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!👇👇👇

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

The atmospheric simulation in msfs is the most underrated component, updrafts, downdrafts, ridge lift , etc. Its absolutely the best.

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.

One thing I wish msfs would improve on is ground handling physics. That's the one aspect XP is still way ahead

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

"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 ;-))

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.

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?

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!

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.

One of the better comparison videos the past few days. Thanks!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

MSFS models aerodynamics? Xplane has been doing that for a decade. You can design aircraft using aerofoils in it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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! 😃

weather engine Is far more realistic in xplane

protect your eyes with blue lights my bluelight glasses sitting infront of me but not on my face

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

tbh the colours in X-Plane look much more realistic but the scenery quality in MSFS is much better.

I noticed that on X-plane you can see the propeller, and for some reason MSFS the propeller looks invisible?

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!

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.

Another great video! Thanks for the comparison I am sure there was quite some effort to creat that! Great job!

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.

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

i am not a real world pilot, and im impressed, but also really could not tell the difference. both are really good.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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).

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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....

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.

Great video. Curious on airliners and how they handle differently

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Lighting seems more accurate in X-Plane 12. Atmospheric effect is more realistic

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.

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.....

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.

So surprised to see you flying out of Olympia Washington today! What brings you to the great Pacific Northwest?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bring on MSFS 2020 Combat Simulator….Get it done!

Try a fully developed spin, keep ailerons neutral and full rudder and elevator in, you will see MSFS starts to act like GTA V.

It will be interesting to see what response LR make to these comparisons. Thanks.

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.

If MSFS fixed ground handling and accurately modelled p-factor/torque/adverse yaw, it would put X-Plane to bed.

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?

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.

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

Are we not gonna talk about how you can float at 25 knots with the 172 in msfs?

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.

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

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!

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.

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 ...

I love to dump xp and go to MSFS on day, I hope they take flight dynamics more seriously

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

the weather engine of MSFS is so unrealised, so badly done that it bothers me to activate it. They should change it completely

The lighting has always looked wrong in MSFS. My theory is the developers weren't allowed to look out windows