X Plane 12 Announced! Thoughts with a Real Airbus Pilot

[@richardv8416]

Hi everyone. Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm Richard, one of the moderators for 320 Sim Pilot's live streams. I've been going through the comments and found it somewhat sad to find users of both X-Plane and MSFS feeling the need to attack each other personally and the 'opposing' simulator. I, and my fellow moderators have had to remove some of the worst of these. This should be a place where there's plenty of room for debate and for differences of opinion, even strongly held ones. All that we ask is that people are respectful of each other at all times, and act in a mature and dignified manner. Can I please ask that commenters avoid using personal insults or language that seems calculated to provoke others. I fully appreciate that most people are able to do this, and I thank them for their contributions.

[@hans3000]

This. This right here.

[@firebirbeuh]

I play both msfs and xp11, both have their goods, and for me both run at 15fps cuz xp11 with mods and msfs at mid graphics. I agree with you, and I love the fs community!

[@garyr3788]

I don't understand why so many people keep arguing about which flight sim is the best, there all games and not real. The best one is the one you like for whatever reason.

[@KailimVibesyt]

Nothing beats MSFS with the visuals

[@QuantumGamingUploads]

Yes but not everything needs to be the same. Variety is better than all looking the same. Visuals are important but in Flight Sim's realism is more important.

[@frankbyte]

Depends what. There are some parts of the visuals who look very bad: bridges, unrecognized streets that look like greenish fields, outdated Bing-maps looking like FS 2004, blurry textures from far above etc.

[@Finno-ft4mg]

@TylOOOr D hmmmmm...

[@QuantumGamingUploads]

@TylOOOr D does that mean you couldn't have done the same with XPLANE 11? Visuals of MSFS have nothing to do with learning how to fly.

[@hakanr339b]

As a flight simmer I care about realistic flight models and pyshics with realistic aircraft systems more than visuals. Because I use it for learning.

[@707liner8]

I've never used X Plane but was always impressed with the quality of its graphics compared to FSX, so it'll be interesting to see how it stacks up against MSFS. And, a bit of healthy competition is always a good thing!

[@mrinck]

Thank you for this summary of the new features. This kind of video is also appreciated.

[@320SimPilot]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the comment

[@ThorstenInJapan]

5:09 New York architecture seems slightly repetitive :D

[@bs_blackscout]

As someone who plays only MSFS I think this is quite good of an improvement. Not sure if it justifies paying full fee again, but it looks better than 11

[@primalyt123]

Xplane isnt really upgrading the looks, but realisim

[@ciri151]

looks more like a big update for x plane 11 rather than a new game

[@fly2aurora20]

True, from Xplane 10 to 11 was mainly the menu and some aircraft but nothing else really as well.

[@AggrarFarmer]

@@fly2aurora20 Not true they added better scenery for each airport.

[@CaptainJadenAR]

@@AggrarFarmer, I don't know. Brightness, I agree. Scenery, I disagree. In XP 10, the scenery looks better.

[@aaryanramourti3081]

Why is everyone so upset about xplane? I use xplane 11 because it has really good physics, flight models and high fidelity aircraft, I have both sims and both have their strengths, there's no point comparing, we all love our sims after all and can use which one we want.

[@mr.martintorres5804]

Same thoughts. I enjoy both sims and what they both offer. I will continue to use both. Believe me, MSFS has a ways to go with their flight dynamics & modeling. They're finding it easy to suck in the folks who only like eye candy and not enjoy a properly flying plane. The FBW A320NX is saving their butts imo.

[@ad3z10]

I think a big issue is that this will be a reasonably priced upgrade from XP-11 (I'd expect £60) but it doesn't really feel like a whole new edition of the game but rather an update to XP-11. If you make use of a variety of mods (weather, sound, clouds etc) this new edition offers very little while still not being close to competing with MSFS for VFR.

[@Michael-zf1ko]

Because there are a LOT of snobbish XPlane users who are extremely pedantic about the physics, even though both games are just desktop sims most likely being controlled by a cheap joystick or yoke with a bunch of sensitivity curve adjustments. And they act like XPlane 11 is way better because of having more high detail addon aircraft, even though that game has been around way longer than MSFS.

