I'm genuinely shocked by the results of this test. We are so blessed to have two high fidelity civilian flight sims on the market. Which one is your favourite? Let me know in the comments below!👇👇👇
@d0m1nu27 Жыл бұрын
Hey, do you plan to try this test again after XP12 will be fully released, because as you defo know it's now still just early access beta and a lot of things might change, would be nice to see this small comparsion again. :)
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
@@d0m1nu27 That would be a great idea, especially as both sims are maturing as such a fast pace.
@f.d.miller3903 Жыл бұрын
I agree with your friend so far. X PLANE is definitely more true to flight model than Msfs. I give MFS the win on graphics by just a little. The real test for me is the crashing to desktop. I love flying long flights that will let you exhaust your fuel supply. MFS has improved on this, but its still poor at best. If your lucky you might get 1hr. Maybe 1hr. And a half if your lucky. X Plane excells at this. Also it don't shudder near as bad. I will not be spending no more money on MFS. The winner is X Plane. They have a new costumer.
@hpharold23 Жыл бұрын
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP still uses an old and outdated blade simulation theory. Cant find any data or visual representation of such. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic. Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hMqcY5qQnLbXh5s.html
@f.d.miller3903 Жыл бұрын
No matter what they use, X plane is more of a simulation, MFS is more of a game. So as a pilot I own both, but I will fly a simulator X plane.
@plebreton01 Жыл бұрын
Great video. As a former flight instructor, I'd just add that no two C172's (or any light aircraft model for that matter) will feel the same. There will always be variations intake-off and climb performance, handling, stall characteristics etc, depending on the age of the aircraft, age of the engines, airframe warping from prior incidents and so on. I have spun C152s that wing-drop gently as in the MSFS example, and also abruptly like the X-plane example. I would say both are very accurate. Just something to think about :)
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thanks so much for your input :)
@larryphotography Жыл бұрын
That's a great point, thank you for contributing!
@scottwilson8105 Жыл бұрын
I own a 1962 172C, and when stalling coordinated (ball centered) it stalls straight ahead with no wing drop whatsoever. That's both power on and power off stalls. I was surprised to see these sim airplanes drop a wing with the ball centered. Is that a thing with the real-life newer-model 172s?
@AriKolbeinsson Жыл бұрын
@@scottwilson8105 Power on stall veering to the left is very normal even if your airframe is good. Wing drop in power off stalls on a C172 is common, but suggests some "wear and tear" (including dings, fixes, rebuilds, wing change, etc.). I remember one C172 I often flew basically flew around 5kts slower than most others, and had slightly worse stall characteristics. GREAT for stall training!
@ianhowlett4682 Жыл бұрын
@@scottwilson8105 In real life I've flown 4 different C172 aircraft built from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, and all 4 of them stall with the wings level - none of them drop a wing.
@a330flyguy2 Жыл бұрын
I was an instructor on 172s for years and they always stalled to the left because of the gyro effect of the prop. It was hard to get them to spin to the right.
@daniwha Жыл бұрын
Ah, that is also why props veer to the left when taxiing I'm guessing?
@a330flyguy2 Жыл бұрын
@@daniwha Yes or on takeoff
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Maybe I got lucky on this occasion 😁 Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it.
@9999AWC Жыл бұрын
Ironically on my commercial flight test I couldn't spin the plane to the left, and even the flight examiner tried because I did all the right things to no avail. Then I did it to the right no problem. Both of us were perplexed by this but we carried on and I passed! Still one of my oddest occurences during my flight training time!
@wylieecoyote Жыл бұрын
@@daniwha Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, Newtonian physics at work, is why the plane will tend to break to the left when the wing loses lift. The prop is spinning to the right, so the plane tries to equalize by spinning to the left. Normally lift will "lift" the wings and the prop is all that spins until the lift no longer can support the wings as they stall causing the plane to break left and continuing to spin that direction. A crucial recovery step is to idle the engine to arrest the induction of spin, right rudder to stop any remaining spin and pushing forward on the yoke to regain speed and thus lift. Once spin is stopped, the yoke is pulled back to level wings and the power is reintroduced. The same thing is at work in a high power light plane in a go around. The plane tends to move left and nose rise, so right rudder and pushing the yoke forward is necessary to prevent a power on stall. STOL are particularly vulnerable to this due to power weight ratio. This effect also pushes the plane to the left when taxiing for the same reason.
@ianhowlett4682 Жыл бұрын
As a real world C172 pilot, the flight models in simulators never quite “feel” right to me anyway, because in real life the control column can feel quite heavy, the control column moves around as the wind blows on the control surfaces of the aircraft, and you just feel a lot of it through your hands. A sim can’t easily do this, so they always feel a bit too light and manoeuvreable compared to the real aircraft.
@lioneljacquet7944 Жыл бұрын
Le FFB en simracing.
@mro9466 Жыл бұрын
@@lioneljacquet7944 en simracing c'est parfois l'inverse, y a plus de feedback au volant que dans une vraie voiture
@WarrenPostma Жыл бұрын
Even with force feedback, the haptics of sims seem wrong, or so I hear, to most real pilots who have tried a force feedback sim.
@fredericfamso9572 Жыл бұрын
That is why I bought force feedbacks yokes and rudder. Expensive but a real game changer for msfs, feels like the real thing.
@Lonsome1223 Жыл бұрын
I'm also a real world pilot light single and twin engine aircraft but that was a long time ago. MSFS in VR has put me in the cockpit again. You can fly over real scenery and real time and weather. Never thought I'd see the Day.
@paulbaron1990 Жыл бұрын
I like both but I sorta like Xp better... I think it is just a better platform for its users' ideas and the community around it is a bit more interesting. The biggest MSFS issue is it tries to satisfy everyone from an Xbox user to a serious simmer, Laminar doesn't do it, and I thank them for that.
@Stringbean421 Жыл бұрын
That's the beauty of MSF, it caters to both PC and Xbox Users. Physics are just as good in MSFS as they are in XP11/12 and improving with each update. The excellent PMDG 737 or the Fenix A320, are a dream to fly in MSFS and the crosswind landing physics are the same as in Xplane. Plus the fact you have global world photographic scenery, excellent clouds which Xplane can never match, they look awful in Xp12, multiplayer features and a ten year program for continued updates. Third party developers are leaving the Xplane camp and going where the money and future is and that is MSFS.
@HA-hp6ui Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately we can't trust Microsoft. That 10 year development plan has just been thrown overboard when, a few days ago they announced a new stand alone simulator for next year
@ATOBanana5 ай бұрын
Another huge setback on side microsoft is its impossible to say you prefer one game without someone coming along to tell you why youre wrong. Makes it hard to want to be apart of the community when there are so many elitists. I had to hop off the msfs subreddit because they do it to eachother too. So weird.
@jakeaviator15152 ай бұрын
X-Plane is for real world training for a reason. Customisation and faults simulation is huge.
@ElShogoso2 ай бұрын
As a casual person who is just lightly interested in aviation but not enough to go full "tryhard vatsim realism mode" I'm thankful for MSFS for being so accessible, though I can understand it may end up compromising a bit of the experience for hardcore pilots.
@JanStrojil Жыл бұрын
I think MSFS has an unfairly bad reputation for its flight modelling, from what I heard from real life pilots, some of the planes are actually very good.
@jasonjada2259 Жыл бұрын
The arrow is amazing flight model wise, the 152 is great aswell
@specialneedsmolester1957 Жыл бұрын
172 is okayish
@planelander Жыл бұрын
172 is trash, def needs work.
@fracl9369 Жыл бұрын
i'd go for MSFS is their photogrammetry advantage over xp12.. i dont care abt default aircraft flight model as i always fly addon payware aircraft
@northeastflight3016 Жыл бұрын
@@planelander what specifically is bad about it? I feel like its pretty spot on
@IvanSkyFlight Жыл бұрын
PPL that flies 172s IRL. I am huge fan of both sims. I just did a comparison, too, and feel that the left turn tendencies along with trimming are a bit more accurate in XP12. Great video! Thanks for putting in the time!
