I say that in the video, I clearly say I have never liked X-Plane. But the comments section was just so sure that I'd love X-Plane 12 but it but to me it doesn't really feel superior to MSFS and doesn't feel any different from X plane 11 or even 10. It's not revolutionary it's just a rehash of the same old same old. I was expecting better results.

@NightTrainIndustries if you're a member of the x-plane official discord, I've posted comparison screenshots of both, and with the right addons, x-plane can look just as good visually as MSFS. For me though, it's the feel of the sim. Coming from years of flying airplanes, X-Plane has the more natural feel.not perfect no, but slightly better than MSFS. Ground physics are a big comparison. Zibo vs pmdg taxi test is worth a shot

@@ShortFinal I'm doing my next video with Auto Ortho, Sim Heaven and visual XP.. and yes, I agree "slightly better than MSFS" as far as feel. but not superior as many are touting.

@@NightTrainIndustries the biggest change I've seen is using VisualXP. Custom ortho using 1/3 ARC sec mesh also is a massive improvement. LFD Auto View Distance will also increase the visibility of autogen significantly and keep your framerate. 27-30 is where X-Plane runs best. It's smooth, but allows for the most graphical quality.

@@NightTrainIndustries if you'd like, I can send you screenshots of my visualXP settings. They're designed to closely mimic MSFS visually and closest to what I see in real life. The default profiles don't do justice to what it can really do

Stock vs stock x-plane does have better sounds.

Thanks! I do the best i can.

Thanks man! All flight sim content is pretty boring. I tried to do something different than every other channel I hope I succeed, you comment means a lot. Thanks for watching!

@@NightTrainIndustries you sure do things different, that is why I still sticking around...love your personality.

Well yeah if your on linux or mac you kind have to use XP12. But at least you took a balanced approached and explained your position.

​@@NightTrainIndustries The main problem with XP12 is that with the right settings and the right plugins, XP11 does just as well.

Wow. Your comment just might be one of the longest on You Tube - and the most useful. I only regret that I don’t have enough time at the moment to digest the information here. The video is extremely well done and useful in its own way, but the stated bias hurts the result. It would be difficult to read a head-to-head comparison of a Corvette and a Porsche by a reviewer who announces at the outset that he has never liked Corvettes. That said, I will be watching the video again, adding more thoughts - and rereading your analysis.

@@thardyryll Jeremy Clarkson famously hated Porsches even though everyone else thought he was crazy. But he loved the Carerra GT. 2 Weeks from now I'm going to turn X-Plane from a plane jain 911 to a Carerra GT and then see if we have a contendeder.

That has not been my real world experience. I’ve always had to use a little back pressure to get it to fly. I don’t know where you guys are getting this idea that you could come down on the nose gear at 800 fpm and be okay. Id really like to see the evidence for this. I say in the beginning of the video I’m biased. But i did not heap praise on msfs either. Thank you for the nod to my production value. It will get better with time so much appreciated feed back.

Yeah. Back pressure is needed in both, despite what this biased video review claims. In fact, it's worrying how much is needed in fs2020. You gently pull back and think "More? Nose still not rising. Even more?". You give it a "little"' and it's still wanting to hug the ground. XP does take a gentle nudge, depending on when you rotate. Far more believable in XP.

I haven't flown the C172 IRL since 2005/06. I stand corrected on the amount of back pressure needed. I stand corrected. A good (sim) pilot is always learning.

@@VirtualAviationAviator It isn't much that's for sure. It's a gentle nudge. Your comment is spot on: it wants to fly. And there's like a 5-7 knot window between needing it and not. This video proactively paints XP poorly.

@@blingthinger "This video proactively paints XP poorly." Yup. It does. I have to constantly remind myself that the two sims are different. Let's be glad MSFS isn't an exact copy of X-Plane and vice-versa. For me, XP12 is my SOC (sim of choice).

I'll admit its handy, but the msfs drone camera can do the same thing and more.

