MSFS 2020 vs X-plane 12 vs Real Life. Landing in Berlin Brandenburg Airport

[@FlowinBeatz]

As a native Berliner I have to say how unbelievable great the MSFS renderings are. Really very very close to reality even in small details.

[@nexogames4819]

Liegt primär daran, dass MSFS mit Google Earth kooperiert. Da sind natürlich die Terrains etc. nahezu 1:1 da Google Earth ja über Satelliten die Bilder aufnimmt

[@spooqus6541]

@@nexogames4819 msfs kooperiert nicht mit google earth, sondern benutzt einfach microsofts eigenen karten: bing maps

[@KeesAlderliesten]

​@@nexogames4819 Google Earth? Bing data!

[@roxout5743]

@@nexogames4819 doesn't MSFS use bing?

[@BlueSky_fur]

@@nexogames4819bing*

[@mustafabilen3696]

Actually msfs is more realistic than real life. Edit : Thank u for the likes and I am sorry I said that sentence

[@lucaa.berlin]

But the Airport isn't without the Add-on by Limesim

[@ac_junior72]

Still blows me away. In the decades of messing with the MSFS releases...and "pretending" to fly over my home..which has no detail. Now..in 2023. I can take the Astro One and hover over my home, it LOOKS like my home, the neighborhood, the local stores/businesses--- and it literally looks 99.9999% of what my DJI drone captures. Mind boggling. Even with Live Traffic turned on, setting "drone camera" to my front lawn, then look up..seeing the AI planes above me at 10-15K ft...same exact flight path from what I actually see all day and night. Now I know from MSFS these planes, most of them are heading to Liberty / Newark Intl. Airport.

[@dageek1000]

But less FPS

[@mustafabilen3696]

@@ac_junior72 yeah ok u got me

[@laaaliiiluuu]

MSFS is over saturated and the colors are just unnatural general

[@cwood7240]

There is one thing that stands out and is fair to say is Laminar Research doesn't have the resources that Microsoft/Asobo does. So for a simulator having fewer employees they actually do quite well. I love my X-planes 11 and 12. X-Plane 12 is just at their begging's. Give it some time.

[@flightandfind]

Fair enough

[@guillaume_69]

​@@flightandfindor would it rather be fair if XP was a fraction of the cost of MSFS? As consumers, if we pay a similar price I think we should expect a similar value. If XP was freeware, it would be a totally different story. But Laminar seems to have made good money, their CEO having his s own plane and fancy cars... We're not exactly talking a bunch of people writing code in their parent's home :)

[@flightandfind]

@@guillaume_69 Ha, that's fair too

[@whiffy506]

@@guillaume_69remember, XPlane is the licensed sim to be used as an actual flight trainer around the world. They know what they are doing, eye candy is not their priority.

[@dtrjones]

Laminar Research have done remarkable well. But you can flip that around too. Asobo are new to flight simulation and yes they had the FSX code to fall back on but were under pressure to evolve the sim in the best way, they've done well although the early bugs which plagued the sim have taken a lot time to eradicate and I think that's there lack of experience in flying was the culprit but is being addressed. Looking forward to MSFS 2024.

[@darreno1450]

The thing about MSFS is there are so many settings for graphics. It would have been nice to know what settings were used here. Also, the MSFS photogrammetry was done at a different time of the year, so the colors were reflective of that time.

[@dotnetdevni]

settings dont mater its the spec of pc would be bettrr to know

[@worldofflightsim]

​​@@dotnetdevniYou are not completely right on this one, unless you are happy with only 30fps max. Even with a big system you can't simply put everything on ultra. The game has performance issues and these issues come mostly from the data collection of the live stuff. Especially live traffic. So you need to play with the settings indeed and there are enough tutorials on YT, but still then there are some minor tweaks to get rid of the stuttering.

[@cjmillsnun]

@@worldofflightsim The performance issues are more to do with poor optimisation of the program itself. It is not good with multithreaded CPUs and is thus always main thread limited, meaninf the GPU cannot be used to its full.

[@stuebby1982]

Respect XPlane and MSFS, both 👏 Great Job, thanks

[@wyhhero]

I like the right most one, because the frame rate is very stable regardless how detailed the scene on the ground becomes.😂😂😂

[@chrishyde1216]

I think the other two are a bit closer to my budget.

[@POLSKIKAJAK]

the rightmost one is real life

[@DaveTaste]

Lol! So funny!