[@frankbyte]

My guess is that there were so many overhyped folk that stated „RIP XP“ or „happy to have deinstalled XP“ that it must be hard for them to see that XP is still frequently used and is even being developped further. Probably they were stucked when some updates broke the whole MSFS and couldn‘t fly at all…so the normal reaction is to say bad things about XP, out of frustration :-D Both have their pros and cons. It looks like some MSFS-fanboys cannot see the reality anymore. I own both but couldn‘ say which one is better in the actual state. Very excited about the new weather-system coming to XP.

[@cjmillsnun]

@@mr.martintorres5804 That and Salty's 747

[@FlyingFrankFan]

@320 Sim Pilot: Thanks for the summary. I have well over 20 years of RW GA, and I feel XP still has it. I don't "play" with airliners much, but the general opinion is that X-Plane has much better add-ons for those - and, of course, has many more varieties to use, other than the 737 or A320! Scenery at 40,000' is not that important. Yes, the Bing scenery is nice, but the novelty wears off after a while. I suppose if you want to fly in odd parts of the world, MSFS is amazing, but ortho or Orbx suffices in X-Plane for a lot of the time. Even adding just AlpilotX's HD Global Scenery vastly improves the default, and doesn't gobble up vast amounts of HD space. Add some payware airports and some Drzewiecki city scenery in favourite areas, and things are fine. Cheap or free add-ons have given us airport sounds, etc, for years. What amazes me is how few of the posters have acknowledged just how awful the MSFS interface is, with its almost impenetrable menu system (I can change very many more features mid-flight in XP with the odd click), constant needs to ESC to redo stuff, with long waits, fiddly camera systems (yes, it's doable, but XP is easy), etc. In XP, I have an almost RW version of the G1000 - including the new iterations of it, and very usable 530s and 430s. Aerobask has given me a pretty good GTN750, and the Reality stuff can be used in many aircraft in Windows (not on a Mac - but you can use XP on a Mac, or in Windows or Linux!). I play with the MSFS project GTN750, but it's nowhere near as good. Fiddling with the tiny arrows to alter anything in the Garmins in MSFS is a pain, and the whole aspect of setting up proper flight plans in the plane, and modifying stuff in the air is more difficult for me in MSFS - no proper 2D pop-outs, etc. So, I play in MSFS, looking at familiar (and not familiar!) places, but exclusively use XP in PilotEdge - a no-brainer to me. Others will, no doubt, disagree, as some well-known PE KZbin and Twitch streamers have moved to MSFS happily. If I've got wrong information on MSFS, it means I haven't found the facility, or didn't know it was there :-)

[@Jon87224]

I am looking at XP12 as baby steps into the positive future of the next XPlane. They have to outdo themselves with each iteration of X-Plane whether the improvement is small or vast. XP12 as of right now looks like it should be an XP11 upgrade be we do have clouds now that are volumetric, water colors, rain effects, 3Dtrees. They pretty much have things covered and I believe things can only get better within the next version after 12 happens. This gives people a chance to really say what they think and what they expect in another XP version. I am feeling optimistic about the near future of XP. The next version of XP after 12 has to be better than it's previous version again whether it's small or big. After XP 12 comes XP 13 or whatever and it will include everything from XP12 and better.

[@GiuseppeNelva]

This would have honestly looked pretty good if it was 2015, but in 2021 nothing of this is impressive. The whole presentation was extremely underwhelming and felt like they were panicking to show "something" without having much to show. Let's not even talk about the Q&A session in which basically no question was actually answered (and the "I've never seen runways with orange markings but sounds fun" part... Are these people supposed to be aviation experts?). I guess we shouldn't realistically expect much from a small company with limited resources, so the bar was set low already, but they managed to slide under it somehow.

[@PorcelainKilt]

I own both MSFS and XP11 with a plethora of add ons. The cost of buying the sims and add ons is completely inconsequential to me so I don’t deliberate as if I were one needing to spend sparingly. I feel that both sims have their superior aspects and I look forward to experiencing both sims development unto themselves, and by way of the 3rd party developer add ons as time goes on. It’s an exciting time for this industry. Thank you sir for your video post. Hopefully folks don’t experience too much negative emotion in the comments.

