X-Plane12 or MSFS? Let's compare the FLIGHT MODELS directly| Real Airline Pilot

[@southboy18]

Rudder control sucks in msfs since day one. My issues with msfs is ground physics. And like you said, the transition from ground to air has always been weird in msfs.

[@FlightSimulator101]

I feel like they are going to fix the issue in fs2024... like they said MSFS 2020 client is very limited what it could do, and a thinner client-based simulator is going to be a huge change for the flight sim industry. From what I can see from FSEXPO is that the stuff we didn't have in 2020 is going to happen in 2024, and Imo I feel like fs2020 was an alpha test to see what it was capable of.

[@hansloyalitat9774]

Thats the only problem holding the sim back for me, that and lack of airliners and bad default airports.

[@carolebaskin138]

A2A has proven that ground handling can be done well

[@southboy18]

@@carolebaskin138 absolutely. After flying the Comanche, it’s the new standard for not only that, but flight model as well.

[@Marix498]

@@hansloyalitat9774 but you've got really nice payware airliners, and payware and freeware airports. The ammount of default airports is also raising, and so many terrain updates for different regions of the world.

[@onecharliemike6022]

In other words, MSFS and XPlane needs to have a baby.

[@majoraviatior1611]

Very true lol

[@BabyDino14]

yep

[@daviddanser8011]

Yeah xplane physics with MSFS scenery is the dream ✌🏼

[@ivaniuk123]

I wonder if FS2024 will fix the issues. The developers have realized that they hit a dead end with fs2020

[@greenesyt563]

Graphics+Physics= The best FS ever, they should just do it

[@wingandaprayer883]

Speaking as a previous owner of a C172, co-ordinating turns is often easier with leading the turn with the rudder, so rudder pressure and then aileron. Rather than chasing the ball. The real thing is very forgiving for lead footed or ham fisted pilots so keeping it coordinated is comparatively easy.

[@MikesBasementx]

For me, there is no doubt that MS has superior clouds and superior ground textures compared to X Plane 12, even though X Plane 12 clouds doesn't look extremely terrible. But besides that, I really find the X Plane ecosystem much more to my liking than the MSFS. Something as simple as camera handling still annoys the heck out of me in MSFS. In general, I would say that I also like flying in X Plane 12 more than MSFS. I feel that I have more control over the ToLiss A320 than I have over the Fenix A320, even though both are excellent aircrafts. I haven't flown much GA in both sims, so I can't say much about that, but maybe I should try and see how it feels in XP12.

[@Hanslims]

100% my impression as well.

[@kiekiek]

Really looking forward to your comparison (if if it comes...) between the Zibo and the PMDG 737. In my limited experience I find the Zibo so much nicer to fly manually, especially trimming and being able to precisely land and control the plane during descent is a lot better (easier...) in the Zibo.

[@Hanslims]

Me too but this comparison could be a little be biased, since he is a test-pilot for the PMDG 😉

[@Skymatix1]

@@Hanslims Exactly why I have never done a Zibo / PMDG comparison on my channel and have shunned away from it as far as possible.

[@Skymatix1]

Two different generations of aircraft are not that easy to compare unless every system is setup and configured to match each other BUT it will be interesting to hear Emmanual's opinion anyway.

[@paulwilson8367]

I'm typed in the 737. I haven't flown a nice Cessna 172 in many years. In the 737, the MFS/PMDG insults all of my sense of "feel" for the aircraft. Certainly in the takeoffs and landings. XP, not as visually beautiful for SURE, doesn't handle exactly like the real airplane. It is however noticeably closer to reality than the MFS. I wish I could quantify my judgement with numbers, but I don't have many measurements. In the PDMG, i have to pull way up for initial rotation vs the Zibo. In the landings, I cannot really flare the 737 in the PMDG without it pitching way up. Zibo is definitely more true to life. I will qualify my opinion by stating that on the never fun rides in million dollar company sims, I would tell my first officers to not "over think" their landings as, heck, "it's only a sim"!

[@DrayAviation]

​@@paulwilson8367 Agree 200%! i feel the same. But did you feel the aircraft more sinking quickly when flare in zibo xp12 than xp11? i felt it was same too on tolis a320

[@urgentsiesta7606]

Very reasonable perspective. Please keep in mind that you're flying one of the very few CFD-enabled addons in MSFS. Indeed, it is Asobo's Reference Model for getting their CFD up to snuff. Compare a different Default or or even some decent payware and the differences are far more apparent. And if you dial in some gusty summer afternoon winds, the difference is even greater. I've got both sims and enjoy both for different reasons.

[@jamesromanoski7292]

I really do hope Asobo will work on the flight model, especially the rudder. I would fly a lot more GA if coordinated turns didnt feel like a constant challenge.

[@Groveish]

They also need to make a way for you to trim without going back and forth 100 times. Maybe a key shortcut that trims your aircraft to that pitch and airspeed or something. Currently it's way too much work and too unrealistic

[@JonahCBR]

It's pretty bad. That said, the default rudder controls in MSFS are way too sensitive which is why you end up over correcting. I've got mine setup on -50 sensitivity and it definitely helps ton.

[@jamesromanoski7292]

@@JonahCBR Thanks for the tip. I'll give that a try.

[@simprove]

@@JonahCBR I use 0% sensitivity in all axes. Better still.

[@antoniomaruge8218]

I love both, my friend is student pilot and he only uses Xplane, I think both are great though.