[@Test.Unknown]

@@DaveTastesarcasm is kinda cringe not gonna lie

[@owenklein1917]

The cloud pattern is only repetitive in msfs if you are using a custom weather setting. Using live weather doesn’t give you a repetitive cloud pattern

[@flightandfind]

Hm, interesting

[@Grizzly50450]

If X-plane had access to the satellite imagery like Microsoft does that sim would blow MSFS out of the park I think. The lighting is way better in my opinion in X-plane and the physics of the aircraft are superior. Also the lighting on the aircraft in X-plane is just AWESOME. That being said I still use MSFS as my main sim but I do use X-plane when I want that more realistic feeling with the aircraft on approach.

[@rchrd_sn]

I'd like to see landing gear touchdown better rendered in the future versions of both sims. The touchdown, just the landing gear touching down on the runway, is perfectly rendered on X-Plane, but the spoilers effect is little compared to reality. On MSFS, the touchdown effect is poor and the spoilers effect inexistent. The touchdown and the spoilers effect, and the dynamic effects of those on the plane as a whole, are very noticeable in real life.

[@scottstoll-dn2yx]

This shows the focus of each sim accurately, meaning that the creator of X-Plane has been very vocal about the fact that X-Plane is focused on accurate flight modeling, not stunning visuals. MSFS is the other way around. Note the way the real plane and X-Plane have similar turbulence while MSFS flies along happily as if the air were glass smooth. I'm practicing for a license, and can confirm that X-Plane is better if you need to practice for real flying, but MSFS is great for pretty, and very accurate, scenery. (Neither is bad at visuals or flight modeling, but their focuses are different).

[@flightandfind]

Thanks for the real-life compared opinion!

[@mcmuffin-z5v]

The turbulence in msfs feels pretty good aswell

[@maydaygoingdown5602]

I agree with your assessment. Saturation and colour Xplane 12, Scenery MS2020. I'd also like to add to this by saying Xplane 11 and 12 both for Flight dynamics being much more accurate.

[@justwilly6778]

To live in a time where we have two fantastic sims is truly remarkable.

[@dennis.oosthuizen]

Excellent job, and thank you for taking the time to put this together. I am happy with MSFS; x-plane and MSFS continually improve. Let us see what happens when MSFS 2024 gets released.

[@flightandfind]

Yeah, can't wait the release of MSFS 2024!

[@ZsAviationnews-jx4fo]

i doubt the graphics will change too much. maybe gameplay will

[@LeRafale]

X-Plane 12 is improving more, and the physics is absolutely gorgeous while msfs's sucks.

[@LeRafale]

That's why I love it !

[@EmeryE2]

@@LeRafaleMSfs is past bad physics, they just have physics that are a little bad compared to Xplane.

[@JabariHunt]

MSFS looks amazing! That said, as a student pilot i believe X-Plane aircraft respond more realistically. If I weren't training to actually fly, I'd use MSFS.

[@suesun7072]

I used MSFS back in 2004 to practice IFR procedures like flying holding patterns or things like NDB approaches by hand while calculating wind influence into my flying. Helped me big times to optimize my RL flight training.

[@JabariHunt]

@@suesun7072 Both are definitely useful for training, especially as far as procedures go. Planes in X-Plane handle just a tab bit more realistically IMO. MSFS looks absolutely amazing though.

[@suesun7072]

@@JabariHunt I didn't really cared if the performance parameters or aerodynamics are to 100% realistic. Important for me was flying procedures and having to count in a wind drift, which MSFS simulated pretty well. I flew the C172 with a flight stick. Isn't realistic at all, but that wasn't what I was hoping to find, study level realism. Training to focus on 4 things at a time while being distracted by my bf was. 😀 Edit: For learning to navigate under VFR rules, I think MSFS is the only sim to go for right now.

[@JabariHunt]

@@suesun7072 You being a more experienced pilot, I get that completely. I'm a low time student pilot working towards a PPL. Procedures are great, but I'm also doing a lot of maneuvers in preparation for my checkride. The better flight characteristics are very welcome. As I mentioned though, both are great simulators.

[@suesun7072]

​@@JabariHunt I wish you the best of luck with your checkride! Fingers crossed! My PPL check was a nervous rollercoaster ride after others failed and said how tough he is! *lol When he asked for a 360° I flew a steep one like for traffic avoidance, way faster than a smooth 2 min turn. And the engine out above the airport I did my best glide speed pattern, then killed hight aiming for the runway beginning not for the displaced threshold marking which was 500ft further in. But in both instances he saw that I did it flawlessly and on purpose, so I passed. 😊If you allow me a hint. When you know which plane you will have your check flight on, invest an hour or two to fly with this plane and do nothing but traffic patterns and some light airwork close to stalls and best glide with engine in idle. No simulator can give you the feedback like the real thing does. Always blue skies and safe landings!