@@NightTrainIndustries on a very cumbersome way yes..

no replay, no IFR map, no sound mixer in most of planes, no ground effect, and the list goes on, it only looks fantastic, but thats it, when it was PC only it was better, much better, now that its multiplatform AKA XBOX its a pile of crap.

@@Lagomosa It does have replay, no other sim has built in IFR maps, there is a sound mixer for every aspect of the simulator, there is ground effect. Tell me you haven't flown the sim without telling me you haven't flown the sim.

That's one of the most postive comments I have ever recieved. Appreciate the comment! Yes comparison work is tedious because you think you have it then you put them side by side and they look nothing a like and the timing is off so have to go back to the sim. It takes a lot of planning, and why I can't shoot out 2 videos a week anymore.

@@NightTrainIndustries Thanks for the video. Allow me the following comment: we could also point out to everything MSFS is lacking compared to XP, that you didn‘t mention (turbulences in stormy clouds, density true altitude simulated, seasons, better camera-systems, fly-by, tower-view, replay, weather-map, simulated brake coefficients according the contamination of RWY, building-up and melting predipitations, essier to install, no mandatory updates, more failures etc.). And you could also mention some cons many are talking about in MSFS like popping up blurry textures, melted-down photogrammetry etc.). I think you are biased because you prefer it. I came to the opposite conclusion after having used all kind of sims since 35 years and also flying in real. I have tried MSFS for 6 months. Except the great default visuals I found XP12 to be better in almost every other points that matters for me. But happy landings.

You’re obviously very passionate about x plane. Different strokes for different folks. Both sims lack a lot. But x plane is in no way superior msfs.

@@NightTrainIndustries I never said that XP was superior in general. Both have cons and pros. So it depends to the users which one they prefer. I was the first one being extremely excited when i saw MSFS'announcement. But I have been hugely disappointed because I missed so much. For me personnally, except the good default visuals, I don't see anything that is as good as what I like in XP (listed above). That's why for me it is better.

@@goldgamer8446 You didn't, and correctly identified them as video games. But many of the X-Plane Army comrades on my first video said the flight dynamics were superior. That's why I showed that they both kinda suck for different reasons when you put them to the test.

It's essentially FSX, but with some graphical goodies. Both X-Plane and P3D are happy being used for scenario based training and the graphics/realistic world aren't important. MSFS however has made inroads into the commercial scene. So maybe it will get more serious.

Thanks appreciate the positive message. Ill do my best to make the next one better.

Appreciate you, thank you!

Im gun shy about AS in MSFS. I'm waiting for a review first. I have a feeling its like REX where it just fades in or out a preset. but I might be wrong.

Appreciate it. That’s very rare. X-plane isn’t bad. I strike a more conciliatory tone in the next video with auto ortho, sim heaven and visual xp.

@@NightTrainIndustries can't wait to see it

Guess it depends on how extreme the wind is. Back in 12.0 the landing gear would compress when you brake even if you weren’t moving. Given the c172 is the most built and flown aircraft in the world it’s sad to see it being neglected. I hope a2a accusim does the c172. I cant find a better one with x-plane either. Thanks for watching.

They both need work. Thank you for understanding what I’m trying to do here. I am modding x plane, but honestly these mods are not turn-key and require a lot of futzing around to get right, especially auto ortho. But just at a fundamental level they both need to be made more realistic.

Yeah i really couldn’t touch on everything. But thanks for watching anyway.

Yeah I'm going to put the Zibo up against the PMDG. I have lots of plans lots of content. but very little time, and MSFS big releases have been pushing back my x-plane content. I've been impressed with visual XP so far.

Its coming. Visual xp ultimate.

and even hiperrealizum

I would agree the team is ambitious they also had to unjustly fight patent trolls. I just think they could be more ambitious. Hopefully they are for 12.1. And yes they are underdogs i wish them the best. It just is not my favorite flight simulator.

@@NightTrainIndustries msfs does shadow it excessively with its graphics - I always revisit it just for the graphics or what not

That's a good take. At the end of the day after test like this we are flying around fake airplanes in a fake world and taking it way too seriously.