@mcsnickerman7262 Жыл бұрын
Same here. Ppl with ifr IRL and I bought xplane 12 because I didn’t have version 11 and wanted to experiment. I think the trimming in msfs could be better in the default Cessna 152/172. For me, trimming in msfs feels like a long chore instead of actually helping me out quickly. I also like xplanes settings when it comes to weather for doing instrument approaches.
@sssturges Жыл бұрын
Pilot here, same. MSFT Yaw is way to gentle.
@HandyTot Жыл бұрын
The atmospheric simulation in msfs is the most underrated component, updrafts, downdrafts, ridge lift , etc. Its absolutely the best.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Couldn't agree more
@yahyakr6903 Жыл бұрын
yeah when you get that random 200knots crosswind you feel that :D
@coder236 Жыл бұрын
@@yahyakr6903 ive spent 100s of hours in the sim and never once experienced a random 200kt wind, occasionally I had the odd chop at high altitudes but nothing mental. Neither sim is perfect, it's just 1s and 0s running through a cpu at the end of the day
@n1msu Жыл бұрын
have they included gliders yet? without those, it's all a little relative.
@i3lackflo Жыл бұрын
@@n1msu there are gliders now
@sypharorigin Жыл бұрын
Great video! I've got a long comment... If I seem to bash on any of the sims it's not my intention since I'm using both myself. Here's somewhat of a rough theory of why both sims feel similar in the 172. If we break both sims down to the number of controlpoints in their respective physics MSFS2020 launched with 137k controlpoints while XP11 once it reached its peak had an equivalent to ~10k controlpoints (blades broken down into points). XP12 has launched using an equivalent of ~122k controlpoints. Also we need to keep in mind it's not all up the sim, but very much the aircraft developer to decide how much of the physics to use. Even though MSFS2020 has now past 257k I think that the Cessna 172, being a sort of showcase aircraft for props in both sims, has not put the new numbers to use and is still at the same stage physics-wise as it was when released. Before I get any "bashing" for in one way saying that MSFS has better physics; let me finish. At one stage of home flight simulation (when the first home-sim reached 16, yes just "16" controlpoints) when it got down to the physics a professor said that somewhere around 10k controlpoints is all you'd ever need to simulate real world physics in an airplane. XP has always been ahead of MSFS in all terms of physics (been using both sims since ~1998) and at this time I actually feel as if MSFS2020 is more alive because I feel the friction more while XP12 still has that "driving on ice" feel to it (maybe that's just me.....), but I know that in the past XP always came out the winner of realism at the same time as I'm thinking that it now more than ever depends on 3rd party aircraft for both products (or default ones being upgraded, alot). Final thought, both sims are very good in their own strengths and weaknesses, but it's too early to say anything with XP12 being in early access.
@Lungolords Жыл бұрын
One thing I wish msfs would improve on is ground handling physics. That's the one aspect XP is still way ahead
@patpilot1675 Жыл бұрын
In xplane is a little to sensitive cuz I’ve been flown planes in real life for some years and in irl is not that sensitive
@Lungolords Жыл бұрын
@@patpilot1675 Yeah I fly too, I just adjust my pedal curves within the settings and it fixed that right away
@LeandroMDL Жыл бұрын
tottally agree
@dtrjones Жыл бұрын
💯 agree although annoyingly some planes on the ground in MSFS do handle better than others.
@tb100 Жыл бұрын
Look at your rudder (yaw) sensitivity controls and give it a bit of a curve (ala DCS World) I found that it improved realism significantly for me and I'm a real world tail dragger pilot where rudder authority on the runway is vital.
@greggseipp Жыл бұрын
When I was a student pilot I did 2 accidental spins, recovering from power-on stalls in a C152 that was prone to spin much more than the other 152s in the fleet. In terms of wing snap, to me, it felt, at the time, as fast as X-Plane does. Having said that, personally, I prefer the MSFS flight model and I can't really put my finger on why. But, the X-Plane model is pretty good if you turn down control sensitivities. Both have improved significantly over the years. One other thing. One way I like to check realism for a flight model is to do slow flight...full flaps, gear down (if not fixed) and slow to just above stall. A single engine has a real tendency to turn left which you counter with right rudder. It's mushy on the controls and you have to counter gusts quickly. Also, the nose is pretty high despite full flaps. I've yet to find an airplane in a sim that does it well. It doesn't bother me much, though. I fly normal most of the time and that's great fun enough.
@darrenberkey7017 Жыл бұрын
I'm a long time user of X-Plane, which I still have a fairly healthy respect for, but I have moved fully to MSFS 2020 since it was released, and I think Asobo deserves more recognition for what they've achieved up to this point, despite some of the "rough air" that they've endured through all the updates. There are still some bugs to squash and maybe a couple features I'd like to see added later, but it really is a great sim, and I especially appreciate SU11 and helicopters being added. I'm still interested to see how XP12 develops from here on, but it's unlikely I'll go back to it anytime soon, if ever.
@billschannel1116 Жыл бұрын
Wow, did you knock it out of the park with this video. While I'm not particularly interested in X-Plane 11 as I don't spend enough time to have 2 sims in my life and some of the integrations that Flight Simulator I can't live without. But these comparisons between both games and a real world pilot with a lot of experience on the exact aircraft is fascinating! Thanks!
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thanks Bill that means a lot, this one took some work, but the results make it all worth it.
@ryanw1433 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for conducting these tests. There is great value in getting SME feedback, keeping an open mind, and having competition - for the latter reason, I hope everyone who has the means will continue to support XPlane
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Cheers Ryan, I hope so too, it's a fantastic sim.
@Concodroid Жыл бұрын
Flight sim isn't oversaturated. It's almost perfectly saturated. The problem comes when you view it on imperfect monitors - which every monitor is. Some monitors are oversaturated, some are undersaturated. What happens is when you take an almost perfecly saturated game and view it on a monitor that is even slightly oversaturated, it looks terrible. I went flying a month ago or so. I was shocked by how bright and colorful the sky was, especially in the morning. I work with color and color grade my stuff a lot. I'm no expert, but I'm also no spring chicken when it comes to this stuff. What would be nice is if flight simulator was a little bit more undersaturated in overcast weather, to show contrast. This would be an artistic change, not necessarily a realistic change. Because our eyes adapt to changes in brightness, overcast weather is fairly bright after you get used to it. But because our monitors aren't bright enough for force our eyes to bright or dark adapt as much as they do outside, darkening it would give a better sense of atmosphere and fake that sort of effect.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
I respectfully disagree, it was perfect until Sim Update 5.
@Concodroid Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy I guess it comes down to aesthetic tastes then. Either way, realistic or not, if you want to then the saturation down, it's very easy - use Nvidia GeForce Experience to reshade it and turn down the saturation.
@ghostviggen Жыл бұрын
MSFS2020 looks incredible on my OLED TV.
@xeno._yt Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy You should get reshade. Then you can adjust it. Personally though, I think the MSFS saturation is good.
@billramsey2564 Жыл бұрын
I am a reasonably experienced real world military pilot. I run XP11 and have recently bought XP12. First, the only thing I can see that XP12 does better than it’s predecessor is water - clouds, snow, puddles, sea etc. XP 12 basically looks as drab as XP11 did before I invested lots through ORBX and the rest to turn it into something I enjoy and looks credibly realistic. Of course, the XP people have caught third party developers cold. I do believe that XP gives you aircraft models that feel like aircraft (at least the ones I flew for real - Vulcan, Tornado, Hawk etc) but I suppose some of that depends on the hardware you are using. I only see MSFS a bit via a pal, but there is no doubt the scenery is much better in MSFS. In the end, horses for courses. By the way, serious sideslip is much more aggressive than your film.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Bill, firstly can I just say thankyou for your service to our country, and of course all those amazing displays you performed in our beloved Vulcan. It's an honour to have you watch one of my videos thankyou. I have a few videos flying the Vulcan in X Plane 11 on the channel, I miss that beautiful delta lady very much. It's great to see you are also enjoying flight simulation, I guess it never leaves your blood. My best wishes to you.