[@tombulva]

XP - needs fine-tuning on your own (ortho4XP + X-World = free, but takes some time) - then it comes close to MSFS appearance. MSFS - it's very beautiful out of the box, but there are no extras to improve the physics and real feel of the flight, ground physics, etc (except maybe the A2A 250 Comanche, which rejected the MSFS engine). Competition is always good for us - customers ;-)

[@dtrjones]

The flight physics argument is an interesting one. Many advanced aircraft in MSFS have flight physics modelled independantly, so you can't really say it's a limitation of the sim. It's how 3rd party devs got holicopters in the sim before they were officially supported by the SDK.

[@tombulva]

@@dtrjones OK. Airplanes, as such, are sometimes well modeled (few) , but limitations arise in the environmental physics in the MSFS plane. And that's what MSFS can't beat for now. Landing with a crosswind, ground physics... And recent improvements in XP12 (which has many other flaws ;-) ) - landing flares are perfect. Anyone who has flown in the real world sees how big the difference is in the "feeling" of the plane in XP and MSFS. XP has no chance to compete in terms of views and representation of the world, but the simulation engine is becoming more and more perfect, unfortunately leaving MSFS behind. Two different approaches, everyone chooses what suits them and what they expect at a given moment. We are not stuck with just one flight simulator ;-)

[@phobos2077_]

@@tombulva If you watched recent MSFS devlogs and roadmaps, it seems like they are eliminating every remaining advantage XP12 has one by one. I think at the snail pace of XP12 gets developed, MSFS 2024 will completely put it out of non-professional use. They said so themselves on Q&A's - they are pivoting to professional use, for FAA approval to be used in private flight schools in USA. This would explain the seemingly insane price increase to $80 for "regular" version. They know they can't compete for the "casual" home simmer market.

[@battyjoe]

As a real world commercial pilot the scenery is amazing on MSFS. The clouds seem to let it down compared to X-plane, but MSFS wins overall. The detail is far FAR better than we have in the simulators we use for training!

[@flightandfind]

Thank you for the comment! I am glad to have the same opinion as yours!

[@monastero]

Great video. The buildings, scenes and the rest aren’t not too important. We are not on bikes. The real things are the flight physics and feeling. I use xplane 11and 12 and thats my choice for now. Greetings

[@surfshop7552]

Thats a silly statement. Simulation is everything working together, and everything is equally important to not break the immersion. How can you simulate without the simulation of the world and how can you fly without the "physics and feeling", like you say. You're obviously an xplane groupie but be one with some thought behind it.

[@herkloader34]

As a "real life" professional pilot, I can honestly say both MSFS and XPlane look better than real life.

[@flightandfind]

Haha, cool that you are here!

[@invertedflatspin9676]

In my humble opinion, with regard to visuals, msfs2020 using Bing maps provides for a more realistic VISUAL experience. However, for airplane physics, x plane is the clear winner. MSFS2020 is paramount for VFR flight visuals and landmarks. BUT, in many cases, the Bing map data is outdated. Actual flight simulation flight physics belongs to x plane and is the reason why it is my goto flight simulator. MSFS2020 is more of a game at best when dealing with flight physics. My wish is that both companies would collaborate for the ultimate flight sim, not a game. Just my two cents.

[@GeorgeLIFESTYLE]

True

[@tubeloobs]

The differences aren't big enough to consider MSFS more of a game. That's just silly. You'd have to say P3D is more of an arcade game, then

[@whiffy506]

@@tubeloobsthe difference IS big enough for XPlane to be the licensed simulator for actual real life training. Call me when MSFS gets the green light from the FAA. It won’t happen.

[@tubeloobs]

@@whiffy506 this weak ass argument again. The FAA approval X-Plane **PROFESSIONAL** got, has little to do with it's flight model and everything to do with hardware compatibility.

[@laxarus3259]

MSFS is actually used in redbird simulators. They are EASA and FAA approved for IFR training. But xplane is used in a lot of other approved Sims. Personally we use xplane for all IFR training, but have started a little bit using MSFS for VFR.

[@ViperDriver22]

When I practiced instrument flying X-plane was way better. MSFS is great for private pilot flying in comparison. Thanks for the upload.