[@aodhhanswtor7252]

Bang on review. For MSFS I use the Thrustmaster TPR pedals, and I have several different rudder pedal profiles which took quite some time to get to a point which is somewhat realistic. I also agree with ground effect. On a hot day with a low wing a/c such as a Piper Cherokee or a CJ4, both of which I have IRL experience with, you will notice some ground effect but not as much as it seems to occur on MSFS. On a higher wing a/c such as Cessna 172/152, even on a warm day I wouldn't experience much ground effect IRL, yet it seems exaggerated on MSFS. In fact, in a C172 I would sometimes end up stalling the plane several inches above the runway and "drop" it down on the runway.

[@jarekp4421]

Thanks for the video. I have been an X-Plane user until X-Plane 12. Sadly they did something seriously wrong with anti-aliasing, you won’t see it much on flatscreen, but in VR it causes big shimmering on all patterned objects like trees in the distance, or reflections on the water. I am a VR only simmer so it is essential. I waited for it to be fixed and reported many times (I was trying X-Plane 12 since the beginning of beta), but they apparently cannot address it. So I moved on to MSFS. I guess I was a bit lucky - I skipped the initial time when MSFS had lots of problems, no VR, and no advanced airplanes. Now I like MSFS very much, but since I am not a pilot I was never sure about the flight model difference. I have invested lots of money and time into X-Plane ecosystem (like writing Lua scripts to get some new functions, improving airports etc) so it wasn’t easy to decide to move. Again thanks for comparison. And yes, X-Plane requires a lot of tuning and experimenting to get it running smoothly, but it is (was) doable 😀

[@iain8837]

I’ve owned MSFS since release but can’t live with the flight model. The rudder is too digital feeling, you don’t feel the weight and inertia of the aircraft, especially in larger aircraft. You can’t video it and see it visually but you feel it. The biggest difference I found is between MSFS PMDG and XP IXEG, worlds apart in feel. I’ve not tried the A2A release yet but I’m hopeful. However I already see threads in the forum saying it’s too sensitive on the runway in yaw, will try it and see.

[@VBHB83]

Thanks just makes me enjoy MSFS even more now.

[@tubeloobs]

Very impressive for Asobo's first crack at a realistic flight simulator. I'm convinced 2024 will have the most realistic flight model and the hot air balloon demo they showed at FSExpo is the biggest indicator of that. I've never seen anything like it in any videogame and I'm surprised more people aren't talking about it.

[@tubeloobs]

@@EthanolEnthusiast they increased the detail of the CFD to the point that it started causing performance issues in the 2020 engine. It's part of the reason they did more to improve multithreading utilization.

[@GhostOfLorelei]

I don't think their goal is to be super realistic, honestly. I think they put their effort into other places because MSFS is intended to be entertaining (the 2024 trailers are really highlighting this fact by showing all the activities they are adding into the new game). Personally, I think this is a *good* thing. Most of us users, by a wide margin, will never get much past doing a discovery flight in a 152. As long as the flight model is 95% there (and it is) it really doesn't matter. But what does matter is that players have *things to do* in the game. So, yeah, I doubt it will be any more realistic, but I do think it will be a lot of fun :)

[@memorycl]

Based on their FSexpo vid, 2024 won't be very different for fixed wing FM. Balloon model will be a big step forward though. Folks aren't talking about it because visually it's essentially the same as 2020, with a few more rocks and ground clutter. Not really a ton of difference to talk about yet (and maybe never).

[@tubeloobs]

@@GhostOfLorelei They are trying to be realistic or they wouldn't have bothered to go with the CFD model and they definitely wouldn't have hired Alex from il-2 sturmovik

[@tubeloobs]

@@memorycl the balloon physics were based on them defining surfaces (just like the planes) but also how those surfaces react realistically to air pressure (just like planes) the physics model has to be extremely granular to get something like that right and there's no reason it won't translate to more accurate modeling for planes. They also removed all restrictions developers were complaining about in the current SDK.

[@goldgamer8446]

Thanks very much for this interesting video. It would be fantastic if you could test handflying both Fenix and Toliss - A320 and compare the flightmodel as well.

[@benjaminmathon7417]

I think it would be fair to wait for Fenix V2

[@apilot53]

That would be great to see

[@A330Driver]

I absolutely plan to do that. Probably with the current flight model and then again with the Fenix V2 model as they said there will be great changes (I wonder if an 8000 hour Captain would notice those).

[@yta7777777]

@@A330DriverFantastic, looking forward to it!

[@anonymoususer3012]

I would suggest the flybywire A32NX over the Fenix. The former has a much more realistic flight model

[@yohannessulistyo4025]

The weird ground to air transition is present in many simulator "games" like DCS, Il-2, including MSFS since FSX days. It wasn't really there back in FS9 (FS2004) days. It is probably an effect intended to produce artificial cinematic effect that shouldn't be just there.

[@XavierLignieres]

X-Plane has decades of experience with aerodynamic simulation, It only makes sense that they are ahead.

[@jameswaters3939]

There seem to be some interesting developments in scenery depiction that might be adaptable to both X-Plane and P3D. That what I sense in 'background'.

[@mcbookie3680]

You will really feel the difference when you try the zibo.

[@Eduardo-sq7sp]

Nice job. Very very precise and clear scrip for non pilot users.....