@billramsey2564 Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy Thought you might like this kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b59nmJRkldCRY6M.html
@jameshoiby Жыл бұрын
That slight yaw to the left before the stall in MS Flight Sim @3:15 really caught my eye and is absolutely realistic. It's what really keeps you on your toes (see what I did there? :) on the rudder pedals when practicing stalls. It's little things like that contribute to making each stall unique in real life.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Excellent thanks James for your input it's greatly appreciated 👍
@boot71az Жыл бұрын
"X-Plane always breaks first by the left wing": I don't think the reason are environmental factors but more likely different flow around the wings because we have a single propellor airplane there. So I would expect that an airplane on stall in very most cases breaks in one direction. (+ point for X-Plane 12 ;-))
@johnmaguire2185 Жыл бұрын
XP models it by the book. The amount of ailerons input at the stall has little effect on the direction of the spin.
@michalt5165 Жыл бұрын
Because Xplane always had very good physics and flight model.
@darreno1450 Жыл бұрын
The XPlane stall movement was way too fast. Maybe they got the direction right, but that's about it.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
@@darreno1450 Totally agree, it felt synthetic and way too abrupt
@boot71az Жыл бұрын
@@darreno1450 OK, I don't know, I never have been in that situation in reality. That's just my opinion as an engineer.
@jpallmann Жыл бұрын
I'm a real world pilot, I have time in Pipers, Cessnas, Bonanzas. Growing up, I used X-Plane. X-Plane has been a sim I've used for the past 8 years, I was a sim nerd before I was a pilot. Initially viewing Microsoft Flight Simulator as an unrealistic platform, mainly based off of what "I heard" from other sim nerds. As I've become a pilot and received my ratings in the past year, Microsoft Flight Simulator has become my main form of simulation. Some of the avionics are lacking, but the recent integration of the G1000nxi and other upgrades in the aerodynamic simulation has communicated Asobo/Microsoft's intent to not only be jaw-dropping in beauty but also be a serious simulation for all users. The simulator has had the time needed to mature and get the bugs and quirks out. Great job asobo! The V35B released by Carenado lacks depth, but for what you get in a two-year-old simulator? Great stuff. Microsoft's simulator needs more time to mature when it comes to the 3rd party market, that's all.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Excellent thanks for sharing your thoughts it's greatly appreciated
@jgarrets Жыл бұрын
I think Asobo is currently testing the newest flight dynamics systems like CFD on the G1000 version of the 172 only. Did you check to see if the G1000 version is currently behaving the same as the steam gauge version in the sim?
@rakon8496 Жыл бұрын
Correct. He was testing the old version, the test Xplane12 C172 analogue vs. MSFS C172 glass would be more appropriate. 💙
@johnmaguire2185 Жыл бұрын
Also Just Flight have a mod to the steam gauge C172 that brings the systems up very close to irl. Also an unknown adjustment to the flight model.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
That makes this test even more impressive for MSFS!
@RATTMAN Жыл бұрын
Oh yeah, I didn't even noticed that as I watched this video early in the morning. The CFD on the Glass version is night and day better. I used the G1000 in my personal comparison.
@Deploracle Жыл бұрын
No one uses actual Computational Flight Dynamics on an entertainment level simulator. If Asobo were managing to do so their simulator would be FAA licensed for actual real world flight training (like X-Plane).
@mattchristie1810 Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this! It's confirmed what I thought all along too. There's an awful lot of XP fans rubbishing MSFS for the flight model, but I too fly at PPL level in C152/C172 and occasionally Piper Arrows, and I'm very happy with how MSFS handles flight characteristics. The only time it didn't feel right, was when a developer messed something up with a flight model (Aeroplane Heaven Electra pitch characteristics). It's because of that and the gorgeous visuals, my local flying club all use MSFS at home now. All we need is a way to sort out the over-saturated colours in MSFS and it'll be perfect! I know that's possible on the desktop with NVidia overlays, but in VR there's no way yet - developers/MS/Asobo - hope you're listening!
@robburgundy9539 Жыл бұрын
Ive never seen the colors as a problem. I always remember colors being very nice when flying during the summer. Especially with sunglasses.
@malachi8151 Жыл бұрын
Reshade has native VR support since the latest release. Might be worth a look ;)
@gastonpossel Жыл бұрын
You can just turn off color correction in the UserCfg file. It reverts back to the original Bing imagery colors
@renefeijen5916 Жыл бұрын
@@malachi8151 Sounds great, will try! I have absolutely no clue how though, no experience with Reshade, though I know it existed (and did not work in VR).
@dtrjones Жыл бұрын
Interesting point about saturated colours in VR, I've always found the colours in my G2 while nice to be a little muted anyway compared to my Asus VA panel which is definitely oversaturated in MSFS. However, I really don't find X-Plane the solution either which if anything is undersaturated and for X-Plane 11, I have to use Reshade to bring back the pop.
@SteenPedersen Жыл бұрын
Great comparison, very interesting. I have never flown X-plane, only FS. I have flown SEPLs IRL for 22 years, and I have never seen a C172 drop the wing as fast as your X-plane video. The MSFS seems more realistic.
@BertPoole Жыл бұрын
One of the better comparison videos the past few days. Thanks!
@BertPoole Жыл бұрын
And I would agree that the Xolane 12 shading model and rendering is something Asobo should gleans positives from. I do think msfs is by far the more comprehensive sim but the detail they derive from the AI blinds everyone to the fact that the overall visuals could in fact find some low hanging improvements and substantially improve the immersion. Not picking up Xplane 12 but it’s nice to have the competition.
@iain8837 Жыл бұрын
The weakness I find with MSFS is the physics when the aircraft contacts the ground and the sensitivity of rudder and nose wheel steering once on the ground. A 737 is MSFS does not feel like it has mass, where as in XP it feels spot on.
@themightyangustma2753 Жыл бұрын
Agreed
@dreamhomes5874Ай бұрын
The headwing a220-900neo is very hard to control ( i dont know if this is just me ). Like if you pull up, it keeps that degree for less than a second, which makes it very hard to land.
@rolanddutton Жыл бұрын
I think the MSFS saturation issues are more down to the terrain map. Feeding in Google or modern Bing maps is often closer to irl. I think both sims are pretty good now (but not perfect). It's really down to how well your aircraft is modelled.
@rinzler9775 Жыл бұрын
You can also adjust by turning light bloom off.
@StefBelgium Жыл бұрын
Saturation can be adjusted theough the graphic card menu. It is an easy fix. Bringing a realistic environment in a sim is way more difficult. I prefer having great scenery out of the box and adjusting a saturation slider than having to download tons and tons of tiles to make ortho4xp scenary for the sim to look descent I fly only GA planes like 172, and I m also a irl 172 pilot. I ve always found XP flying on rails and the ground physics is catastrophic. The plane just wiggles from left to right with a tiny rudder input. So yes, both have pros and cons, but for what I do with the sim, I do prefer MSFS.
@flyingpauls5267 Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for doing this! That kind of view to sims is rare. It would be best done by a CIF including the real thing. Pilots usually give up when they notice that the controls and the a** never feel real in a sim. But, at least, any sim should be close enough to learn the behavior of a plane. And I believe both sims are now, albeit with restrictions. When I came to X-Plane (from FSX) years ago, I was shocked to see that it missed even ground effect, and it was very hard to land a Cessna properly. I had an unfruitful discussion about this on their forum, even filed a bug which was rejected as if I was an idiot. They finally had to fix it nevertheless. It sort of works now. To date, X-Plane 11 cannot even slip correctly as you mentioned, and as I noticed often. And until recently, spins were not possible either, and turbulence was modelled terribly. This said, I am aware that its planes do most things quite realistically. On the other hand, MSFS at the start showed a really terrible behavior of its planes. Pull up and they keep pitched up, roll and they keep rolling, no need for rudder anywhere. Even now, the reaction to control inputs feels strange, and I see a lot of pilots wobble up and down like you did. I am currently investigating if that can be fixed with sensitivity settings. But most of the bad behavior has changed, and I trust them that it will change even more in further updates. I have to admit that my trust in the one man show at Laminar is less firm.