[@tubeloobs]

How long ago was this because MSFS has the best default avionics now by far

[@ViperDriver22]

@@tubeloobs About 5 years ago. It wasn't about the avionics, it was the amount of instrument approaches available actually. I hope to start flying approaches in MSFS and get happy about the amount of new approaches available. Want to do some flying together?

[@tubeloobs]

@@ViperDriver22 MSFS didn't exist 5 years ago

[@ViperDriver22]

@@tubeloobs about 6. I'm going to check out MSFS avionics and approaches. I can't wait to fly IFR approaches in MSFS. Thanks man.

[@roxout5743]

@@ViperDriver22 some IFR approaches are missing on MSFS like GBAS

[@ac_junior72]

Both have it's ups and downs, X Plane has come a long way which is cool, they still have a long way to go. *I had Xplane on my Windows desktop years ago, lot of issues, crashes...most likely my PC though and just ended up loading my ancient MSFS 2002 discs...lol 1:57 MSFS vs Reality, looks pretty darn good. X Plane like you mentioned, streets, highways are just a tad too detailed," stuck out" compared to reality. Terrain and buildings at 3:16, XPlane totally fails with this. And back to MSFS...even though it has some very outdated maps, skylines (Philly included missing newer skyscrapers, and don't get me started with generic default Dallas...or whatever that is),I'll still go back to MSFS any day.

[@mortensidel]

Yeah the streets need to be toned down a bit. The white linies a just to bright. Also the roads should be more rounded

[@roxout5743]

@@mortensidel maybe the google maps mod can fix that

[@CCNeutson]

I'm confused. I have both MS and XP and find on MS with 4K textures that more than average MS seems to be ahead on the graphics side. XP spent more time on the aircraft dynamics while MS had individual teams for both plane dynamics and overall graphics. Look, I don't work for either one. I'm a private pilot and practice on both depending on what I'm doing. Now if we break out to a gray area and look at the implementation of Google in MS, it's hands down. There is just no comparison. One more edit, sorry - if you notice in MS the streets are recreated with minor curves while XP is completly straight - like runways. That's my feeling, let me know if I'm wrong. (and I don't work for any of them - my honest opinion).

[@flightandfind]

Yeah, I feel the same!

[@jonath0n]

I first started playing flight sims on xplane 10, but when mfs2020 came out it was absolutely astonishing. Something that's been very common in xplane games, including xplane 12 is the detail in objects far away have a weird effect that ruins the immersion. Me personally, I much prefer microsoft flight sim over xplane 12.

[@brax2364]

I confess I have not booted up MSFS 2020 in a couple years so I do not know what has changed if anything. My primary takeaway from X-Plane 11 and MSFS was that MSFS was more of a game whereas X-Plane was much more useful as a training tool. For me, I could care less about pretending to fly a ommercial jet and am more interested in practicing flying a Piper Cherokee or Cessna doing an RNAV or ILS approach down to minimums. Totally saves me $$$ before doing the same approach with a CFII in the real aircraft.

[@aviationaroundtheworld001]

congratulations for the 200 subs

[@flightandfind]

Thanks

[@MrPhantom1961]

MSFS is great but still has some way to go to match the real world. I tend to fly in areas i'm not familar with, particularly as I do a lot of VFR flying around 5,000ft, so that i'm not too critical of the environment. Living in the UK, and having done a fair bit of real world flying, the environment, with a few exceptions, is very disappointing. I have enjoyed X-Plane, but it needs a significant number of bolt-ons to give it any real world realism.

[@imellor711]

Great side by side video review and I agree with your findings. Xplane12 has some improvements over xp11 and great colours. But then again I never play MSFS without colour filters applied.

[@hugoschneider5007]

What filters do you use?

[@Althar93]

In the last few updates, Xplane 12 has really started to nail the weather & overall atmospherics, which I find quite convincing/realistic ; if only they could get the AA and performance under control... MSFS looks very impressive all round, but it almost falls in the the realm of hyperrealism when you compare it to both Xplane 12 and the real world : things just look at little bit too punchy/puffy/perfect.

[@flightandfind]

Yeah, X-plane looks more realistic in IFR flying. Msfs is probably oversaturated, but it is really beautiful

[@Vanadeo]

Do you know anything about the weird shimmers I'm getting in dawn or evening against clouds and the aircraft.. weird shimmering effect that bleeds off the aircraft.. also shimmering terrain ???. .

