MSFS vs. XP12 Default C172 | Which one looks more realistic to you?

[@photoeducationbydaniel]

I'll be honest - At first, I was thinking MSFS but oddly enough MSFS looks more cartoon-like, there's something wrong with the lighting and sharpness of graphics. Xplane 12 on the other hand looks more believable despite not having the satellite imagery and Photogrammetry but it looked more authentic lighting and visibility, natural colors and much sharper detailed runways and taxi textures that actually look more believable. Trees look like trees rather than MSFS impressions of trees. Wet surfaces look better and I would clouds to a degree actually feel more natural (Although there are cases where they look awful (But that's wip)

[@greenlizardballs]

Not only does MSFS look more cartoon-like, it FEELS more cartoon-like. Every aircraft including high fidelity airliners are a wobbly cartoon mess that want to float forever.

[@Tom--Ace]

My trainer aircraft is a c172. I don't think msfs2020 looks cartoonish at all, it's a great sim and correlates well in my experience. Especially visually In terms of systems plane modelling, xplane traditionally had the edge although msfs2020 with turbulence/aerodynamic modelling feels very authentic to the real thing! I haven't tried xplane12 but based on xplane 11, the systems modelling (and resulting failures) are usually superior on xplane. Failures in particular are not great on msfs2020. In xplane, I recall that abusing the plane will kill the engine which is great. Msfs 2020 allows you to operate the aircraft with quite a bit of engine abuse without much effect I would say msfs2020 has the edge for VFR training and turbulence modelling, you really can navigate very realistically in it thanks to the world being modelled so well. Xplane is better for learning the nitty gritty of aircraft systems and operation

[@edward28051989]

That's it! MSFS it's very beautiful, but has some things very saturated or cartoon-like (default taxiways for example). It seems like X-Plane needs to modernize and incorporate satellite imagery by default to enhance its immersive experience at night, improve the cloud rendering, and enhance the default mesh. I just were hoping for these improvements in X-Plane 12, but the delivered features fell below my expectations. On the other hand, I believe that MSFS 2024 may address all the missing aspects in the current version and become insanely more realistic and less cartoon-like.

[@joaocavalcanti7721]

I'll be honest - You need to do at the same settings for both simms and flights in order to compare with fairness but I think the XP12 is more faithfull to the dynamics of the flight on a C-172 ...MSFS has lots of good visuals

[@crisk73]

Hi Joao, you're right. To me xp12 feels more "direct" on the flight controls while msfs has got that little lag which makes it less convincing. Anyway we would need at least a full motion sim to compare to tell you the truth. Here we are judging by only watching at 2D pics. Thanks for watching!

[@edward28051989]

"For the first time, I see X-Plane surpassing MSFS in graphical aspects. The brightness of the clouds is perfect and realistic. The rain effect on the windows and wet asphalt also enhances immersion, which is lacking in the current MSFS version. Additionally, the runway incline appears more accurate in XP12. However, in all other situations, MSFS still takes the lead. As for the physics, I can't provide an opinion since I haven't tested it."

[@-TK-421]

The rain coming off the windshield in XP plane is amazing. The propeller effects in XP are amazing. The runway in XP looks amazing. As long as the VR handles wells and XP has the planes I fly I might have to switch

[@haris132fighter]

X-Plane is a master when it comes to its physics...I am not a pilot but i got both sims and I am able to compare. Wind reaction when it comes to airplane controll is way better and feels way more realistic. I'll have a video posted in a couple of days showcasing that a bit in the zibo 737.

[@crisk73]

Please send the link of your vid when you'll upload it thanks 👍

[@haris132fighter]

@@crisk73 Will do so sir! Thanks :) Nice one on one comparison btw!

[@haris132fighter]

@@crisk73 Got ya right here :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3LCho2Kmppnm5o Enjoy!

[@redinger44841]

Great video and thank you for not using an airliner. Using a flight simulator to fly airliners is like using a racing game to drive buses

[@dohe521971]

I´m a msfs fan but I always thought the same, in the graphic aspect, I think there is no doubt, but the flight model in msfs, honestly, I wish it could be like in DCS or X-Plane, even so I think they're getting closer but I always get the impression that airplanes don't weigh, when you are taxiing or especially when you are going to land, planes float and float and float

[@flanker61]

i am a pilot (GA and UL) and i have both sim but i prefer X-Plane, absolutely, also in terms of visuals. In reality, it has never happened to me on a plane to have a view with the same contrast and color saturation as Msfs

[@Tom--Ace]

To me msfs2020 looks very faithful to flying here in Australia, especially in summer. Matches very closely visually to me. For systems modelling xplane always has the edge, especially failure modelling

[@bombaso5539]

love both but as a real world guy xplane physics are just on point even though the look is not as full as msfs but for me personally XP12 more realistic in a few ways (it can be bad sometime too). but omg the rudders in msfs are horrible imho

[@whammo11224]

There's no reason not to have both! X-Plane 12 costs less than some of the add-ons for MSFS.

[@crisk73]

Agree!

[@ComdrStew]

Actually the FM in the 172 in X Plane, for a stall, is complete crap. It will snap roll you to the left with just a little stall. In MSFS it acts exactly the way it does IRL. Other than the stall they both feel about the same. There is a little difference, but not much. If you are wanting to learn to fly, than either of them is good, except stall training in X Plane.

[@dabneyoffermein595]

You preaching to the choir for sure. You are spot on 100 on this. X-Plane is disappointing, not sure why all these comments say different, it's amazing.