@aadvantagegold5220 Жыл бұрын
For me, I use the sim more to familiarize myself with different avionics packages rather than specific aircraft feeling. I can't get the exact feeling with my yoke to the real thing. It just feels kind of limp - that's how yokes are. The wind isn't holding my control surfaces. But I find MSFS to be very useful for learning the G1000, for example.
@Mark-kh1ny Жыл бұрын
The absolute acid test will be, when MSFS gets approved by the FAA in a BATD or AATD. (and I would love it to) Unbiased, formalised, consistent testing in a controlled environment. I know everyone means well, but all these comparisons knocking around are completely subjective, there’s no way to measure and compare properly, and ‘it’s feels about right’ and ‘I fly these all the time IRL’ just doesn’t cut it for me unfortunately. If you put my car in a sim and told me to drift it on an island and then asked me whether that feels exactly the same IRL, would it have gone that far before it gripped again etc, I wouldn’t be able to tell you. And I drive it a damn sight more than most pilots fly their 172 in a week.
@lunchbreaker4623 Жыл бұрын
Xplane isnt FAA approved out of the box. Stock Xplane that you can buy is NOT Faa approved.
@Mark-kh1ny Жыл бұрын
@@lunchbreaker4623 The difference is regarding diagnostic self testing and reporting mainly. The flight model is the same and I think you know that’s the point being made. Of course it has to be accompanied by HW as part of an approved rig if that’s the kind of loophole you’re trying to manipulate 🙄 The point is, it’s capable of being used in an approved rig as it’s so accurate. Can’t say the same for MSFS yet
@lunchbreaker4623 Жыл бұрын
@@Mark-kh1ny What are you talking about? The FAA certification has nothing to do with flight model, it's a mix of soft and hardware requirements. P3D is FAA certified as well, that should tell you enough. It's even written on Xplanes website that the default consumer version of Xplane is not FAA certified by itself.
@Mark-kh1ny Жыл бұрын
@@lunchbreaker4623 I’m not sure where to begin if you think that’s true. Do your myself a favour, before you post any more, go and read the FAA requirements for a flight sim. I can assure you, flight dynamics are part of the criteria. Secondly, please provide the LOA for a P3D powered simulator. Thirdly, I didn’t say it was ready ‘out of the box’ I said it can be used as part of an approved rig, and that the flight model is the same in both versions, as per the X-Plane website
@lunchbreaker4623 Жыл бұрын
@@Mark-kh1ny Did you think I'm not aware that a flight simulator used for training needs to have a representation of a plane flying, and be able to simulate stalls, spins etc, instead of let's say representing a cup of tea flying through the air? Come on now.. I was insinuating that you're exaggerating the actual accuracy of the flight model. P3D and Xplane can be FAA certified, out of the box they're not. Flightmodel or not, it's one part of the equation and that's it. Did you know that with update 10 msfs2020 will have the best and most accurate/complete stock GPS unit of any flightsim? Msfs2020 according to seb wloch could be certified. Technically nothing stands in the way, except legal matters, as it's an entertainment product. The future will tell.
@andrealioce4341 Жыл бұрын
These are default airplanes, so neither of the two are intended to be study level. Nevertheless, the flight behaviour is very similar between the two and quite on par with the real airplane. Both simulators have potential. X-plane 12 (a visual upgrade of x-plane 11 according to what we have seen until now) has still the advantage in engine simulation, but msfs is way ahead in scenery. The choice between the two will depend mainly on quality study-level add-ons and nothing prevents to buy and fly both. But I think that asobo can reach x-plane in engine dinamics while default XP will never reach the scenery of msfs (unless you add terabytes of custom orto textures and 3d objects packages)
@maczetamaczeta189 Жыл бұрын
Correct me if I'm wrong but so far Asobo implemented upgraded flight model with Computational Fluid Dynamics to C172 with G1000 and not 530. So the one in the video is supposedly worse behavior characteristics. Also not being default per se because it's only avalible via Deluxe upgrade.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
I didn't realise that and if that's the case, I'm even more impressed
@maczetamaczeta189 Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy It's probably for the best, as vintage C172 showcase the overall state of the sim now and G1000 version more of what's to come.
@aileronsintowind6835 Жыл бұрын
Hey @VR FSG I would strongly recommend that comparison tests be conducted once XP is out of beta. Lots of us are testing and reporting little bugs back to get the accuracy spot on and fine tuned. We are already on B4 and landing is not as easy as msfs.. no gliding down the runway with the power cut just floating away.. I’ve been doing a very similar project and concur that it’s a tone of work and I’m not even putting it in a edit.. the two flights models between the two default Cessnas are incredibly close especially in B4. A lot will come down to developers though and their ability to get accurate data into the model to give accurate model behaviour out. Keep up the great work
@Stwutter1973 Жыл бұрын
I only came to simming in 2020 on MSFS. It wasn't long before I realised how 'tight' some of the simming world was at that time (and still now, to some extent). There was a high % of legacy pilot's who really begrudged MSFS bringing this platform to a much wider audience, with all the 'Go back to CoD/FIFA' comments, etc. Clearly, XP still has a lot to offer, but - 2 years in - it shows that there's little difference in a lot of the stuff claimed to be in XP and not in MSFS. Throw in the graphics (which is not even a competition), and MSFS is a no-brainer IMO.
@rakon8496 Жыл бұрын
They have a team of 10-20 people vs. at some times over 500 at the early develpment stages of MSFS. It's sad but i was always annoyed by the slow development speed in Xplane... Microsoft takes for some topics quite a time, yet finally they really change things, more often then not for the better! 💙
@mikeyplayzwrld Жыл бұрын
Of course you think that it's your first😂
@sky_004 Жыл бұрын
No-brainer, and yet I have 10 times more hours flown in X-Plane, despite MSFS being my first simulator, and me genuinely enjoying both sims.
@whophd Жыл бұрын
I came to MSFS when it was v1.0 and black-and-white. Loved it when they filled in the black gaps with basic color. Could never get past about 30 seconds after takeoff though.
@AriKolbeinsson Жыл бұрын
I've paid for both. I feel XP is by far the superior simulator. For looking at scenery, MSFS, hands down. For flight model accuracy my experience is that XP behaves pretty much like the real aircraft, even in "weird" circumstances such as extreme attitudes. The mass, arm, and moment of inertia are better handled in XP, as are gyroscopic forces, asymmetric thrust, and so forth. This makes a difference if the sim is being used to simulate the real thing in order to practice. Weak simulation of these forces leads to bad habits being formed, such as poor rudder control, or low speed manoeuvres that can cause real problems in real flight.
@shaunsprogress11 ай бұрын
MSFS models aerodynamics? Xplane has been doing that for a decade. You can design aircraft using aerofoils in it.
@Lionheart1157 Жыл бұрын
Real world GA pilot here, used MSFS for the first time this week and was very disappointed in the C152 flight model. I am trying to be as objective as I can here, I wanted MSFS to be very good, but compared to the real life experience of flying it's further away for me than XP. If you never flew [regularly] for real doubtful you'd notice... So as requested, my top 2 issues are: (1) in MSFS the overall feel of the aircraft in flight feels "spongey" compared to real life, XP is not perfect, but by comparison to MSFS feels "ah, that's better" .. hard to put into words this. In crude terms MSFS is like its on rails, XP more nuanced. (2) with MSFS the interaction of crosswind on landing was poor, by that I mean there was so little effect. IRL, flying IN wind is almost a constant, the jiggles and buffeting, and especially the effect of crosswind. With MSFS a 12 kt perpendicular crosswind was un-noticable, just not right - thats 3 kts of a C152's limit! So am afraid my MSFS experience is going to be a short one; shame as the VFR ground detail is very good.
@Binkley13 Жыл бұрын
Especially looking at the power off stall, MSFS shows you losing aileron authority as you get to the critical AoA, as it's taking more roll control to maintain level flight. XP looks like there is minimal difference in aileron authority at 80 kias vs 40 kias in the 172. I'm now curious how XP simulates high AoA now.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Very well spotted thankyou
@scottwilson8105 Жыл бұрын
I was taught and now teach my students that at high angle of attack, the rudder and not ailerons should be used to pick up a wing that drops. If you use the ailerons, adverse yaw could cause an incipient spin if the stall breaks while you have the yoke turned.