[@flightandfind]

@@Vanadeo I don't know anything about that

[@Vanadeo]

@@flightandfind I'll have to have another scour round the forums lol..

[@flightandfind]

@@Vanadeo Yeah, I end up there almost every week because of different bugs

[@ironcito1101]

The reflections on the water can vary depending on the wind. A very calm body of water is indeed almost like a mirror, but it has to be _really_ calm; even a little wind will create small waves and give the water a "matte finish".

[@mikaellachiriboga2223]

I ´m from Neuquen, Argentina. MFS2020 recreated the city 70% well and I say 70% because the system cannot recognize tall buildings. It's strange because in the nearby city they do have them. It put them very low and they are actually taller. I had to switch to google maps because it looks very greenish. Haaaaaa On the Xplane 11 it didn't even look similar. But the street´s demarcation was clearer than in MFS2020. Another thing I forgot to mention is they didn't place the aeroclub, sadly....

[@nutlangsworld]

Excellent video thank you..👌🙏 The reason why I chose Xplane is because it is so simple to add/remove content/add-on`s from the folder structures. I have to say I have not used MSFS 2020 but from my FSX days I can remember it sometimes being a mission to get add-on`s to work right the first time round. Not saying, of course that this is an issue with MSFS. Also agree with the comments here wrt XPlane not having as much resources as Microsoft have. With a bit of tweaking, I can run Xplane 11 on a low end laptop and still enjoy it. and it is by far more stable than what I can remember from the FSX days. Hardly a crash unless I did something stupid....

[@jazzdirt]

Having played flight sims from 1984 onwards... I'm frankly pretty amazed at what flight sim-ing looks like today... I have no actual preference... one does one thing better the other something else... The only thing that used to be better was I had a FF joystick (Microsoft Sidewinder and Sidewinder II, Ironically they don't work with MSFS 2020 anymore, nor with x-plane) back in the day, and they can't be found for a fun price anymore. I used to play IL-Sturmovik a lot back in the day.. and if you were about to stall, you could literally feel the airflow letting go of the wing... I miss that...

[@pilotpawanc]

Perfect comparison!!!! Lighting and aerodynamics of Xplane along with the graphics of Msfs can become the best SIM solution...

[@flightandfind]

Thanks :)

[@alexandreleidier9992]

Do the same video with xworld and autoortho please ! 😁

[@andrejjan2240]

1:20 "I love that text title, perfect catch...as always!" X-Plane 12 is more like a street and real-estate simulator... :):):):) "Too detailed streets..." X-Plane 12 is like Sims??? :):):):) X-Plane 12 is like Cities Skylines???? :):):):):) On the other hand, X-Plane roads and streets look so cute!

[@flightandfind]

😂

[@OleksiiL]

Which VFR flight simulator is best? X-Plane or MSFS2020? They say MSFS2020 is better because they use satellite maps for the earth's surface. accordingly, the detail and reliability are higher.

[@LJR_LIMITED]

Xplane with satellite imagery is best

[@gertjanvandermeij4265]

BTW ..... The CLOUDS look so much better in X-Plane ! And since we spend more time IN the air, I'll go 100% for X-Plane 12. They also have the BEST flight dynamics !

[@AlphaWolf198]

MSFS2020 shows definitley the best details of the landscape, towns/city (river was for me exactly the same, like the real one, the islands are perfect placed. Only the color of the water is a bit to dark. In X-plane I couldn't see after the lake where is water, where forest. Which is actually very worse, for a program exists much more longer then the MSFS. But X-Plane has the focus always on the aerodynamic and cockipts. Their goal is to represent the behavior of the aircraft as accurately as possible. But then I ask myself why they still can't get the landscape to fit. It's definitely much more difficult to simulate the flight behavior than everything else. Something must be possible. If the performance is no longer sufficient, you can reduce the details again. I see no problem for a simulator is since so many years on the market. Also they got very good employers, can do this fast. Specially with the satellite data they got already a perfect"tool" they got nothing to change, except the colors, which are already a problem. But thats not a work needs years to fix. The buildings, streets, landscape etc are already there where they belong.

[@gtamediaproductions1]

MSFS is definitely on top! Bravo ! 👏

[@TeachAManToAngle]

Really good video. How do they differ and flight characteristics? Go do a series of maneuvers in a Cessna 172 in real life, then, in MSFS, and XPlane 12.

[@flightandfind]

Unfortunately, I am not a real pilot, but if I was, I would definitely do that!