[@payt01]

Thanks for this, I also feel that Xplane model just feels a bit more natural and fluid than that of MSFS. Having said that, MSFS has come a long way since it's first release, and especially since FSX, which still used the table lookup system for it's flight model. It was still the on rails experience back then. Since I use flight sims mostly for the full experience of flight in VR, that is to say to get the sensation of being in the air in an awesome looking sceney, MSFS really is the only option for me at the moment. Sure I could install petabytes of scenery for Xplane, but that still doesn't give me what MSFS does (though Xplane can look really nice too, I particularly like the cleaner look of roads and cars and houses etc, even if they look exactly the same over the entire world). So yeah, it's a balance. For me it tips towards MSFS, especially with cool planes such as the F28 right now. But who knows what Laminar will come up with. It's good to have competition, I just hope they can keep up with FS2024 looming on the horizon :)

[@phobos2077_]

Have you tried SimHeaven X-World + AutoOrtho/Ortho4XP? I think they bring scenery quality close enough for satisfying VFR flights, especially due to X-Plane's superior lighting accuracy.

[@yurikondratyuk7065]

i've never had the feeling of flying in MSFS something very off with the flight dynamics in the air and on the ground

[@majoraviatior1611]

Not really, it’s barely off at this point. Try the A2a Comanche, that will change your mind

[@jostmathe]

i think the next thing to test jet liners in x plane and msfs

[@lpappas474]

During a turn the rudder pedals are used to correct for adverse yaw. To bank a plane the pilot needs to lift one wing while lowering the other wing. He does this by increasing the lift on the outboard wing by lowering the aileron. When you increase lift you also increase drag and this increase in drag will pull or yaw the nose of the airplane in the opposite direction you want to turn. The nose of the airplane does come back towards the direction of the turn you are trying to make as a result of the lift created by the wings. The rudder is used to cancel the yaw movement towards the lifting wing. What is really turning the airplane is what is known as the horizontal component of lift. Instead of lift being directly opposite of gravity, by banking the airplane the lift is being directed to the side of the plane.

[@نايفالمنصوري-ظ6ز]

Nice Comparison, By the way i have both of Sim & Nice to know the advantage of every one Thank You so much,

[@gwalker3092]

Tbf msfs with all the development it has had since launch has closed the gap with XP12. How realistic unfortunately I’ve never be a pilot so I have no real world knowledge to compare. I use XP12 as there are some aircraft that don’t exist in msfs , but las months MS/Asobo have been killing the development of aircraft and the sim. Updates to XP12 are glacial in comparison. However I take the view I would rather have both and each person to their own as they say. What msfs 2024 maybe another significant step above both that’s what I’m really hope. Thx for the video as always enjoy both there’s no need to hate on either. Both sets of devs are passionate above aviation and their products that’s what really matters. Have fun and safe flying all.

[@A330Driver]

Very good point! MSFS came a long way and even though XPL is still superiour in flight dynamics it will be interesting to see what FS24 will offer.

[@wingandaprayer883]

Rest assured MSFS scratches my itch for flight, it's very convincing honestly. Some things are much easier in the real world than in the sim... because you have 'seat of pants' feel and all round better depth perception. Ground handling in the sim is terrible.. tail draggers particularly.

[@echosierrakilo2089]

I cannot agree. The X-Plane 11 was released 4 years before the MFS. The XP12 does not bring anything new to the 11 really. And even after 0.5 year since the release it crashes each time if you don’t load C172 before the 737.

[@angelicguru4066]

@@echosierrakilo2089 If i remember all the issues with MSFS after 1 year or more that already a pretty good state. XP12 brings a ton of new things compared to XP11. A much better and accurate dynamic weather-simulation with tuned turbulences and added density altitude, dynamic weather effects on ground, seasons, much better sounds-effects, much better water, dynamic 3D-trees moving with the wind, tuned flightmodel etc. You really must want to not see it to not noticing that.

[@Gilles45]

@@echosierrakilo2089 I believe the crashes you refer to are linked to your PC hardware, not X-plane 12. I had the same crashes all the time, but they completely disappeared when I upgraded to an i9 CPU and a 4070i GPU. No more crashes now.

[@cyrildu972]

Hi Emi great little video, a cool way of comparing the flightmdeol would be to compare two 3dp addon made by the same dev. You could try the Justflight PA28 for exemple made both for XP and MSFS, Milviz 310 is also available for both MSFS and Xplane My tought on that is I feel like the flightmodel in XP is more consistent and doesn’t really depend on the dev, but in MSFS it really depend who and how a plane has been developed

[@paulphibbs7162]

Good feedback thanks.

[@papics]

The ground roll behaviour in XP is much better than in MSFS. You can see the typical jerky jumpy movement in MSFS during ground roll after you let the rudder go and then you correct back towards the centreline (and just after touchdown too). 30 degree turns in the pattern - at least turning downwind and base, and entered at a faster roll rate - would have been better demonstration to show differences in the flight model, your turns were very slow (for this demonstration). Otherwise I agree with the notes at the end of the video. (And I understand from the previous video that something is not OK with your system and XP, so you turned all objects down to zero, but this makes the visual differences even more demotivating for XP than they actually are - yes, MSFS scenery looks better, with the exception of ground textures at airports and some overdone things here and there, but like this the comparison - even if it was meant to be only the flight model - seems a bit unfair.)