@tedferkin Жыл бұрын
It would be interesting to see if the assist is fully on or totally off. XP11 has a mechanism to help with the lack of force feedback, but you can turn it off. I'm wondering if the effect you are talking about , is because of that.
@cybhunter007 Жыл бұрын
2:45, The problem I'm seeing is how both XP and MSFS model the stall (can't tell if power-on or off). From the False Horizon and Turn Coordinator, it appears the stall is (nearly) coordinated, so why do both models enter a spin?
@Hugocraft Жыл бұрын
side by side in your video, I like FS2020 scenery and how its brighter since it looks like an actual real life sunny day while flying. XP it looks like you are an hour away from sunset.
@umi3017 Жыл бұрын
As a airliner guy, I normally test on Cruise table and unreliable airspeed table. I noticed most high-end P3D aircraft make it spot on, and even if it's not, it's very easy for me to adjust the .air and .cfg file only based on these table to make it do so. But many "study level" XP11 aircraft like zibo/Lvup737, IXEG737, FJS727/737, FF757/767 etc... don't, the performance is all over the place. and it's extraordinary hard to adjust even with it's own airplane maker. even when I have some PET chart for 732 and 733 with some very detailed engineering data, It's still very hard as I don't know things like Cd for aircraft body, Cl for each section of wing etc etc.... Ofc some developer somehow makes it works great, like toliss airbuses and Felis742, they both use a lot costume data set
@zanyt13 Жыл бұрын
About the oversaturated colors...it is an easy fix for that if you have a nVidia card and Evidia Experience installed. Do a KZfaq search for "MSFS 2020 - Get more natural colours" and it will show you how to do it! Thanx for another great video! 😃
@gabrielepierattelli39488 ай бұрын
weather engine Is far more realistic in xplane
@pythonboi5816 Жыл бұрын
protect your eyes with blue lights my bluelight glasses sitting infront of me but not on my face
@EVE101Patt Жыл бұрын
you take off northbound on MSFS and southbound on xplane - how should this be compareable if you're using realtime weather? if there's f.i. any wind going on, you would've headwind in one and tailwind the other or at least a different crosswind-component
@ThomasKop Жыл бұрын
tbh the colours in X-Plane look much more realistic but the scenery quality in MSFS is much better.
@larryphotography Жыл бұрын
I noticed that on X-plane you can see the propeller, and for some reason MSFS the propeller looks invisible?
@triskellian Жыл бұрын
Interesting video comparison. I have both Microsoft and X Plane and like them both. The flight behavior between the two are different in some aspects and the same in others. For example, a light aircraft seems to stick to the runway in MSFS and float on the runway in X Plane 11(during take off). I downloaded the demo version of X Plane 12 and the one thing that stands out now is that left hand turning tendencies are more pronounced on take off. For fun site seeing tours, extra activities and overall aesthetic appeal, I prefer MSFS. In regards to practicing instrument procedures and other proficiency operations, X Plane dose nicely for me. Also, I like the functionality of various equipment better in X Plane. The knobs on avionics are easier to turn. MSFS uses a combination of right and left clicks plus roller to change frequencies or menu selections. I'm not quite used to this yet. The scenery elements are also different in both simulators. In X Plane (I have the basic version) most buildings and other parts of the airport property exists. They also match some of the real life locations on airports I've flown into frequently. In MSFS (basic version), many of the smaller airports do not have hanger buildings, terminals save control towers. Usually there is just a massive parking lot full of cars! As for downloading and installing the flight simulator and adding new files, I like X Plane the best on that aspect. It'll be fun to see what both programs come up with in future updates. In the mean time, this full scale pilot will enjoy what these sims have to offer! Happy flying!
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Fantastic comparison thankyou for sharing your experiences 👍
@branimirfilovski8388 Жыл бұрын
As a real C172 pilot I think the best 172 simulation in my opinion is A2A. I have both Prepar3D and MSFS and I still use Prepar3D for C172 simulation (it also has a 100% realistic GNS simulation from RealityXP). I use MSFS only for Fenix A320 and Aerosoft CRJ as I find default aircraft quite unrealistic (especially default simulation of Garmin avionics is way off) and P3D for GA. After some tests of the default C172 and enhanced version in MSFS the most noticable thing is that ground roll for takeoff is waaay longer in MSFS compared to real life and A2A. The MSFS C172 also feels like it is on rails to me. I also tried the XPlane 172 and it is a little too sensitive. This is just my opinion about different C172 simulations but A2A is still a winner for me.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing your thoughts 🙂
@animatedchristmascollector3754 Жыл бұрын
Wow! Valid opinion but is hard to believe due to all the "flying on rails p3d/fsx situation".
@animatedchristmascollector3754 Жыл бұрын
Also, for xp, you can change the sensitivity. Austin made a whole video about it. Or maybe it’s just your yoke has a 45 degree turn angle, unlike a 95.
@scottishwings9648 Жыл бұрын
Another great video! Thanks for the comparison I am sure there was quite some effort to creat that! Great job!
@CaptainDaveFlightsimmer2 ай бұрын
I myself have used XPlane since Version 6. That's over 20 years ago. I also, or lets say, my ego took pride thinking XP was superior to MSFS for quite a while. I started to question my beliefs and overthink, what I think I know. I am now switching to MSFS2024 as soon as it is released. I think, these old tought-patterns are overdue on a competetive flightsim-market. Also I like the thought of a supportive sim-community, without boundaries and a exchange throughout. Today I believe, that whatever Sim you use and you're happy with, should be your way to go! 😊 Everything else is just a matter of development and future things to come. Let's all be excited, positive, curious and throughout open and supportive of eachother. I learned, that these days it doesn't matter at all. It's just a matter of preference.
@DownTheRabbit-Hole Жыл бұрын
I own both. I recommend using both. As a rw pilot and instructor xp has the edge in flight model. Compare accelerated stalls. Xp has dramatically improved enviro, still a ways to go so far as silly sky blue puddles all in a row, cirrus clouds etc 12 is very early in cycle and one can expect many improvements. Clearly mfs has edge in scenery, even tho gap has closed a bit, the colors are way to oversat but still attractive. Here is how I use both: Mfs for vfr cross country, vr, some of landing challenges. XP for VATSIM and ifr training, and training on 3 monitors with air manager touchscreen g1000, jets and helos. Mfs is way too unstable for cross country vatsim/pilotedge flying. The install process in xp in far superior. I now have 2 separate folders for 11 and 12 and I drag them here and there, out to thumb drive etc. Try that with mfs lol. Xp also runs on linux, mac os and windows and can be run from cd without internet. This wiill be a huge advantage when mfs goes to monthly subscription only. Probably a premium game pass for desktops as well as xbox. Trust me, this is coming within 4-5 years. I am former a+ tech, it is coming. Bottom line competition is good. Thanks for vid
@mauritsbol4806 Жыл бұрын
i am not a real world pilot, and im impressed, but also really could not tell the difference. both are really good.
@_PSantos Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the time and effort to give us this wonderful work. I´m more of a XPlane fan when it come to physics and a MSFS2020 for the graphics (getting very close , and very fast on the physics). Again, thank you
@johncrichton4341 Жыл бұрын
Very interesting - thanks for this Steve. I will retry XP-12, when it's much more stable and does not cause a reboot! Until then, it's MSFS2020 for me!
@johncrichton4341 Жыл бұрын
@@PeanutJaxs Hi, not NEED to reboot, I'm talking crash to reboot!
@AquaStevae8 ай бұрын
You weren't wrong about XP12. Don't let a shortsighted test sway you, as this is NOT how research is performed. I am also a real world pilot, and fly these very planes every week. XP12's flight physic's is heads and shoulders BETTER than MSFS, and although your vid didn't show a lot of difference here, there are tons of situations where I can demonstrate this easily. MSFS is very cartoonish, and not at all realistic in flights of different climate and times. The best thing it has going for itself is the ground terrain, and clouds. I also have both, but rarely find myself flying MSFS.