[@rmm9676]

Unfortunately, I don't find reviewers that do justice for a proper comparison. There is FAA AC 61-67c.pdf and the ACS standards for PPL, Commercial and CFI that detail out the maneuvers for those ratings. If you look at lots of comparison YT Videos, you will see that for real world pilots, X-Plane is rated as the more accurate for flight model / physics. Just read the comments for this video. Why not do thorough maneuver comparisons? My conclusion is that reviewers prioritize view $$$ most and want to appease more than inform. That is based in part on seeing reviewers mumble and slide when in MSFS the C172 drops the wrong wing in a practice stall.

[@jasonstrehle9430]

I have been flying for nearly 900 hours VFR and IFR. Without a doubt I would recommend student pilots to choose MSFS especially for VFR if you download study-level aircraft. MSFS has realistic physics and just as realistic compared to X-plane. Main difference is how you can feel inertia with X-plane more than MSFS especially when landing and taking off.

[@lquid737]

physics In MSFS are bland even in study level planes, when they taxi It feels like a brick moving on ice, I am talking about IFR if you want VFR get MSFS

[@everythingvideos24]

MSFS looks so much better.

[@streamer6646]

MSFS is the best. No doubt.

[@jaymagnum650]

Currently nothing can beat MSFS visuals...Graphics aside although I've used it the least but X-plane has the most accurate flight dynamics unfortunately. Except some finest addons planes don't linger and mush around on flare that much in x-plane. MS line of sims have never achieved that.

[@countvonaltibar236]

Nice comparison, really shows how MSFS is ahead although I guess with ortho XP12 can be brought up to a much better look

[@whiffy506]

Ahead in graphics, yes. That’s all it has to compete. If you want an actual simulation, stick to XPlane. No im not a fan of any, I use both. XPlane knows where their strength is.

[@mortensidel]

Especially now with AutoOrtho

[@ehss192]

@@whiffy506 What exactly makes xplane more of a simulation?

[@AlbertCavadov-db5fp]

​@@whiffy506чем х плане лучше? То что земля мутная?

[@WizavPRO]

It's incredible how real life looks realistic

[@matejkoldovsky.1544]

Great graphics in real life... What settings are you using?

[@bdbatu]

Gpu is key. Although, MSFS changing the filter through Geforce helps even though Bing maps lack of updates of current city scapes with color. I set to higher GPU and adjust color. Turn off visable traffiic and fly as if you should as a pilot.

[@worldofflightsim]

You could use FSFTL for the traffic and keep the number of live planes low. Let's say ten active planes, Five on the ground and then a range of 50 km. In that case you have traffic while keeping performance, even with the base models mod activated.

[@Ninja_Xdyter]

Yo, how do You get this window view in MSFS? I use Keyboard and Mouse or Controller, would appreciate the answer!

[@flightandfind]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppSpm4mNfbJkgKssi=a31CZH79I36gB9PD you can use this tutorial

[@Ninja_Xdyter]

@@flightandfind Lovely. Thank You very much for the help.

[@paulsaulpaul]

Real life seems to have the best frame rate. X-Plane needs to do better with their OpenStreetMap compiles. They should increase the resolution and update the scenery more regularly. Their old excuse for such low res was because of their DVD distribution, but they should provide downloadable higher res terrain. And I don't mean the textures. I'm referring to the mesh resolution. Better yet, they should try to get a deal with Google for their maps data or develop their own AI to produce proper terrain like MSFS does rather than auto-gen buildings based on OSM zoning data, etc. It's a shame between this and the poor performance of XPlane (it's bad because of their Vulcan implementation vs MSFS good DX12). MSFS is inferior in almost every way other than the world data and graphics.

[@LouLope]

I like all three. Only fly in VR. The PC simulations are still missing the full body haptic feedback and smell, but they coming soon enough.

[@andrejjan2240]

"Dreadful, it's basically a hexagon" Deadful, deadly Deadpool, The Crossroad of Death... :):):( Beesful (Full of bees), it´s basically a hexagon... Bees are living in the hexagons. Bees house consists of hexagon plates...

[@jameswaters3939]

So, in looking at some older videos from FS2004, FSX in 32-bit, this model flight characteristics wasn't noticeable. X-Plane is the 1st 64-bit flight sim pc application, to my knowledge. The difference in flight model characteristics has only become noticeable with MSFS. And, it's very hard to describe. X-Plane has more a dynamic and fluid movement feeling somehow. MSFS is an amazing development after Microsoft closing down the entire venture for a few years. P3D is hinting at converting to Unreal Engine and who knows, X-Plane 13 (*or 14?) might incorporate more realistic visual sceneries. And this industry is now about 30 years old and ... yeah, people can "fly" virtually and simming is full of fascinating twists and turns, including it's progress as platforms.