[@majoraviatior1611]

That jerky motion is only apparent on the pmdg 737. I haven’t noticed it in any other aircraft

[@peterregan8691]

It’ll be interesting when the A2A Comanche comes to FS2020, this comment directly from the dev: ‘Keep in mind that when we (A2A) enter the FS2020 marketplace we will do that with our Accusim flight model separate from the 2020 code. You will get all that 2020 has to offer graphically along with a flight model operating as we have designed it to operate and using OUR physics engine not the 2020 flight model. What could be better than that? Dudley Henriques’ Time will tell of course but sounds good to me.

[@joespeed1952]

One thing I'm looking forward to the most this year.

[@hansloyalitat9774]

Like P3D, all the good airliners in that sim had their own flight model separate from the game.

[@Christopher-fp3gu]

Funny thing , both dcs and il-2 had better physics than both these titles 😅, but nice to hear il2 dev is joining in for the fs2024

[@holobolo1661]

Rudder inputs in MSFS have been sketchy since release, I don't think they've ever addressed it?

[@TimAyro]

I'm glad I'm not crazy. Rudder feels like shit, even with killing the sensitivity.

[@andreww7564]

Oh hey, my home airport! As a controller in ZSE, would love to see you on the ground there on Vatsim some day!

[@geonauto]

Thats why A2A need an entire independent aerodinamic engine ,rynning apart of MSFS ,to be able to provide a realistic behaviour .....

[@hansloyalitat9774]

I did a direct comparison like this but with the flight factor and fenix a320, and I was surprised how simmilar the planes felt while flying, but I noticed a very large difference on the ground, on mfs it feels like taxiing on ice, and I really hope they improve this, because its the only thing holding this sim back.

[@majoraviatior1611]

Fenix ground handling is fine. Pmdg ground handling is horrid. I do agree flight model is nice tho

[@Steve_Flight_Planes]

I'm not a real world pilot. I will never be a real world pilot. So long as MSFS is not a million miles away from X-plane's physics then I will use MSFS. Why? Because part of the enjoyment of flying is exploring and discovering the world. Along with battling the wind and aircraft procedures it's the exploring I and many flyers, real world and simmers alike love. Discovering far off parts of the world, following a motorway, flying over your house or famous landmarks. I've flown both Sims. I think Laminar is amazing and have so much respect for the brilliant Austin. But, in their current states, MSFS gives me a better 'real world' experience at actually flying in the 'real world'. Will that change in the future? Will Laminar create a more realistic world? Will Asobo improve the physics? Who knows! All I know is flight simming today and in the future is getting better and better for us all!

[@JonathanPeel]

Very awesome video. Please do it again when 2024 comes up. Because I already have MSFS I am not going to change now, but when 2024 is out I will decide to upgrade or switch...

[@A330Driver]

I surely will!

[@holobolo1661]

if you don't perform a flight control check before takeoff in MSFS your axes will not sense their full range and even small input can result in full deflection in that direction.

[@chabuhi]

Thank you for this info! I know this comment is 8 months old as of my reply, but is this check purely in-sim or are there software settings you tweak? Thanks again!

[@leverpaul]

Great video and I also had the same problem landing at Duene literally standing on the brakes till the very end of the rwy. Will try the same on XP as I am curious if I can also land it easier there as you have mention. Keep up the good work und Hals- und Beinbruch.

[@geraldgray1892]

One should be called a flight simulator, and the other should be called a scenery simulator

[@topofthegreen]

Flight Simulator 2020 has horrible flight dynamics, but X-plane has better flight dynamics. In many cases you need left rudder in fs2020 with no wind, which is completely unrealistictic.

[@ShogunSimulações-l6j]

Engine thrust in some planes does make the plane yaw to the right. I definitely remember it being a thing in the C152 in real life.

[@MouldyGuitars]

I do find msfs hard to land accurately as it just floats forever. My main choice though is that xplane will run on my m1 Mac and runs well. I tend to use msfs for most flying though as it’s more for the fun and scenery. Handy to be able to fly from my Mac too though.

[@A330Driver]

Agree on your opinion on accurate landings, the air/ground transition needs some more work in MSFS.

[@maxnicely8926]

You need to raise flaps on short field landing, otherwise you are not getting maximum braking

[@southboy18]

Ground roll and flying feels and looks more “natural” in xplane. Can’t explain it. Even the take offs in these videos, the ground roll looks more realistic in xplane. Looking at turning, in msfs, looks like the front of the plane is just sliding side to side. In xplane turning looks more fluid and some movement up and down when turning side to side. All that said, I fly msfs exclusively because it’s good enough for me and looks a million times better and perform better lol

[@minhashamayim4824]

I used MSFS since before 2004 came out & I must say that version felt most realistic. I used flight sims going back to CPC-464, then Amiga, so much has improved since then in the sense of realism. I got introduced to X-Plane 9 or 8, and at first didn't make much of it, but after actually training on a real Cessna 152, flying it in X-Plane 11 in VR, really felt very similar. I guess, flight simulators like X-Plane in VR are great tools for people training to be pilots that already have some real flying experience. Not only you can train actual flying, but IFR flying and the entire muscle memory of using the various knobs, switches etc. VR is meant for such things. The only problem with using a flight sim in VR these days, is that to get a smooth at least 90 FPS on a 90Hz VR on max graphics, it's just not gonna happen. In VR, the number of world objects adds to the realism of the simulation, but that has a huge impact on CPU usage, other graphical settings have a huge impact on GPU usage. I would say, native VR resolution with max world objects, nevermind any special extra graphical enhancements and as long as it can run solid minimum 90 FPS, then that would be great. I love MSFS, it has been a long journey, and it is a great sim, but I would still choose to use X-Plane in VR for training purposes.