[@CyberSystemOverload]

Fantastic I'm so excited about this. I love Austin's enthusiasm and knowledge and I totally agree with his take on ortho, not a fan of it either. Day 1 buy!

[@mowax74]

Ortho is a must have, every other opinion is fanboy talk. It makes everything so much more realistic! BUT, saying that: Of course it is almost not possible for LR to provide this out of the box. They can't just stream from a map service privider by law, like microsoft can stream their own maps. Otherwise i'm sure Austin would adress that with a top priority, because technically it's not too difficult. Anyway, i'm happy too with all those nice announced features, since there is ortho4XP around. With a little bit of work it's possible to fly in X-Plane over orthos as well, even with higher mesh resolution (modded). Combined with the new announced clouds, lightning and the way better physics and aircrafts, X-Plane will be furthermore my simulator also for the next couple of years.

[@ebos9515]

Nice review, I will be sticking to my X-Plane 11 for a while tho. As a casual Flightsimmer I enjoy the game, I don't minde the lack of detailed scenary, but my computer loves the lower end needs 🙂. I get a kick form landing after a nice flight and then (sometimes for hours) look on google maps to explore the place. Plus I'm far from knowing if the simulation is correct, let alone which one is better at the fysics. I think if you ask pilots, they might say DCS for the fysics, but don't ask me. But MSFS in the past had been the way to go for me (I think I started with a demo in the late 80's). The 2020 edition has a clever way to combine the simulation and exploration in one go. As far as I can make out from watching you guys on YT, the simulation in MSFS 2020 is growing with the addons and updates. If one enjoys one sim more then the other, then you are playing the right game, and playing the it right. Anyways good video, enjoying the content.

[@rylandbrough9616]

I think everyone had their expectations set too high for X-Plane 12. Laminar Research is a small company compared to Microsoft, and they already admitted they won’t be streaming scenery. Which im actually happy with, because there’s a lot of issues with streaming scenery and it doesn’t necessarily look good in many scenarios. X-Plane is building objects from the ground-up, therefore they will look more crisp and high quality, rather than trying to form shapes from imagery like MSFS. People have failed to realize this is still an early preview, and X-Plane 12 can really make the ground look good with constant improvement. In terms of everything else, I think they did a great job. The clouds are very realistic and not overdone like MSFS. So I would say in my opinion, the clouds and rain look way better than MSFS.

[@ricardohotbrakes1458]

I have both sims and I spend more time repairing MSFS random stuck in ‘press any key to start loop’ than flying it. I was happy with xplane move to Vulcan to allow me to use AMD Gpu now the improvements are heading in the right direction and Austin made mention of the need to ensure the sim does not stutter when use in commercial SIMs to meet FAA requirements. But the key here is that developers still have the space to enhance xp12 way above the base product especially the scenery so I am happy.

[@rylandbrough9616]

@@ricardohotbrakes1458 MSFS is unflyable for me. Too many issues and bugs, my graphics look horrible and blurry and it performs awfully. I’ve tried everything. X-Plane 11 gives me no issues so im especially looking forward to X-Plane 12.

[@DC3Refom]

I think everyone who lacks common sense and critical thinking has not realised this is very easy work in progress alot of features , systems , visuals , ukgrades like the photometric lighting using real lux value is date is not even finished never mind implented

[@scorpian007]

After Austin shitting on MSFS constantly over the past year, this is massively underwhelming. Looks like a minor update over XP11. The graphics aren't even close to MSFS let alone other "current gen" games and it's disappointing that there appears to be no upgrade path from XP11 to XP12 given that the former is only 4 years old whilst MSFS has a 10 year commitment to their platform and huge free updates every few months that would ordinarily cost money in other sims.