[@Taurcan]

I have found all simulators miss the mark when it comes to blue. When flying, distance usually lends itself to a lightly bluish tinge because of the moisture in the atmosphere. a little tinkerig with the colour settings can easily fix that.

[@weslen2008]

Comparing a simulator made by a company like Microsoft that has more than 100 thousand employees with the Laminar company that doesn't even have 50 employees, and yet the flight dynamics of the X-plane 12 is even better.

[@EmeryE2]

That’s because Microsoft was aiming for three communities of players, while Xplane was only focused on one.

[@cjmillsnun]

First off MS aren't developing the product, so very few of those 100,000 plus employees have anything to do with MSFS. They use a company called Asobo Studio, who actually developed it. Asobo have 250 employees but develop more than just MSFS so probably have about 50 devs full time on MSFS (90% of them will be on MSFS2024) as the development cycle for MSFS2020 is being wound down.

[@johnc.4871]

Get the tiles, trees, and airports for xplane and it might be better. I have and like both. Neither can do weather. I found my self in a raging super cell in Kansas and had no idea I was flying into it. Even navigraph's weather radar was poor in representation.

[@g0ck31]

MSFS for Sure, with the Worldwide Map. And after the worldupdates and with some Scenery addons, it's closer to Reallife as no other Sim. I can comparsion in Dubrovnik Split, Heraklion, Hannover, München, Borkum, usw.

[@chrisniakaros]

My initial reaction was to look for the "Real Life" simulator...then after a minute or two I realized I already had it. I could not afford the Real Life upgrade as an ATP rating costs over 200K and 2 years.

[@lvvett1]

1.Real Life 2. Microsoft Flight Simulator 3. XPlane

[@richardmadsen8229]

Told me what I already know. I have both and MSFS is overall a better simulator. I did like the music though!

[@mikem.2078]

When I use MSFS 2020, I SEE that I'm playing a fancy video game. When I use X Plane, I feel like I'm flying a plane.

[@angelicguru4066]

For arcade-gamers for sure, for pilots no. Except the ground-texture and/or graphics in general, XP makes almost everything else better. And knowing the flightmodel is the most important thing in a flightsim according to the last navigraph-survey, XP is the better sim overall.

[@Ersan1985]

@@mikem.2078ıts fuckıng game man, not real dont forget!!!! Thınk one more again!!😂😂😂😂

[@tubeloobs]

​@@mikem.2078is it what you see, or what you feel?

[@tubeloobs]

​@@angelicguru4066MSFS has much better default avionics which actually makes it a better sim for training.

[@DCSHacks]

OUTSTANDING!

[@flightandfind]

Thanks! :)

[@AndroxTV]

I strongly recommend you to repeat the X-Plane comparison using auto-ortho, ActiveSky and X-Roads plugin.

[@flightandfind]

Yeah, I was already struggling to install AutoOrtho

[@DORIANoFILMS]

Yes agree . also (if you notice) MSFS it always multi freeze at landing. terrible.... they never fixe it

[@Golflightnow-jk2wu]

*Why don't you make a video right now about physics, which I think is the most important?*

[@flightandfind]

Because I really don't know how to do such comparison

[@cessna18284]

Most important when ur sitting static on your chair with no motion and moving ur 30dollar yoke.

[@flightandfind]

@@cessna18284 for me it was 130$ joystick! XD

[@kiotee_nouw]

The graphics in XPlane12 is horrible. You have to use a 3rd Party addon to get the graphics even close to MSFS (Auto-Ortho). I agree that water doesn't always have cloud reflections off the water, but hey still a great simulator.

[@psour33]

X-plane 12 lights and atmosphere are awesome, MSFS looks great but lacks about lights and atmosphere colours.

[@thierryseutin9071]

Overall, the MSFS experience offers more... And if Bing maps is not enough close to reality for you, you can even use a small external program to replace Bing Maps with Google Maps inside the sim... Seriously, I've flown a lot on XP11, it was probably the best flightsim of it's generation. Then came MSFS2020: more impressive, more realistic, more flexible; it would be hard for me to go back to XP12... My favourite flies are VFR, and honestly, I don't think XP12 can deliver the same experience than FS 2020 in this case...