[@halcyonzenith4411]

90 fps! What a fever dream. This is why I still use trackIR and a big screen monitor. 30 fps is quite tolerable and I usually get 45. But 90 fps! The computer you'd need for that would cost more than a Boeing 747 and a commercial pilot license.

[@jeremey2072]

So basically… MSFS is for ‘gaming’ and X-Plane is for ‘training’ (I have flown P3D for years but probably won't fork out the cash for 6 just yet. I have MSFS and X-Plane too and it really depends on what mood I'm in as to which sim I use - they are all good in their own ways) Also, edit to add - I found after updating Xplane performance sometimes goes to hell, I backup the preferences directory and then clear it out and it runs nice and fast again

[@svenwd]

I go to xplane for cameras, replay and default airports. And my favorite addons... But msfs ist great as well no question. A matter of personal priorities i'd say.

[@svenwd]

And what I cannot believe is a killer feature, saving the setting with the aircraft... How in 3 years this has not made it to MSFS is incomprehensible with all the other things they have done...

[@bluesfool1]

The xplane certainly sounds better in my opinion

[@casstephens3124]

Honestly, flying both the piper and Cessna out of 1D2 IRL. With wind, X-Plane never gave me the same feeling when flying north over downtown Plymouth then west to Salem VOR. the wind in MSFS in my subjective opinion made a huge difference. My Simioncs FFB now. I have to learn to fly all over again.

[@FoxtrotSierra]

Of course in a high wing aircraft ground effect is not that noticeable in real life. On low wing however it really is a big difference.

[@Jonas-xz7ee]

I think it's kind of difficult to compare the flight dynamics of both engines with the stock planes because they aren't really fine tuned. Would be interesting for example to compare MSFS WB-Sim 172SP vs XP Reality Expansion Pack 172SP.

[@leonpo]

yes, will be great to see comparison between these two airplanes

[@andrelauterbach6164]

Yes, espacially the floating is less with WB-Sim... would be interisting to know whether this resembles more to reality

[@marcw.5492]

Thanks for this ... I do notice the XPLANE seems more realistic, but I have a tendancy to bounce down the runway with faster planes. There is a way to tunr the plan with a setting in MSFS - not realistic though. I also was frustrated with no pedals so I tied the rudder and the aelerons together, so I could turn the plane on the ground and in the air with the yoke. Generall why is it Xplane loves grubby look . . I immediately could see the windshield has wear and smudge on it (and for me an annoying amount of glare in the same spot always) , seems easy to add a check box for "NEW" or "WORN" so at least you have a choice. And dirt on the outside of the plane. It costs $000 in the SIM. In fact it must cost something to add the dirt and scratches in the software. I suppose it is an easy way of masking the less than 100% clarity that we all go for in these sims. They couldnt aheive that so they made everything grubby. I own and like Xplane - I just have never understood the choice for brown paint and smudgy look. Must be that engineering background ?

[@paulthurston2883]

I own both. Although my experience with MSFS is now starting to shit me. Huge downloads, mandatory upgrades, mega space needed on your hard drive, CTD's. Xplane is so much easier to manage.

[@Ngamer834]

I have limited real flying experience, only one trial lesson. Compared to X plane 11 that I was previously using MSFS has done a better job at creating a world that feels "more alive" with the turbulence, wind and other weather effects so much more immersive. I personally couldn't go back to X plane or consider X plane 12 but as always everybody enjoys what they enjoy. My understanding is the WBsim C172 version is more accurate than default might be worth taking a look.

[@angelicguru4066]

It’s not my experience. Turbulences in MSFS are way overdone, with lots of thermics even when there are no reason to have thermics according to the weather. XP simulates that more accurately in my opinion. And i do fly in real. MSFS-users asked for more turbulences because they like when it’s bumpy. But it’s exagerated. On the other side, turbulences are completely lacking when flying into a TCU. You can read about that in the MSFS-forum where many users are complaining.

[@Ngamer834]

@@angelicguru4066 The last Sim update they did make some changes including options to lower the turbulence if so desired and the "realistic" setting is less than it was in my opinion. I like it personally.

[@angelicguru4066]

@@Ngamer834 Thanks for the info. That's possible, i didn't try the last version.

[@hellfire_2345]

Great video as always ❤

[@Vanya_Ale31]

stall speeds in msfs are just if they were taken from gta XD. I was floating the a32nx at 90 knots

[@A330Driver]

Yep, both high and low speed regime are rather poor in MSFS.

[@tubzvermeulen]

Thanks for the video

[@calinho_1515]

Maybe your CPU is Bottlenecking your 4090. I can run XP12 steam maxed out with addons + 60 FPS with no stutter (I9 13900K + RTX4090 + 32GB DDR4 4000). I noticed that XP12 only use 4 cores. 2023 and sim developers still don't program the simulators to use 8 cores\16 threads. MSFS 2020 is the same, pretty much hammer 4 cpu cores

[@meznaric]

You should try this in a strong crosswind (20kts say). In MSFS it will be difficult to keep C172 on the runway before takeoff, particularly if you pick a narrow runway. Haven't tried X Plane but it'd be interesting to see.

[@leverpaul]

While I have no problem keeping the 172 on the Rwy in MS I find it often really tough in XP.

[@YOSHIMOTOTakashi]

Great video! Thank you!

[@d.porter3142]

Even though the flight physics are better in XP12, I had to switch to MSFS because the cockpits in XP12 are way too dark and you can't see anything. It has been reported many times, but Laminar Research refuses to fix it.