@pilotken8685 Жыл бұрын
as a real life pilot. MSFS is so much better for flight planning cross country VFR flight where you can see real terrain. Also the wind effects on IFR practice deviation in MSFS is great.
@tommegg8486 Жыл бұрын
Xplane 12 if i was feeling I don't want to be disturbed by a crash to desktop. MSFS if I want to sightsee. Both are amazing, glad we have competition so no monopoly stuff is happening
@erickaplan89966 ай бұрын
I enjoy your videos, would just like to make a point about the stalls/spins. An aeroplane with a Lycoming or Continental engine (majority of light planes) is far more likely to drop the left wing than the right one because a right hand tractor prop produces torque to the left, so Xplane is probably more accurate there! Wing drop severity also varies in different conditions and configurations and of course whether the aeroplane is in balance at the onset. For intentional spins we deliberately upset the balance with rudder, usually to the right with a right hand tractor as the engine torque assists in recovery, but we do practice spins in both directions. For what it's worth I find Aerofly FS2 and 4 to have the most accurate dynamics. Try spinning the Extra in MSFS, not very good and that's an unlimited competition aerobatic plane!
@VRFlightSimGuy6 ай бұрын
Really interesting thankyou so much for taking the time to explain this! :)
@RATTMAN Жыл бұрын
I’m happy you took the time to actually compare. I keep seeing people just say oh the flight model is better in Xplane. I’m not a real pilot but my buddy use to fly a lot and he always raved how X-Plane was a real sim and how MSFS is not right. While I think that was the case the updates to CFD have really improved a lot. I flew the 172 on both sims back to back to back and preferred the MSFS version. The X-Plane version feels like you are flying in a controlled wind tunnel and makes the plane feel static and overly predictable (On rails as you said). The MSFS implementation has more turbulence in it’s flight behavior. On landing MSFS flares while Xplane version nose just drops. While I think some aspects are better in X-Plane and vice versa I don’t think it is as clear cut as people are saying anymore. I’m an XPlane rookie so in my tests I couldn’t validate the claims. Someone posted a similar video to yours a few days ago and came away saying basically the same thing.
@gastonpossel Жыл бұрын
Not a pilot either, but I like how the cockpit camera in MSFS has some momentum against the movements of the aircraft such as turbulence, decelerations, banks. At least from a non-VR simmer perspective, it gives me a sense of movement and acceleration that X-plane does not. X-plane camera is perfectly fixed to the aircraft like a GoPro attached to the seat. I think this plays an important role on immersion, even if it does not depend much on the flight model itself.
@RATTMAN Жыл бұрын
@@gastonpossel I agree
@bird.9346 Жыл бұрын
@@gastonpossel There is the "headshake" plugin for xplane that does exactly that. And xplane 12 aircraft will bounce around plenty with the appropriate weather set
@simplysimulator Жыл бұрын
As always a great and very balanced assessment - love your enthusiasm. Sometimes we can measure, compare, qualify individual elements. The ‘flying on rails’ comment stood out as that is more about ‘feel’ and immersion. Instinctively (not very scientific I know) I prefer the way the aircraft responds in Xplane ( not tried 12 yet).
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thanks mate much appreciated 😌
@maltimoto Жыл бұрын
Cessna is not the problem. Problem is that the PMDG 737 flies like a Cessna, even fully loaded. MSFS is good at small prop aircraft but airliners not so good. Also, the ground handling is not so good, XP does better job here. However, the gap is becoming smaller, MSFS is catching up.
@DarrellThompson47 Жыл бұрын
and float planes are pretty bad in MFS, I wish they would sort out the water physics.
@777FreakyD Жыл бұрын
Well done. The gap between flight models between XP and MSFS is so small now that it's only measurable in coffin corner cases (and that gap continuesto get smaller as Asobo hones thier modeling technique). But the gap between visuals is HUGE, which I do not seeing XP ever catching up without 3rd party and users spending tons of money and HD space. Which is why MSFS will remain the dominant sim in terms of sales and therefore 3rd party dev focus for the foreseeable future.
@wiebe-piercnossen6419 Жыл бұрын
I don't think so. I think the cessna 152 feels pretty good. But the pmdg 737 feels like a cessna as well. Nothing beats the zibo mod when it comes to feel.
@themtoniraniremaxbroker2447 Жыл бұрын
Absolutely Right Sir!! MSFS Only for me!!
@megawave79 Жыл бұрын
Microsoft is enourmous. The work basically isn’t downloaded into your game but it’s streamed from their servers. More people online the more server space and etc is needed. A bit confusing but there should be documents on how the world generation system works
@acurisur Жыл бұрын
Yep, plus the user base for MSFS absolutely dwarfs X Plane since they brought the sim to the Xbox console for the very first time. That alone will make it the dominant sim in terms of 3rd party developer support.
@charlie7mason Жыл бұрын
@@megawave79 There's many videos explaining how it works.
@RaffleE46 Жыл бұрын
@4:39 you’re right, I find the handling physics of taildraggers to be more accurate and realistic in XP compared to msfs2020, always found the physics of taildraggers to be a bit off in msfs2020 tbh, a good example can be the default pilatus porter pc6, even with proper takeoff trim set the plane always tends to veer to the left right before takeoff, so odd but I don’t find these issues with XP ever. So gotta give that point to XP for taildraggers.
@dansmusicuk1 Жыл бұрын
Real world GA pilot here, and I like to use both sims. FYI... X-Plane can be certified by the FAA to be used as the simulation software in certified training devices. This means that your entire simulation set up (computer, OS, hardware, etc.) must ALL be approved by the FAA to be used to log hours. Purchasing an X-Plane Professional Use License is also required.
@sailingflamenco Жыл бұрын
I hadn't flown Xplane in more than a year and so I was looking forward to Xplane 12 to finally see what good flight dynamics would feel like. I was shocked to find that I couldn't see any difference - or very little. Given the scenery in MS, I am going to continue to give it the first place. I bought Xplane because I wanted to support their team, but so far it is just a curiosity. But of course, they are far from a finished product and just like MS, the next year should show much improvement....
@edward28051989 Жыл бұрын
Scenery and Immersion = MSFS Ground Color Realistic= X Plane (MSFS most of time seems over colorful) Atmospheric System = MSFS Best Water = MSFS, but finally X Plane 12 has a good and real water Best Clouds = MSFS Lightning = X plane 12 has very beautiful volumetric lights (XP11 was a good night lights). but MSFS has a gorgeous lightning engine at night and at day Flight Model = Well, is a just Flight Simulator in my PC.
@chiefsimpilot Жыл бұрын
Great video. Curious on airliners and how they handle differently
@robertcampbell1540 Жыл бұрын
Hello my friend's im not a real world pilot, but i have been simming over 25 years. And both sims i flew when graphics and all the other add ons were not available. Im amazed at both sims and where they have come from. Neither one is better than the other, both offer as accurate as they can to be as real as it gets. And i have flown both sims. If you think about it, it all depends on your system. If you have a top of the line computer, you will get top of the line experience. I spent more money getting my computer to catch up with the software than the software catching up with my computer. Both sims are absolutely amazing. Either one will give you an experience that most of us will never do in the real world. I thank both companies for giving us the chance to at least to see what its like to fly in the clouds. Not to mention third party developers. RobertC
@tasercs Жыл бұрын
I have MSFS and am considering whether to also upgrade XP11 to 12. MSFS is Rose at the end of Titantic - safe from danger on the bit of floating driftwood. Unfortunately, XP12 is Jack - just about managing to hold on, but without a miracle, destined to finally give up and slip away never to be seen again.
Жыл бұрын
r😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Maverickf22flyer Жыл бұрын
If expecting Asobo to start learning aerodynamics and flight dynamics and reaching the levels of knowledge that Austin Meyer has put in for 2 decades, the odds are already there. Austin can change the numbers rather quickly if he wants to put effort in it. The default aircraft in X-Plane series are there only using the default number that the Airfoil Maker and Plane Maker programs can offer without precise and corrected data that a man must put in. Those data tables are not good enough for best results but are good enough to start with when no one worked for the right data.
