskk6spm275]

@@BloodSteyn The devil is always in details. If details are not important to you, then MSFS is your choice. For me the details are very important. Flying in an airplane is not only a calm and straight horizontal flight at a altitude of a 6000ft or more. A flight consists of a mass of details such as - launching an aircraft, taxiing along the runway, precise detailing of airports(all of them), but not only large like in MSFS (in MSFS, only large airports are well detailed, the rest are terrible). takeoff and climb and then landing and taxiing to the parking lot. In MSFS well implemented only straight flight at high altitude. The detailing on the rest of the levels is terrible and disgusting.

[@FritzWeinrebe]

Wait for November when Helicopters are launched in MSFS. Since more people will fly below 1000 feet, they will start complaining more. But when touring the country I would choose MSFS anytime. Having fun close to the ground I would choose XP anytime. Each has their own strengths.

[@flyt0Live]

Having fun reading the comments lmao

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂

[@Justice937]

So FS2020 didn't include a helicopter in the first place..

[@Arias_8]

I mean like there are some addons that will make the detail on MSFS look way way better

[@thegundalun9226]

Nice promo for XP12 😅

[@Spikerman1]

In XPlane, you show the best spots but in the MSFS you show the worst... But we all know, that the MSFS has a way better Graphic than XP12 xD. And those little things like better Parking lots just costs soo many frames but you will never fly close to them... At Airports: The MSFS has way better textures!

[@RTMMods]

Yeah. shameful comparison. buildings in X12 - a lot of identical houses. Yes, they are better up close. but the overall picture is poor. like in x11. in MFS2020, although the quality of buildings is worse, they are in accordance with real buildings and the overall picture is much more realistic. in MFS2020, volumetric light and clouds are much more photorealistic than in x12 and also, the overall picture from the cockpit is much more realistic than in x12.

[@Darkoryou]

Xplane 12 is going in the right direction with autogen. MSFS looks better from a specific altitude but the ground is not dynamic, no swaying trees. Xplane is more realistic to me.

[@davidamills]

There are swaying trees in MSFS, and there have been since initial release two years ago. But they don't sway unless there is a significant wind. Waves in MSFS also react to wind speed -- something lacking in XP12.

[@d21bash]

Vehicules?

[@tylerdoolittle6465]

X plane and msfs need to make a game together with Laminar Research’s attention to detail and simulation physics and Microsoft’s bing maps/realism put together would make the most successful flight sim used all over

[@vuk5001]

Msfs doesnt know whats under the bridge cuz its from a satellite, and they capture the earth perfectly but cant go in details like whats under a bridge

[@xINTENSORx]

Doing a lot of cherry picking, I'll still take MSFS 2020 over X Plane 12, MSFS 2020 does not look as good up close but is 1000% more accurate to the real world.

[@tedburg6042]

Now do Attention to planet and hand pick the best of MSFS and worst of Xplane.

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂

[@vfl1848wan]

Oh yes..vehicles, roadsigns etc are sooo important to a flight simulation.. :-) ...the only thing that might be important are the bridges as you can fly below them...but also this is sooooo unimportant in my point of view...same as insides of airport buildings... in normally dont park my plane in there. Texture might be a bit too clean in MSFS right. Comparing photogrammetrie with just normal scenery in not good..try comparing same scenery with scenery. Trains...wow same as vehivles and roadsigns..nice to have but not needed

[@TheMrBitsy]

I was flying VFR in XP12 and was looking into the haze for the M1 motorway. First thing I noticed was the moving traffic, but I knew there was another road next to it. Next thing I saw were the blue overhead motorway signs which confirmed it was a motorway. Why can't people just accept something as good, rather than saying its bad because its not in their sim of choice?

[@vfl1848wan]

I just said these things are less important for flight simulation. Well ok maybe important for recognising a motorway from a normal road..but in the end its a flight sim we talk about...not a world traffic sim..or an inside airport sim. For VFR its important you recognise special points in the landscape. For IFR you should at least be able to recognise the area/city you are in. But more important to me would be accurate airports, navigation aids, and flight dynamics/models. And yes both Sims have their highs and lows there.

[@fastica]

Satellite data with crappy detail up close is much better than generic looking scenery with great detail up close. When you're flying VFR you don't take up close details as visual reference.

[@pacmantravel2158]

Honestly, X-Plane should be rated MA-17 while Microsoft Flight Simulator rated G.

[@zihad2133]

Seems like X-plane 12s scenery is better for ground huggers and rotorcraft pilots like me and Microsoft is better for flying at altitude. Tho msfs is still better fidelity wise and is getting more updates it’s still disappointing there but there are still issues like this I hope the city geometry improves.

[@Rsantana380]

don't know others but i don't fly so low to the ground, and you're not at ultra settings

[@TheoSaBach]

Best video my bro.

[@chipilot]

None of this is relevant even as low as 500ft agl

[@santiagocampoverde7569]

Xp12 = euro truck simulator 🤔

[@Flight3delta]

Not a fair comparison

[@andresjmontanez]

Unfair comparison...

[@oliverdots]

At the end of the day X Plane and MSFS are GAMES. Why are MSFS fans getting their knickers in a twist over this video??