[@A330Driver]

Yeah, that’s one that really annoys me on XP as well.

[@halcyonzenith4411]

The problem with X Plane is that I can't fly with an XBOX controller while eating a hot pocket.

[@joerocket1977]

MSFS flys like it’s on rails, no modelling at all.

[@BogWraith1]

Until you have flown the Zibo, you'll not have a true all around feel and appreciation for X-Plane!

[@majoraviatior1611]

He did

[@alpinebravo7090]

Interesting to see the comparison. Thank you! But I feel I should point that what you are doing is comparing the flight model *as implemented in that aircraft*. In MSFS, the performance of any given aircraft is very dependent on how the developer has approached the flight dynamics (and I assume the same is true in XPlane). In MSFS, some devs have done a far better job than others in modelling adverse yaw, stall behaviour, pitch-power sensitivity, ground handling in crosswinds etc. And certainly better than the default Asobo G1000 which remains pretty inadequate (CFD only has marginal relevance) So it's difficult to compare simulator-to-simulator. All you can really do is compare aircraft to aircraft. There are some MSFS aircraft that fly very well indeed. Many others.... One thing for certain that you highlighted was the strange yaw behaviour. There is definitely something wrong with the underlying physics in the lateral plane and it expresses itself in various ways through excessive weathervaning on the ground, excessive yaw moment in turbulence and lack of adverse yaw. The MSFS SDK now has variables that allow you to overcome some of these issues with weathervaning and adverse yaw, but it is down to the aircraft Dev to make use of them and sadly most do not (some 95% of the stock Asobo/Microsoft aircraft do not have ground handling variables implemented. Many do not have the aileron drag scalars implemented either): Asobo have provided the tools, but that means nothing if the aircraft Dev makes no use of them. So it's a complex story for sure and all I would say to anyone making choices - focus on the fidelity of the aircraft first and foremost.

[@global6000]

The rudder input required in MSFS is not realistic at all in my opinion. The tail is way too sensitive for wind and XP12 is much easier to work with to build cockpits so I like xplane more for general aviation

[@nicozika]

thank you, very informative video

[@sander8928]

Thanks! Zibo vs. the PMDG 737 (yes, I know you're on the test team :) ) would be nice to see as well. Though I can imagine that if the Zibo would be better (which I don't know as I never flew it), PMDG wouldn't be too happy.

[@majoraviatior1611]

Yeah he made a video and said pmdg is still king

[@szymek2265]

Interesting video. I would also like to see ground handling comparision (taxiing etc) and of course ZIBO vs PMDG from your perspective as another one next to flightdecksim's one ;) Hope we will see some XP12 stuff on your channel and you definitely need to tweak your XP as scenerypack order looks wrong (no airport buildings). Good time for flight simming tho.

[@pieterduplessis6906]

how many more comparsons should we see and endure. it really does not matter in the end as simmers will choose the platform they prefer we have seen countless comparisons and yet we cannot get past this. comparisons are subjective and always upsets half of a sim population. when will this end....

[@szymek2265]

@@pieterduplessis6906 Where did I write that comparisions are made in order to pick a platform? All I want to see is 737NGdriver's opinion on this matter. It will not stop me to use XP12 or MSFS no matter what the result is. If someone is triggered on comparisions then for real should get a life asap. Neither XP12 nor MSFS is like flying a real aircraft that is why I love blackbox711's opinion on this - none of the desktop's simulator can replicate the real flying (unfortunately some people believe they can land 737 after thousand of hours in those sims which is not true). Still every real pilot's opinion counts and comparisions are appreciated by the community. That is why I believe 737NG Driver decided to give it a shot.

[@JohnLemieux]

I haven’t used MSFS in years and use xplane 12 and also fly a 172. I will say that x plane feels very close to the real thing

[@A330Driver]

It certainly does!

[@n1msu]

Brilliant video! I own both, I find myself uninstalling one to reinstall another every few months because there is no perfect sim out there as mentioned! I just wondered how many flight models per frame you ran the X-plane on? Have you tried maxxing it up to 10 and noticing any difference in how the C172 handles in Xplane too? Take care!

[@torx0149]

I compare X-plane flight model with MSFS flight model as i would compare IOS user interface with Android user interface. It is literally about being used to one or the other. However, just as you can objectively say that Android is less "locked down" than IOS - with MSFS you can objectively say that it simply just looks nicer than X-plane. Recently i literally took a picture with my phone of the screen and send it to my dad to show him how beautiful flight simming has become, since the last flight sim he played was Microsoft Flight Simulator 98. Now isn't that crazy? You can actually ENJOY looking out your window in a flight sim and even take pictures simply because you feel amazed. For reference i have flown IRL, so i do care alot about the feeling and realism. Yet i still would pick MSFS any day. The eye candy is unbeatable. With that said, i agree with that the coordination between rudder and ailerons feels weird in MSFS.

[@mercster]

I learned to "fly" in flight simulators in XP11. I have no reference to the real world, I just know how to fly there. When MSFS released I was excited and, of course, blown away by the visuals and "slickness" of the program (even if it took ages to load.) But then the flight model gave me trouble... I have Honeycomb Alpha/Bravo controls, and they just don't act the same. I recently got XP12 and... yeah, that same smooth flying I'm used to. (MSFS always wants to dive nose down, and the pitch trim wheel is wonky?) I have no idea which is "more realistic." What I DO know, rationally, is that planes are generally designed to stay in the air and maintain a stable flight path, barring bad inputs. And for me, XPlane is just far superior. Don't care if it's more or less "realistic"; don't even really care if it's down to me "sucking" as a sim pilot. I have 10x more fun in XPlane, despite it not being as pretty. Even the third party support/community has slowed way down, which is a shame... but I don't care. :) XPlane for me.