[@tstephansen]

I would venture to say the size of the companies comes into play here. I agree that MSFS is WAY better visually than X-Plane. However, I think the flight model and physics along with the study level planes available for X-Plane make it a very good competitor. I own both and I like the graphics and ATC of MSFS more than X-Plane. However, I own some of the paid addons (quite a lot actually) for X-Plane such as the FF A320, Hot Start TBM-900, etc. and the immersion of flying those is way better than anything MSFS has to offer. The FBW A320 for MSFS is pretty good and that's what I mostly fly in that game. FS95 was my first flight sim game so MSFS is close to my heart. However, for the last 4 years or so I've been using X-Plane. I recently purchased a new computer which can run MSFS pretty well and I'm really REALLY impressed with the graphics. I think once developers start making "study level" planes for MSFS it will really put the pressure on X-Plane. Great graphics and great planes will really put MSFS ahead. That being said, for the people who want the best emulation of flight model and physics I think X-Plane will still be the simulator of choice for quite some time to come.

[@scorpian007]

@@tstephansen I agree that the size of the company matters, however you get far more in the base sim for MSFS vs XP11. My issue is primarily with Austin bashing MSFS, I mean if he's going to do that at least show that they can beat them in every aspect - what they showed looked like a 0.5 update. As for the payware add-ons, yeah there's no competition. The Toliss, FF and Zibo are in a class of their own but that's just a matter of time before MSFS catches up - new platform, etc blah blah. Really keen for the PMDG 737 later this year. I don't find the difference in flight model that big, but then again I primarily fly airliners and not too much GA - there are things that MSFS simulates that XP11 doesn't. After seeing the latest dev Q&A with MS/Asobo, it looks like they're really giving devs the ability to fine tune their flight model further with SU6 onwards and the overhauls that Working Title will be doing to the base MSFS flight plan, LNAV & VNAV gets me excited for what's coming.

[@mowax74]

When you go for the better physics and the better technical solutions, the work there is behind the hood and it's not that easy to show off and for most people not that impressive like up to date fancy graphics. But it's clear, what makes the better SIM: it's not the graphics, it's the physics. Even when i like good graphics.

[@scorpian007]

@@mowax74 you're saying it like this is not possible in MSFS, XP11 took years before it reached its current level of physics and flight model. MSFS has greatly improved it's flight model in the past year alone so it's unfair to think that it's not going to continuously improve further

[@mowax74]

@@scorpian007 I don't say MSFS is a bad sim. It looks fantastic and for most people it delivers what they are happy with. But your comment was about what makes a new version and what not. And that depends on your expectations. And that's why also Microsofts an LR's priority list is a different: Microsofts top priority is what sells the most and - of course - this is good graphics, like we can see on your comment. Give em some posteffects like bloom, screen space reflections, depth of field and so on and people think wow, that are really big improvements in that new version, because it makes a good visual difference, but it's way less work to do that than further develop even details in the flight model, switch billboard clouds with volumetric clouds (i know MSFS has that too) or have a better weather engine. Some people will rarely notice that and then comment like: this should be a new version? LR is the smaller company and that's why also the development seems to be slower, but the priority for implementing features is just right, at least for me.

[@DC3Refom]

I would like point something out for everyone xplane 12 is an early work in progress , not all of features , new systems are even finished let alone polished ( or were shown in the key note )so it would be good idea to reserve full judgement near to release

[@cwood7240]

My thoughts on X-plane it is the easiest to configure. Flight modeling is more realistic. My computer works very well with x-plane 11 (Vulcan). I would want to as well install MSFS but I don't think I have the space. Nor probably enough memory. I do plan on going back to X-Force Computers to buy their Comet PC with extra recourses to accommodate. To update my current PC would not be cost effective as opposed to buying a new (new video card, additional SSD's, and system memory). Really looking forward to X-Plane 12.

[@Vidas666]

Expected to hear from Austin more stuff: improvement on rwy frictions, rwy slopes, better pl. respond on crosswinds.

[@Seventh7Art]

I am gonna stick to MFS2020... I want the real VFR experience without needing thousands of TB of storage to depict a realistic planet Earth.

[@Michael-zf1ko]

@@737simviator Uh huh.

[@tomchavez2074]

@@737simviator Have you flown in real life?