[@TheoSaBach]

FS2020 😂😂😂

[@a339neo]

This comparison is incorrect. MSFS is a flight simulator and focuses all over the world with real Bing based google earth senario, XP is a comic, it has the look of a cartoon. Just fly to see how real MSFS gives. Being a flight simulator, you have to fly in VFR too you can enjoy real landscapes all over the world, fly in VR with MSFS and you will really feel in flight, XP is not accurate in physics and aerodynamics. and sorry but MSFS graphics are now unbeatable, especially with Sims and World Updates, XP will never be as good as ASOBO. As a pilot, I do exercises and simulations in VR with MSFS and nothing else can be so real. And I also add that since I am actually flying for real, I can confirm that MSFS it reaches the levels of reality!

[@jpl1705]

Completely irrelevant and biased..... Just an advert for Xplane!

[@liliandenis3082]

This video just show us how msgs is a map to fly in and look good from the sky and xplane's map is meant to be cross by foot and look ugly above 100 ft

[@readyforpushbackjet]

Well, if I need to see a 1990’s Volvo or Volkswagen or are in dire need to see a Peterbuilt truck in all it’s glory… I’ll be sure to use Xplane… oh… and I’ll make sure to brake for moose! Thanks Xplane!!

[@jjohnson1667]

Thumbs way down. LOL Anyone who has spent time in both sims can see this is obviously an apples to oranges comparison. Of course the photogrammetry stuff is not going to look good up close. But you didn’t compare it to the MSFS AI buildings or bridges, which would be a more apples to apples comparison. The XP12 cars and roads do look better in general, but when you’re a couple hundred feet up in the air it’s not really as noticeable. And I’m sorry, but there’s just so many cities and regions and POI in MSFS that make it way more interesting to fly in. Then there’s the multiplayer, I do bush flying with a large group and XP12 loses horribly in this area. The ease to add friends and easily join on them makes that part so seamless. There are many, many areas were XP12 still loses bad and the bias toward XP12 was clearly evident.

[@MagnumMike44]

Starting around 1:24 during one of the FS 2020 clips - I know it wasn't my imagination but did I see automobiles flying across the river instead pf being driven on the bridge? I know this is supposed to simulate flight but not flying cars.. Unless Asobo/Microsoft are looking decades ahead into the future when flying cars will be available LOL... 😄

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

Those cars are actually flying 😂😂😂🤣

[@FritzWeinrebe]

Yip that is standard in MSFS. See it all the time.

[@MagnumMike44]

@@FULTONOFFICIALKFV It's 2 simulators in one, a flight simulator and a flying car simulator.. LOL.. 😄😃

[@marywow9659]

So the start of this is X12 or X11? Looks the same. Not sure how many are this close all the time but sure maybe. I ALWAYS loved X-plane and trains.. just love trains. HAHA they move! Granted one has real photos that you can make look even better..maybe some don't know this. All have vanishing cars and running in to buildings blah blah blah. Best to compare X11 or before to the new X12

[@GregVD]

Laminar (Xplane 12) wanted to built the world from below to the top, making and desing every object of their world. That are like Laminar intended to build Xplane world. And thats the reason Xplane scenery works for me, because very object that i see, is real on this scenery. And using (very important to give to the scenery a real ambient) their great lighting system, and using ambient sounds, the graphics and world (more kind of buildings, golf camps, schools, gas stations....) looks very well. Yeahh, photogrammetry used by MSFS its fine for some distant, but i don't like that photo covering everything.

[@T0mmyPL]

Roads and cars ceirtanly are not the strongest MSFS feature.

[@AmilcarP]

Good job trying to trash MSFS. X-plane has a lot of areas where the cars are outside of the roads as well as ground issues. Trees on runways, etc. It is generated sceneries so you going to have a lot of those. You focus on areas where there are issues with MSFS (it has been reported already). Still, XP12 is not a comparison. Now should be called the water-tree sim.

[@cockpitlife737]

Nice bro i like your video keep it up

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

Thank you :)

[@landwirtschaftvirtuell2383]

Yes thats right but from the 3000feet altitude is msfs 2020better

[@cenkcdemir]

even in this biased video, msfs looks better. xp looks like a planet that is way tooo far from the Sun

[@michisvet2922]

Well he got scared from the comments of his last video and now he is kind of forced to pull a "100% XPlane 12 patriotic movement against MSFS"

[@FULTONOFFICIALKFV]

😂😂😂

[@DrunkenGuitarGuy]

nice try fanboy!

[@ghostgenix0]

Cars are pretty low res on both.The trucks remind me of ATS.

[@miguelin96]

The only interest in this video is to share the bad for the msfs 2020. Xplane 11, sorry 12, is really bad in terms of mesh quality i cant see anything about that here, it is a terrain comparision video...no the purpose of both sims which is fly.

[@jasonjada2259]

U nitpicked like crazy lmao

[@philo2128]

Sometimes movies look better on low res screens, this seems to be similar 😂, msfs seems too look better at altitude

[@DirtBike101]

Nah Next Flight sim its gonna be so big were all gonna need a RTX4090 to run it. Microsoft got a lot more money then Xplane they can do a lot more.