[@mr.futurestrader2115]

I noticed X plane does not have the head movement like MSFS. That’s a huge step backward for me.

[@tedc6694]

To practice IFR flight as an airplane owner, would you think X-Plane has more realistic avionics? Does a Garmin 430w work the same in both programs and the same as in the outside world?

[@ShortFinal]

if you purchase the RealityXP Garmin 430 it is identical to the real world, save for the weather ADSB function as it uses the Garmin Trainer software. I use their 530 and 750 products to practice procedures and test out theories I have when flying in the real world.

[@jcommtube]

Thak you very much !!!

[@ElitistMagi]

Thanks!

[@A330Driver]

Thank you so much! You're welcome!

[@mavi_izmir]

Thank's very useful.

[@davidweisbrod5771]

Thank you the video! I use both and fly C172 IRL mostly and use both sims. As you said, i like the "in flight behaviours" of X-Plane C172 , especially the accuracy of the trim and the approach. But on the flare part, somehow, I prefer the feel of fs2020 where i can naturally "stole" the aircraft on the runway while holding the yoke (i have this moment of holding the yoke continuously for those long seconds until the touch down).. This is not happening as frequently wiith xplane (happens too fast even if my landing speed is the same)., cant explain why, find muswlfnon the ground too fast.. It looks to me that the way the controllers are acting at small speeds is more accurate in fs2020. Would be curious about your feedback regarding mixture leaning (EGT rising, accuracy of the fuel flow and peak of lean). Maybe in another video?

[@caribbaviator7058]

A real c172 doesn't drop like that with full flaps. It likes to float unlike Pipers low wing they will drop with full flaps!!!

[@jpsalo5975]

It's true, one hot summer day we hovered at least 50-70 meters on the runway c152. On the other hand, the Piper Cherokee dropped like a stone. although the rudder didn't turn the plane very well.🛫✈️🛬 21:55

[@JustAnOrdinarySimmer]

I only have PPL and mostly fly Piper but I would say both sims have there own negative and positives in terms of flight model which IMO equals them out.

[@Pe11ePD]

Really strange, I get better fps in XP11 AND XP12 than in MSFS. OTher than that, I heard from RW pilots that you certainly need quite a bit of right rudder input on a takeoff, which is the case in XP11/12, but not in MSFS. Also, C172 in MSFS will stall at 30-35kts on landing, which is way to slow.

[@rodolphof.godoyjr.1735]

As usual very professional statements. One question; If the comparison was with the A2A Comanche would the final conclusions change anyway?

[@A330Driver]

Depends, if we compare X Plane default with the Comanche then maybe, if we compare x plane addon with the Comanche I'd say X Plane stays the name of the game.

[@AquaStevae]

You should have lowered the graphics in MSFS to match those of the XP12, as your resources used can give different appearances to how the flight dynamics are being reported or observed. Also, I fly 172's every week as a real world pilot, and you don't need flaps on takeoff. But I agree with you on how artificial the controls in MSFS feel compared to XP12. The flight physics in XP12 is a great deal better than MSFS. Your conclusion of it not being so different is skewed in that you ONLY did a pattern in perfect conditions. So how did you think you would find more stark differences in the flight dynamics, when you didn't do much to show them? The more crazy weather, or more difficult maneuvers shows these differences a lot more.

[@iamkakako]

Was this channel called 737NG Driver

[@A330Driver]

It used to, yes. Until I changed aircraft types. It's still in the channel description for reference though.

[@johnc.4871]

I use ch rudder pedals. How much rudder input are you using? I find that both require just the slightest touch and wonder if that is realistic?

[@quantumac]

I still prefer the flight dynamics of X-Plane 11 to X-Plane 12. My BD-5J Microjet model sinks more rapidly, rises more slowly and lands harder in X-Plane 12 than X-Plane 11. Also, I'm getting about twice the frame rate in X-Plane 11 VR than X-Plane 12 VR. Since I fly VR almost all the time, X-Plane 11 still works better for me. I'm waiting for Laminar Research to do an optimization pass on X-Plane 12 until I buy (I'm testing with the demo), and I consider myself an X-Plane aficionado. It's not that I can't afford X-Plane 12. It's that I want to see better performance before I commit to it.

[@JamesC1981]

even with a 4090 in xplane 12 its still required to lower graphics quality or you get low fps?

[@A330Driver]

X-Plane is mostly limited by the CPU, not by the GPU. But yeah, even with a 4090 I can't run it at full settings. Unfortunately.

[@JamesC1981]

@@A330Driver same with msfs thats unforunate

[@halcyonzenith4411]

I have a 3070 and run at max settings at 30 fps. More likely the CPU that's the culprit

[@holobolo1661]

Do you have the WB-Sim C172? They have a free 152 also

[@melito1955]

Sr buenas noches desde Bogota,conclusión cual es la diferencia entre X Plane y MSFS..Gracias.

[@memorycl]

Nice balanced comparisons here. To be fully fair in your next vid, make sure to turn down the 2020 gfx sliders too. Or wait till XP is ready for you to turn them up. Also, get the ortho in XP. It's too easy to NOT do for at least the KPDX area.