[@squeecy9965]

@@737simviator I personally think the whole "physics and feel" thing kind of gets nulled out when playing a flight simulator at your home computer with an average setup. There a several of variables that go into the sensational physics that you feel while flying in real life, so unless your flying a fly-by-wire system, the experience is going to reach a maximum at some point.

[@captsonko.9345]

l like x plane becouse of its detailed aircraft.thanks xplane.

[@firebirbeuh]

I have a 980ti and 7700k, wo dering will I get 5 or 10 fps in xp12. Anyhow I love 320pilot and the whole fs community!

[@320SimPilot]

Thanks Fire Bird!

[@firebirbeuh]

@@320SimPilot your welcome, I love your content!

[@Tom-kt8lu]

What are the required specs for this? I think they should have gone the Prepare Lite way.

[@captsonko.9345]

thanks xplane we like u great work.

[@wotan91]

Not looking great. To be honest, only reason I bought XP11 last year was the lack of high-quality airliners in MSFS. I bought FF A320, ToLiSS A321 and got freeware ZIBO 737. They are all great planes but I fly them in the night so I don't have to see the uglyness of XP11. But when it comes to VFR, MSFS is no brainer. Also Asobo team is working on bugs really fast, M$ must pump lot of money into them.... But when first high-quality airliners appear in MSFS some people will leave XP11 for good - that's just my opinion of course. For now: IFR - XP11 VFR - MSFS But I think it will change in favor of MSFS soon.

[@soundman689]

xp12 might be much more realistic in flying and different aircraft systems

[@GeorgeBJR32]

You are speaking for yourself.. I have no plans at all to switch to MSFS.. I am hardcore XP and will remain so, also, this was a review for XP, he said nothing about MSFS… but here comes the trolls.. like seriously, if you LOVE MSFS so much why are you watching XP reviews.. , you are second guessing yourself.. you are not sure of yourself..! Or do you just like to bash on XP?

[@yohannessulistyo4025]

This depends on how fast PMDG or other high quality airline add-on producers could manage with MSFS' limitations. They seem challenged and are looking for alternative solution: the usual classic MSFS route: simulating the systems that Asobo didn't take into account externally, like using FSUIPC. For me, it is a serious deal breaker, unless Asobo really revamp the simulation engine significantly, and that might break Xbox compatibility too.

[@BernardLangham]

"Asobo is working on bugs really fast"... are we talking about the same Asobo here?

[@cjmillsnun]

@@BernardLangham He didn't say whether they were working on fixing them or creating them ;)

[@CaptainJadenAR]

Wish to see the Airbus A320 Family in XP 12.

[@Ryan_D1994]

A319 and 321 are confirmed coming to XP12, A320 and A318 are still a ? 😔

[@RaspySquares]

This is XP 11.7, not v12.

[@dineshreddy7425]

Does this update includes airbus 320 .?

[@Dg-zj6jo]

cant wait sir

[@aleks_7822]

Sorry X-Plane but I think I will stay with MSFS :/

[@onground330]

same for me.

[@mr.martintorres5804]

Dude, Asobo can't even get their C172 to fly properly....

[@rustyc6805]

Msfs is a game. Not a simulation end of story

[@DeepFutureSim]

@@rustyc6805 they are both games

[@rustyc6805]

Incorrect

[@Dg-zj6jo]

wow what a video thankyou

[@vasily2022]

XPlane for ever.

[@virtualaviator21156]

Xp12 ... Wish it works when I grab my new pc.... I don't believe when they said it drinks the GPU..... I feel they wanted us to upgrade si that we get the best experience

[@jarisiv]

So after a year MSFS2020 was released what this will bring more? Simply nothing. All the features and improvements are already there. Enjoying all the time.

[@1littlelee]

I like how he side stepped the shittiest thing from xplane 12, the scenery is tragicly the same as Xplane 11 which is woefully bad!