@nuversion8673 Жыл бұрын
I'm not sure if any simulator will be exactly like real world flying, and that's simply because you can't actually feel the wind forces on the control surfaces or even on the seat of your pants. But I do think MSFS does a fairly good job at simulating things like updrafts when flying over hills and other weather related conditions. That being said, most of the time the flying feels as smooth as glass, without so much as a ripple from a wind pocket. As far as the flight instruments they seem function exactly as they would in real life and are very accurate as well. And if you're using VATSIM it can actually feel pretty realistic at times. Anyway, just my thoughts.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your thoughts! :)
@quackgarage95515 ай бұрын
I'm a CFI and would take the current MSFS over X-Plane any day, just can't go back to X-Plane after it. Sure we can argue about its FAA certification, but as far as feeling/realism goes, it's MSFS for me.
@VRFlightSimGuy5 ай бұрын
Brilliant, thanks for your input!
@wethan236 ай бұрын
CFI here. It feels like MSFS is better for VFR practice and ground reference maneuvers, but XPLANE12 has a much much much clearer instrument dashboard and would appear to be a lot better for avionic practice and IFR flights.
@hobanagerik2 ай бұрын
I haven't tried X-Plane 12 out in a while, not since its launch actually, but I did shoot some footage of odd behaviour. What I found was when flying in stormy weather, the wind was causing the rudder to bounce around. It even made the rudder pedals rock from side to side. Footage at the link below: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esmmhZOGlrKznYk.htmlsi=GB8xdaBC9Yp_o_Yv
@Sim737Pilot Жыл бұрын
DISCLAIMER: This test was for C172 only and generalizations/assumptions can't be made for flight physics/handling of remaining default aircraft and/or 3rd party aircraft. Yes, the performance/handling of MSFS default C172 appears to be quite good, which is great news considering MSFS is best for VFR flying.
@ernestz.9260 Жыл бұрын
Great video and quite eye-opening. When I upgrade my CPU I probably will use MSFS as my primary simulator. But I still might use XP time to time for certain aircraft.
@yves1926 Жыл бұрын
Lighting seems more accurate in X-Plane 12. Atmospheric effect is more realistic
@nojwod Жыл бұрын
When you fly over topography in any sort of windy weather, MSFS makes all the other sims feel like a wooden log. Still problems particularly with ground behaviour but now with VR, MSFS feels as close to the real thing as I've ever experienced.
@imellor711 Жыл бұрын
Nice fair and unbiased test and review as an old Xp11.5 fan boy, I been playing with the new XP 12 demo on RTX3070 and I don't see enough in Xplane12, to pull me over. Back into Xplane and I see a huge performance issuse with XP12 in CPUbthreds, GPU utilization on ultra setting and plug in manger fot the default A320 (loosing 8-10fps). While on Nvidia RTX3070 with AMD ryzen 7 5800, 8core, 16 threads, XP12 with Vulkan (vulkan iseems better on a lower spec AMD) and XP12's default aircraft interiors are as good as MSFS2020 interiors. Don't get hung up on washed out or over saturated colours, between sims, as all this is stored out either using resharer or Nvidia Colour filter. MSFS2020 does get a bad reputation and I don't why as it been great since the last three updates, on a mid to high spec system? Without buying a RTX380 or 3090?? So for me down to good looks, what needs less expensive 3rd party mods and value for money, to invest in. And for me its currently MSFS2020. I recommend try before you buy.....
@billb.7346 Жыл бұрын
I also noticed that X-Plane 12 didn’t seem to be affected by weather quite as much. But I also realize it still in early release. Overall I feel that have some nice improvements to the sim.
@VirtualAirTour Жыл бұрын
So surprised to see you flying out of Olympia Washington today! What brings you to the great Pacific Northwest?
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Well spotted! Unless I mentioned it in the video? I can't remember haha. I'm here for two reasons, firstly I've been thinking about Flight Unlimited 3 recently and how much I loved that sim, but mainly, because that's the only area I've added Ortho for X Plane at the time of the recording :)
@VirtualAirTour Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy great answer and outstanding content. Keep up the good work brother.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
@@VirtualAirTour Thanks my friend, I super appreciate that. Have a great weekend.
@Sim737Pilot Жыл бұрын
A KZfaq video I would assume, lol.
@charlessparks3184 Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for the testing you did. I agree with your findings as well. Both sims have their merits and I will use both as well. I am very interested to see MSFS's implementation of helicopters later this year. My thoughts are that the helicopter flight in X-Plane 12 is much improved over 11.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thanks Charles much appreciated 😊👍
@darreno1450 Жыл бұрын
I'm been saying this from day 1. MSFS2020 has more realistic movement, but the XPlane fanboys always talk about physics this and physics that. I'm sure there are some aspects and some aircraft in XPlane that's better, but the big difference in flight models that's being talked about is over exaggerated. This was a great video, thanks.
@rohrichoak9740 Жыл бұрын
X-Plane has always been deemed as more realistic than Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it seems the latter is catching up. X-Plane is maintained by at least one real pilot, Austin Meyer who is an aviation physics buff. At this point in history, however, sims are all very convincing. If you compare any car simulator to a real car, however, it also feels unrealistic. All simulators respond too quickly and violently to inputs in comparison to real mechanical inputs in pedals, steering wheels, levers, yokes etc. Maybe buttons and some levers are the only thing you can borrow from a real vehicle into a sim at the end of the day. It's still a blast to have those sims at home. You can have an excellent visual and auditory feel or general idea of the real thing.
@kallasnikov Жыл бұрын
Interesting comparison! As for the look, I believe that XP12 does not look better at all, it has a more dim and dull atmospheric lighting (always had)... However, yes, clearly it is less saturated as mentioned in the video. I tried MSFS with NVIDIA filters by reducing saturation and it looks amazing in terms of immersive daylight... By the way XP always struggled with mid-day lighting and had a better effect in early or late times of the day... MSFS is clearly miles ahead in terms of everything in the world engine technology.
@jef32 Жыл бұрын
It's a long time ago now that I'm saying that the flight model of the Cessna 172 is more realistic for MSFS2020 than X-Plane. When you take off with X-plane, no need to push the right rudder to center the ball as if the proppeler torque was no-existant. With MSFS, for maximum slope or max vertical speed, you need the right rudder.This kind of thing can give bad habits in real with the risks of a spin near the ground cause a dyssimetrical flight and all its lethal consequences.
@ph1p0F Жыл бұрын
Thats not true. Xp does simulate the prop torque. You need to put the rudder in to stay on the runway.
@jef32 Жыл бұрын
@@ph1p0F Sorry NO ! On the runway, I'm agree with you but not after the take off in XP. After the TO and each time you want to climb with full throttle, in real C172, you have to maintain the right rudder to keep the ball centered. If you don't, the ball is on the right and you have risks of spin. Try with MSFS and you'll see that like in reality, you have to maintain the right rudder. That's why I say that the C172 flight model of MSFS is more realistic than in XP.
@bobr8766 Жыл бұрын
Bring on MSFS 2020 Combat Simulator….Get it done!
@AnthonyRudolfHenryHeithuis Жыл бұрын
Try a fully developed spin, keep ailerons neutral and full rudder and elevator in, you will see MSFS starts to act like GTA V.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
I disagree, the spin feels very natural in the 172
@AnthonyRudolfHenryHeithuis Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy Have you performed a fully developed spin? Keeping the elevator and rudder full in? It’s completely unrealistic. It even starts to roll opposite to the spin direction.
It will be interesting to see what response LR make to these comparisons. Thanks.
@tyethescrybe3807 Жыл бұрын
This was a good comparison. Has anyone else but me noticed how difficult it is to enter into a proper ground effect in the 172's in XP-12? FS2020 seems to do so much more realistically, in my opinion. Yet, it seems the XP devs defend their take on the matter in the posts I've read. I fly 172's now, and I just don't see the float in XP that occurs IRL. Thanks for the comparison.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
Thankyou :) I cannot tell a huge difference but perhaps I need to pay more attention to that.