[@A330Driver]

Thanks! The video es expressively not designed to compare visuals, but only flight models.

[@memorycl]

@@A330Driver Yes you were thankfully very clear on that but this IS the interwebs, and trolls gonna troll ;)

[@ukmaxi]

I will say briefly that some average consumers seem to confused what a "flight model" is in the comments. They confuse the physics engine with the individual flight model for each aircraft. In essence, the trickiest part is to try and fine-tune the aircraft you are modelling to the physics engine you have performing the calculations. This is a matter of fact when it comes to simulating anything, especially if hydrodynamical simulations are involved. Fine-tunining problems are a common problem in scientific simulations since you end up tweaking parameters to fit your real-life observations whereas your understanding of the science could be completely wrong. It also can be your resolution and computing power is just not up to snuff, which for any commercial simulator, would be an issue. Eitherway, from what I can tell, each aircraft in MSFS (and I am guessing X-Plane as well) has its own unique config file which is the individual aircraft's flight model (how it interfaces with the physics engine). Fine-tuning this, is what I assume is difficult since it will be based upon either just the documentation, pilot experience or a combination of the two. I am super excited with get actual physics simulations in a commercial product though (speaking as a physicist), so I am looking forward to see how these simulators evolve. I.e. I hope X-Plane will compete and advance their physics engine too.

[@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi]

The biggest problem i have with MSFS, Is the FLAT cockpits. Everything looks like a photo, Xplane loosk so much better, the silicone smear on the windscreen etc., You would expect xplane to just miss the mark but it doesnt. Im a msfs fan but i dont think il buy the new version. Il wait for a newer variant if it ever comes out.

[@A330Driver]

Funny you mention it this way round, personally I feel exactly the opposite, to me it feels like XPL is missing the depth. I suppose it comes down to what you’re used to to a certain degree.

[@ButchNackley]

I've been using MSFS forever. I started with MSFS 2000 and have bought every one since then. They all worked pretty much flawlessly. Now, after 4 years, msfs2020 is still a broken product. Mainly the disconnection of controls during a flight. Sometimes using the brakes during taxi the game will say You Crashed. Instead of fixing these and other issues with the game, asobo just keeps adding stupid 'game' features, such as dune (no doubt for the xbox crowd). They killed the Google Maps mod, which was a fantastic add on. Much more realistic looking than the default bing maps. And I can't leave out the silly twirling airplanes, vehicles, etc that appear at airports. MSFS2020 actually worked well it's first year or so. But has only gotten worse since and fixing things is not a priority to the devs. Currently, I doubt I'll buy msfs2024. I will however buy X-Plane 12.

[@hobanagerik]

That nose waggle I’ve seen a lot. Some planes are worse than others. It happens more often when at lower speeds just before entering the flare. The nose will gently shake from side to side, presumably because of lack of rudder authority. Keeping airspeed a little higher can alleviate this, but you shouldn’t need to.

[@will6287]

Is the main gpu running when xplane running? Or are you using vulkan in xplane? It might improve quite a bit in performance.

[@ClouDAction.]

Were the weights and CG of the planes the same? Looks like you had less energy on the approach in XP. Lower speed and altitude. Maybe that's why the plane stopped flying earlier?

[@roborat2000]

Summary: Flighty models are very close. But the X-Plane graphics is still horrendous compared to MSFS.

[@tremainelewis6887]

What controls do you use?

[@photoeducationbydaniel]

Flight dynamics is really a red herring and discussed and debated to death. None of these desktop sims even compare close to real-life flight so it really is a senseless aspect to even debate. On top of that most folks do tend to go for payware aircraft where their dynamics are largely going to be dependent on the devs. On top of that the differences between to two are so minimal is it even worth talking about. Let's be fair here and say that the 20% in MSFS in terms of dynamics is completely overwritten by stunning visuals. Who in their right mind would sacrifice 80% visuals for a 20% gain in dynamics? (Notwithstanding the fact that Asobo are newbies and have jumped miles ahead already

[@Hanslims]

Exactly like no artificial scenery compare to real life looking out of the cockpit. And yet it has become almost the only thing that maters for the desktop-arcade-gamers. Realit don’t have loading scenery squares in front of you, popping up autogen and blurry textures when looking far away.

[@angelicguru4066]

Asobo is a professional gaming-company, no wonder they made top-graphics. Apart from that I don’t see any other point where they had jumped « miles away ». For me the sim felt more like a limitation compared to what we had before (XP/P3D). No wonder they already have plans for a new sim.

[@photoeducationbydaniel]

@@angelicguru4066 It still does not change the fact that here in 2023 the differences between XP12 and MSFS is so small in terms of flight dynamics it makes more sense to chose the sim that's more visually pleasing has a bunch of really awesome developers aiming their attention away from xplane to MSFS. It really is a no brainer

[@aerofiles5044]

@@photoeducationbydaniel Perhaps, but XP just feels a lot more smooth to handfly. MSFS aircraft get really jerky with the rudder and the ground movement. If you can't notice it then I don't know what to tell you.

[@ehss192]

@@aerofiles5044 I adjusted my sensitivity settings namely the 'reactivity' setting. For me it's at the point where I can't tell a difference between the 2 sims.

[@sdflyer28]

When last time you flown 172 IRL?

[@A330Driver]

About half a year ago.

[@sdflyer28]

@@A330Driver was it N model?