[@gurukn]

The sky and weather are the only impressive things in comparison to the old one. I genuinely think that the new Enhanced Skyscapes thing with Active sky would easily compete with X-Plane 12. Ground textures are still same-old, same-old. MSFS is quite frankly winning. New study level planes from Fenix, PMDG, and QualityWings, are coming in, AND as the new freeware helicopter (Rotor Sim Pilot and team's R-44) has clearly shown, it is indeed possible to use external flight models inside of MSFS. So if devs elect to do that, or if MSFS themselves bring a new flight model, I think we can see where this game is going. Having to download orthos for every place you fly into vs just having it all ready. Having to delete your active sky and enhanced skyscapes just to download basically the same thing in one package. Lighting, in my very very honest opinion is still ruled by MSFS. Just their lens flare, and the way the sun makes you want to squint, and the way the light just flawlessly bounces around. Microsoft have NAILED it. Now everything in the above message are my opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own.

[@Michael-zf1ko]

Have you used the Airbus H135 heli for MSFS too? That's been around for a while and it's a very decent helicopter in terms of flight model and such. Definitely great for VR and flying over a bunch of real world locations.

[@tomchavez2074]

@@Michael-zf1ko agreed

[@gurukn]

@@Michael-zf1ko sweet! I'm still on p3d... the investment in capital into that platform is HUGE, and I don't think I'm simply ready to let go of it... Sometimes I do wish I had messed around with FSX or something until MSFS came out.

[@tomstravels520]

Why does everyone think XP12 was going to be as good as MSFS 2020 in terms of graphics? Were you seriously expecting that? MS has access to bing maps for satellite data. Did you all think XP would use Google or Apple? MSFS is great for the scenery and looking at your house but that’s about it. It’s a game, not a true simulator. Why do you think the FAA uses a professional version of XP for flight training and not using MSFS. Besides trying to use satellite data to represent seasons is much harder when it’s the exact same image all the time. Nobody who is serious about flight simulation will completely ditch X-Plane. Plenty of streamers still using it and even P3D. I’m not saying it’s better but too many people were expecting the world and just angry they didn’t get what they hoped

[@GiuseppeNelva]

I've been serious about flight simulation likely longer than most, but X-Plane has been ditched with no regrets. Laminar has no vision and from this presentation it's evident that they have no plan either. If you think I'm in the minority, think again. The "MSFS is a game, not a true simulator" is a ridiculous view that fanboys of other Sims keep telling themselves like a mantra in complete denial to justify sticking with their investment in obsolete platforms that have no chance of catching up.

[@tomstravels520]

@@GiuseppeNelva you love the graphics and that is it if you say XPlane is long gone. That’s all anybody raves about MSFS. Yes they’re amazing. I was blown away by them. But that is not the whole thing about a simulator. The physics are nowhere near as good, the controls are limited with MSFS and MSFS still has numerous CTD’s a year later. Laminar’s plan is to make their sim better than it used to be, not try and beat MS which is what everyone here seems to think they were doing. The way think of this is XPlane is like ARMA and MSFS is like Call of Duty. Yeah the graphics may look nicer and there is far more enjoyment from playing COD. But ARMA is far more realistic and a lot of time went in to make it be realistic and the game engine is actually used by some militaries to plan strategies and practise scenarios.

[@onground330]

- "It’s a game, not a true simulator." - thats really hurting

[@GiuseppeNelva]

@@tomstravels520 must be why all Laminar has shown is graphics, and mediocre ones at that. So much for your idea of their "plan" Your idea of MSFS is ludicrous. You know nothing of it, so discussion is moot. Keep telling yourself that it's not a true simulator. It'll still be false, but perhaps it'll make you feel better. In the meanwhile, we'll be flying aircraft by PMDG and more top notch devs, to which X-Plane has nothing comparable because top devs were on P3D and now they're all moving to MSFS, completely skipping XP

[@ciri151]

@@tomstravels520 I have done a 30 min introduction flight in a c172. The day after I compared msfs's and xplane's default c172, and I can say hands down msfs wins. So yes this ''msfs is not a true simulator'' is bs.. Btw I decided to install xp11 again yesterday because I missed the 737. I had 2 fcking CTD's in 10 mins.... So I uninstalled it again.. still gave me a good laugh though since all the xp11 fanboys complain about ctd's in msfs and act like xp11 is this perfect software that has no bugs and ctd's 😂

[@m00n_pInK]

I am bit disappointed with xplane 12 though, i was hoping for something better. sticking to xplane 11.