[@captsonko.9345]

Both Sims are doing good

[@ArtyomGalstyan]

The real life variant looks most realistic :))

[@maltimoto]

I fly X-Plane 12 because of the flight dynamics and ground steering. MSFS physics are disgusting. For the graphics I use Simheaven and Orthos. Above 2000 ft looks great and 98% of a flight I am above 2000 ft.

[@aotearoa9547]

Idk why but real life looks the most realistic still

[@jonathan130]

both look pretty bad. MSFS 2024 might be the first game to look very convincing judging by the trailer. The trees will be larger and have more variation and are now in 3D, and overall look much more realistic and have more depth. The colors seems to have been improved and I've heard that the GEN AI will get a massive overhaul too.

[@mussietube9909]

I think you need to compare xplane 18 agains fs2020

[@MariuszSP75]

Dobra robota

[@andrejjan2240]

"There is a need to take into consideration that MSFS 2020 in this video is using ugly and often-dated Bing Maps..." :):):):) No Google Maps Mod... :):) X-Plane 12 is using auto-ortho But, okay... Vanilla, Vanilla plant is okay... :):):):)

[@thatguy8005]

I like all three…

[@cuttheloop]

XPlane got that DCS haze.

[@luJustin-z4p]

Wonderful video

[@BriarDrive]

Nice video! Also, for flight simulation (airplane controlling and handling, dynamics, etc.) X-Plane is far better than MSFS

[@Forthecity911]

Msfs= planes Msfs= map Msfs= clouds Xplane= reflections Xplane= details Xplane= airports = flight sim 2024 for mobile and pc for free

[@manuelberzen671]

MSFS looks better than real life graphics ;)

[@The3dikson]

What is most noticeable is that X-PLANE 12 still needs a lot of optimization... too many stutters

[@doubleitp]

flies perfectly smooth on mine, at Ultra settings

[@bobbyrutz9402]

The real life graphics are so good. They're just so expensive.

[@afoster1621]

Real Life looks amazing. Where to buy ;)

[@simnomad]

X-Plane is a flight simulator, while MSFS is just an eye-candy videogame.

[@flightandfind]

Both are videogames and both are flight simulators. Each one of them have its pros and cons

[@lquid737]

@@flightandfind X-Plane Is just better

[@flightandfind]

@@lquid737 It's your subjective opinion

[@Piotr_Majchrzak]

Great work, but how can You rate the clouds reflection on the water , if the shapes of clouds, air transparency are so different.

[@flightandfind]

I compare that difference

[@Piotr_Majchrzak]

@@flightandfind I mean there's no fault on MSFS side, that it reflects clouds in more intense way than in real world, because there's different primary lighting on the sky and clouds are more fractured in MSFS, besides the reflected clouds are out of sight (out of frame), so it's possible that we have continues layer of clouds in real world here.

[@flightandfind]

@@Piotr_Majchrzak Ok, now I understand

[@Gualdemar]

Nice job.

[@BartS52]

Actually those are not Hangars, but a big shopping area, mostly big furniture stores as Ikea.

[@flightandfind]

Wow, cool place for a shopping area

[@TheJmebe]

For first part of video, xPlane was much closer to reality than MSFS. On final approach, MSFS turned it around with the exception of a but-plug tower..

[@Trebor_I]

MSFS 2024 will be a digital twin with realtime weather.

[@pedemeyer]

What strikes me is the poor quality of both sims regarding Forrest, but MSFS is the winner for me. I’m always flying low and slow👍

[@najeejohnson3658]

MSFS hands down! 🙌🏽

[@ilynx2008]

Excellent comparison! We should have more of those,definetely! The scattering of light on MSFS is WAY TOO DARK! Both FAIL miserably on weather depiction,I did not know it was THAT bad! I am an ATP rated pilot and always hated the darkness in FS2020 under certain conditions!

[@ukaszwrobel4048]

2:35 X-Plane 12 has left the chat xd

[@kyrkbymannen]

The frame rate of the real landing is best 😂

[@czhusky]

Nest time, put the real flight in the center. Easier to compare the difference that way. Great video 👍

[@flightandfind]

Thanks! Will do

[@philb5160]

1982 TRS-80 Flight Sim 1 was the best. 😁

[@Dannyg2298]

Abit unfair the textures arent loading in on xplane for some reason both look pretty gd

[@flightandfind]

That's the default scenery in XP, btw

[@1nZaneR]

real life looks best. but why is that running so smooth