@bainsy17 Жыл бұрын
If MSFS fixed ground handling and accurately modelled p-factor/torque/adverse yaw, it would put X-Plane to bed.
@VRFlightSimGuy Жыл бұрын
I guess we have to look to payware releases for this, it's rare I fly the default birds anyway to be fair.
@bainsy17 Жыл бұрын
@@VRFlightSimGuy That's true and to be fair has always been the case for users seeking max fidelity. My concern is that without some fixes to the core simulation logic, it will be very difficult for developers to implement/replicate proper aircraft handling. I'm yet to find even a payware module that fully addresses these shortcomings.
@icykenny92 Жыл бұрын
Finger crossed they fixed that in MSFS 2024, but don't have to high expectation.
@SimHangerFS Жыл бұрын
Great side by side test. As you say both sims have their positive and negative points. Xplane overall holds the crown for flight model, especially on turbo props, but for how much longer?
@Stringbean421 Жыл бұрын
No it doesn't, many real-world pilots are now creating KZfaq channels and are making great videos and I'm talking about the airline pilots that fly the Boeing and Airbus heavies, and they have stated that MSFS in terms of physics is really very good and no worse or less than Xplane. I no longer listen to armchair pilots who think Xplane has the better flight dynamics who have never flown a real aircraft in their lives. I agree that Xplane was king in the days of FSX but those days are over and long gone. MSFS is a whole new ball game.
@animatedchristmascollector3754 Жыл бұрын
@@Stringbean421 I agreed but I asked black box 711 a 320 captain and he said xplane has a better flight model.
@jameslee-pevenhull5087 Жыл бұрын
Seeked = Sought. My assessment is MSFS has better ground turbulence and thermals modelling. I'm sticking with MSFS because Bing maps updates show in the sim.
@Sim737Pilot Жыл бұрын
Bing map updates are still blurry close to the ground. Using Ortho with a high zoom level looks sharper and you can make out what's supposed to be on the ground.
@doltBmB Жыл бұрын
X-plane might drop to the left because of the weight of the pilot, whereas FS20 models both pilot and copilot weight making it more even
@Deezorz Жыл бұрын
Are we not gonna talk about how you can float at 25 knots with the 172 in msfs?
@dreamhomes5874Ай бұрын
I don't know if this is just me, but in MSFS 2020, the C172 is too sensitive. I trim it using the trim by barely moving the trim wheel, and the C172 goes out of control, like if I move the trim wheel a little down, the plane goes up un controlably fast.
@andrewmetasov Жыл бұрын
I may be wrong, but I think the atmospheric modeling is so complex in MFS, that they're about to add simulated gliders that would ride modeled updrafts of air
@spavatch Жыл бұрын
About time, X-Plane had updrafts and gliders since at least version 5 of 1999 🙄
@Dreadpirateflappy Жыл бұрын
@@spavatch just like older verions of MSFS had gliders... but they just added them back in to the newest sim.
@salcrocker894 Жыл бұрын
Real life Airline/GA pilot, 35 years airline experience over 20,000 hours. I didn't like MSFS 2020 initially, but now I love it! It seems to be more realistic with thermals and gusts. Of course this is model specific. I own a Cessna 421C and the Flysimware C414 is very close. X-Plane is still good, and may be a bit more stable at the expense of realism. Just my $.02!
@gpapa31 Жыл бұрын
Great video!!! The misconception about flight physics representation accuracy on home computer Flight Simulator platforms IMHO has been vovervalued and in many cases overplayed mainly in X-Plane forum circles. Their golden goose argument (vastly superior flight model) has become laughable and they bring it up every single time MSFS is brought up to discussion. Along with: “iT’s FaA cErTiFiEd!”, another misleading argument. In all honesty, the brutal truth is that the only place where you kind of experience real world fluid behavioural physics at this point is on a NASA based virtual sim platform (Ames Research Center facilities for eg). Real life fluid dynamics parameters are extremely hard, near impossible, to be simulated by any home computer let alone run in a flight simulator with so many other variables, in real time. We are talking about fluid states that are bound by advanced differential equations (eg: Navier Stokes) by the second. CFD software takes minutes to hours sometimes to mesh, render and calculate atmospheric fluid behavioural results that take place within the boundary layer (let alone further away) on specified conditions over bodies. This is the ONLY way you will be able to accurately approach a body’s behavioural characteristics and forces acting on it when moving through a fluid at any Reynolds numbers. Anything else used at our level is a very very rough approximation and in some cases yes it does come close to reality but in most cases it doesn’t. So you’re looking at very inconsistent results with most cases yet still good enough to serve the purpose of flight training. That applies from games (yes games) like XP and MSFS to Level D type FAA rated Simulators with flight model data tables (acquired by CFD analysis, Wind tunnel and Flight Testing data) from the manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus etc). This is why you have even professional type rated pilots with many hours arguing back and forth in both forums (MSFS, XP) about how realistic or not an X type aircraft is or “feels” on one software or the other based on their experience. People forget that Flight Simulator platforms in aviation training, of any level, are used primarily as procedural Flight Training Devices (FTDs). Aircraft system representation and functionality is the paramount element of a flight training device and the one that matters the most. How accurately the aircraft systems and cockpit layout and functionality of the real aircraft is represented along with other parameters also that come into play by FAA requirements: uninterrupted and reliable handling qualities, system architecture representation etc. The main purpose of those platforms’ existence is aircraft system depth knowledge and training of real life scenario procedures (flight stages and emergency situations). Therefore a decent to good level of fight model representation is possible yet not so good enough as to approach real life lifting body aerodynamic and aeroelasticity real time scenarios under all conditions. And that applies to all FFS FAA type rated platforms of any level let alone desktop PC software/game. So to all of those who are so fixated about the flight physics and proceed on trashing or praising a sim/game/software X (where “X” insert any product in question) about how accurate or not the flight model is to real life you are wasting your time and most importantly missing out the essence of why Flight Simulators in aviation training (not R&D sector) exist and the purpose they actually serve.
@joaocavalcanti77212 ай бұрын
I was a C-172 pilot and noticed that ...They always during stalls drop to the left ...XP 12 is more faithful to flght dynamics of the C-172 also the rudder controls on the XP12 is more accurate ...
@JacobTJ1 Жыл бұрын
I love to dump xp and go to MSFS on day, I hope they take flight dynamics more seriously
@Hotdog6606 Жыл бұрын
The biggest problem with MFSF isn't the flight model, it's the avionics. Xplane has near perfect G430 / G1000 etc. Though it's only really a weakness if you want to use it for real IFR procedures
@herbertpuukka7664 Жыл бұрын
Regarding G1000, did you test the actual G1000NXi Mod? It´s now much more complete than the X-Planes default one , several engine pages, Flightplanning Sids and Stars work flawless,....similar improvement using the Mods of GNS....even I more like the TDS GTN750, which uses the Garmin Training Software and that should be complete as the real thing.
@Hotdog6606 Жыл бұрын
@@herbertpuukka7664 i did try the mod, it's pretty cool indeed. Though I like old school steam gauges with an addon gps. The planes i rent use gnc355 which I used the gtn 650 trainer on xplane. Though I guess it's not fair to compare the sims based on third party software. I just wish there was a decent 430 or 530 built in. If that were the case I'd drop xplane completely
@RatedFlexxxxxx Жыл бұрын
@@Hotdog6606 the gns series in msfs will be updated by working title just like how they updated the g1000 nxi. They are also working on the G3000 and g5000. So the all the default GPS will be a 1:1 copy of the real ones
@Hotdog6606 Жыл бұрын
@@RatedFlexxxxxx amazing! Can't wait for them :)
@Max-cw7dn Жыл бұрын
the weather engine of MSFS is so unrealised, so badly done that it bothers me to activate it. They should change it completely
@magrathean0 Жыл бұрын
The lighting has always looked wrong in MSFS. My theory is the developers weren't allowed to look out windows