[@Tom--Ace]

I agree but I find aspects of both good and bad. The real c172 behaves a bit differently to both

[@ComdrStew]

@@Tom--Ace No simulator is 100%, even military sims. I find the MSFS 172 is a lot closer to a real life stall though. Like I said both can help in learning and that is really all that matters.

[@Lukaszorr]

I would say that MSFS looks :)

[@subeteconmigo]

I've used both and I prefer X-Plane, realism counts and in that X-Plane is the champion.

[@moritz3224]

XP looks more realistic to me. MSFS is looking nice but always reminds me of GTA because of the textures, the saturation and especially the fisheye effect which leads to a very unrealistic scenery depiction imao Everything just looks so much bigger, wider taller and distorted than in reality…

[@crisk73]

Yeah I got you, msfs is nicer and for sure more spectacular but at the same time more game-ish.

[@moritz3224]

@@crisk73 yep this “sims” it up very well… 😅

[@egdrives]

I honestly think X-Plane is better in the flight model and honestly overall, I have a little cockpit setup and its a huge pain the get msfs ready to fly, you have to popout garmins everytime even in between flights even with the community tool available I feel like its too much time wasted on setup, with xplane I just launch and its ready to go and remembers positions of extra views and what not, with extra scenery it looks decent enough and flies better imho

[@JuneBuG2123]

Overall I think MSFS is better. But there's def pros and cons to each one.

[@Tom--Ace]

From watching the video, xplane12 has waaaay too little turbulence, especially in that weather! The turbulence and air simulation in msfs2020 is much closer to what I find the c172 to be like in real life (turbulent!) rather than the on rails feel I see in xplane12 here

[@crisk73]

Agree, normally it's the other way around, that is xp feels like more turbulent and MSFS may seem on rails (like FSX was). But in this video MSFS looks bumpier actually.

[@youtubeairways8646]

In terms of handling, X Plane any day. MSFS feels smoother than a CAVOK, 0 knot wind day. In X Plane, you can almost feel every bump in the airstream.

[@peter-mv5gk]

thats not true...its actually the other way around so that many people said its overdone in msfs

[@youtubeairways8646]

@@peter-mv5gk have you actually been pilot in control in a Cessna 172?

[@peter-mv5gk]

@@youtubeairways8646 i dont have to be a pilot to feel if a simulator simulates a bumb or not...and this is mostly the case in msfs and not x plane...that is what many people think and actually say its too much while many say x plane can feel too "straight"

[@peter-mv5gk]

@@youtubeairways8646 i am wondering what kind of simulator session you had to have gotten this impression

[@youtubeairways8646]

​@@peter-mv5gk Looking over the footage again, the nose in MFS2020 is all over the place and then suddenly stable instead of the continuous stirring of X plane. I probably exaggerated a bit saying that MFS2020 felt like CAVOK, and I certainly get the 'overdone' part that feels a lot more like twitchy controls than wind. Though I still think that X plane gets the closest to the 172 that looking at a screen will get you without a full motion sim: It's just that in a non-motion sim your head stays stable so it feels less intensely bumpy. TLDR: MSFS bump then stable feels like pilot input, X plane lacks head movement so illusion of extra smoothness is given. That's just my two cents from a relatively small amount of _mostly_ clear skies Cessna Skyhawk flying with only occasional adverse weather, so I'm not the most qualified to comment. Your opinion definitely holds validity.

[@lawtonsilva1195]

XP12 the best! MFS2020 = VFR, XP12 = IFR

[@majoraviatior1611]

Nah

[@svenwd]

In this short sequence I feel msfs can’t show what it has. Also, didn’t look like a default airport. I like the bad weather of xp. To me feels more natural

[@crisk73]

I agree, msfs provides gorgeous views but sometimes it looks cartoony. XP looks less nice, it misses orthophotos but feels more real.

[@Eructation1]

X plane 12 with True Earth = an excellent simulator

[@crisk73]

Yes, not as spectacular as FS but surely better than with default terrain which is very poor in my opinion. Simulation wise is top though.

[@NotchNate]

Can’t tell if the XP one is really xplane or Minecraft.

[@crisk73]

Well.. there are conflicting opinions about that...

[@runway0343]

X-plane 12 much more realistic on majority aspects

[@MyFabian94]

Vanilla MSFS is absolutely worse. But it does have a larger Modder base and good UI Integration. Especially with A2A joining the Fray.

[@crisk73]

Working Title is doing an excellent job though on stock planes' avionics.

[@michael_andretti93]

The aircraft of FS20 so wobbly and the Runway Elevation is flat. That is....

[@ThorntonWillie]

In msfs I have not landed on any perfectly straight elevation runways most look like they got small up and down hills on the runway and the aircraft reflects that when I taxi too.

[@puckthefens6934]

if you wanna see pretty things, fly msfs. If you want to fly an airplane, fly x plane.

[@gabrielj7336]

equality

[@Rikus1978]

XP12

[@tarick46]

xplane

[@saminaneen]

@crisk73,,, You really, need to learn how to use trim, when landing, there are many tutorials, about it, if you look, X-Plane graphics, are so bad, they are worse than FSX graphics, and FSX was put out in early 2009.

[@crisk73]

Yeah but the aim wasn't to make a perfect landing, plus it was pretty much gusty.. Rather to show the different dynamics of the two sims. XP is uglier but feels more realistic to me.

[@activex7327]

FSX came out in 2006.