[@AntiSociety100]

You know, whether or not FS2020 would kill off xplane was up for a lot of debate 7 months ago. Today with the launch of the fenix and PMDG products I believe the debate is pretty much over. There is no way in hell Xplane can make up for the difference anymore. I have been an xplane fan for a small decade. But their total lack of graphical development has been a pain in the but for a long time now. Even for 2017 standards it wasn't all to good lets be honest. Their main competitor was still running on a 90's game engine (p3d) which turned the "battle" into system fidelity vs flight dynamics. MSFS 2020 however offers so so so much more. From the weather engine to the usage of real map data. There simply will be no comparison. Everyone that debates this should become a pilot IMO, because that's the only place where xplane software would be legit. In terms of immersive simulation FS2020 beats the competition miles ahead.

[@GeorgeBJR32]

Here they come!!! This REVIEW was for XP not GRAFFITI.. come guys, if you love ❤️ MSFS so much why are you viewing XP reviews.. right there says allot.. XP is AWESOME and always will be.. so for those making there comments.. Keep that to yourself.. “You are speaking for yourself.. I have no plans at all to switch to MSFS.. I am hardcore XP and will remain so, also, this was a review for XP, he said nothing about MSFS… but here comes the trolls.. like seriously, if you LOVE MSFS so much why are you watching XP reviews.. , you are second guessing yourself.. you are not sure of yourself..! Or do you just like to bash on XP?”

[@tomstravels520]

Yeah they do. They expected X-Plane (a relatively small company) to take on Microsoft using Bing maps with graphics just as good. And when they didn’t they got angry.

[@tomstravels520]

@@GiuseppeNelva so on that basis when I comment about MSFS not being great in certain areas I should expect you to not call what I have to say bs then? Because there are certain things about MSFS that are sub par. The “truth” is your opinion and nothing more so don’t pretend it’s fact. You might say “MSFS graphics are better than XP”. And on that I would agree with you. But until it is proved scientifically or everyone in the world agrees then it’s not “truth”.

[@Apollyon_Rev911]

Copy. Paste.

[@DC3Refom]

They lack logical thinking to realise hmm these are previews , so many features , systems , real life lighting simulation is not finished or implented yet hmm this an early work in progress maybe we should till final release before full judgement but nope

[@cristian9447]

Underwhelming to say the least

[@az-rule84]

I stick to xp11 because of flight physics. Dont care about the scenary because most of the time i see clouds

[@activex7327]

By reading these comments ... Finally Xplane fanboys (who are usually angry from my past experience), have realized that what I was trying to tell them in past 2-3 years is a reality of things. This video has crashed their hopes and fantasies. Xplane fanboys can't take it anymore.

[@topofthegreen]

The scenery isn’t really much better than 11.

[@flightsimdeskuk]

It's not better at all other than the runway textures and some autogen improvements. Land textures look the same.

[@ganntradingsystemstimecycl2783]

I was expecting a lot more.. Disappointing..

[@frankbyte]

They literally improve ALL points that were lacking in XP (weather, washed out scenery without shaders, water, reflections and shining, 3D clouds, no sudden weather-changes, advanced meteorological and forecats model, seasons, better ATC). And people are still disappointed *LOL*. I guess just because it doesn't use satelitte imagery? Everyone knows that they cannot get a licence for that. So what were you expecting?

[@ganntradingsystemstimecycl2783]

@@frankbyte I'm expecting more. But go ahead spend your money.

[@frankbyte]

@@ganntradingsystemstimecycl2783 What exactly were you expecting then? Spend my money? LOL it's 60 dollars! Sixty dollars mate! Again: what exactly where you expecting, can you at least elaborate?

[@DarkKnight-bi7cr]

Lmao. It’s a joke and embarrassing

[@tristando9990]

Lmao MSFS is a joke and embarrassing with realism

[@tristando9990]

Floppy planes

[@BlackWhiteBeast]

LOL. No.

[@Walkeramry]

1st

[@danielpena-un8vl]

visually is a joke compare to fs2020

[@egamez1]

X-Plane 12 still looks like shit...