@@NightTrainIndustries Absolutely man! Looking forward to your next videos.

@@NightTrainIndustries "Way to seriously". Even that much that some even make videos about it? ;-) Desktop-sims have become incredible sophisticated nowadays. And they are a fantastic tool to learn and even practice for real flights, that I like to do. I don't really understand those who bash them simply because they don't feel equal to real flying. I think no one expects them to be the exact same; it's exactly the purpose of a sim to imitate the real life as close as it can.

I have never like X-Plane. It's always felt sterile and lifeless like a computer simulation of computer simulation of an airplane. Like the graphics of a level D simulator with out the physical cockpit.

@@NightTrainIndustries The thing is: why do you bother making videos about it then? I personnally hate MSFS and have deinstalled it. I wouldn't loose any time making videos about it. I never understood why there are so many people who apparently don't like XP spending so much time talking about it or making hate-comments (like the usual trolls below who even attack people out of insecurity). Sometimes it sounds like some are disturbed by the fact that XP does many things better and they have to be sure they made the right choice by not using it and are trying to convince themselves and/or are searching for external approval. It's a bit weird for me...

@@Hanslims Welp see you later Hans.

@@Hanslims nailed it "some are disturbed by the fact that XP does many things better and they have to be sure they made the right choice by not using it and are trying to convince themselves and/or are searching for external approval."

@@Hanslims couldn't have said truer words

Congrats. I have about 21 hours in various 152 and 172s. And about 10 hours non-instructional. Im going to have a video about why i stopped flight training despite being so close. I came to the conclusion the 172 in both sims acts about the same. I could have done a whole piece from old flight training videos. But I’m saving that for another video. Of course.

No. I have about 20-40 hours in the c172/c152. Depending on how you count it. I will be making a video about why I never finished my ppl.

One more thing about the comparison of turbulence: Yes strong winds are often associated with turbulence. However I've had occasions with quite a lot of turbulence with low wind speeds (under 10 kts sometimes). So the higher turbulence in XP might be due to the turbulence setting and not due to the wind.

Yeah that's kind of what I was getting at. It seemed to me the turbulence was based on the slider almost solely. Wind can be light and it can still be a roller coaster in AZ during warm days so I get why X-Plane decoupled it but the execution seems way over done.

I'm starting to understand, but I still don't think it's superior. but... I do get the faster thing and After using VisualXP ultimate I do feel that is great enhancement to the flight dynamics of all airplanes. I have another video Zibo Vs. PMDG 737 coming out in a few weeks. If you are interested I'd like to let you watch it first be like no that's not really done like that. Um no... you should have done it like this. but if you don't have time I completely understand. I don't honestly have the time either, I just some how manifest hours in the day and get it done.

I think most P3D enthusiasts have jumped over to MSFS. P3D v6 just isn't on most people's radar anymore. But Lockheed Martin is a big company with vast resources. They could jump ahead of X-Plane pretty easy if they really wanted to.

@@NightTrainIndustries lmao you made my day, study about lookup tables, blade element theory and how each sim works, P3D is basically FSX. Aircraft manufacturers are not gonna give up the information that a lookuptable simulator needs to feel "realistic" its just a no no. on the other hand, XPlane doesnt have this problem as it computes in real time the flight dynamics, no tables needed here. do the homework, your comparison is a pile of fanboy crap, that stupid editing with the "hyper realizum" my god, rtard fanboy at its highest, doing "comparisons" of things it does not even understand.

True, but what disappointedly me the most about x-plane was the vector data is crap. Even medium sized rivers are missing. I also think they could have done better and more varied land classes. I had trouble finding the various videos because everything looks exactly the same. And as you can see the landclass for the valley in Cortez should have been farms and rural urbanization. Instead it was all forest. X-plane has had years to make the global scenery better but honestly to me it doesn’t look any more realistic than x-plane 10. Thanks for watching.

I have had my fair share of CTDs in both. As a matter of fact During the 4K XP Santa Monica approach I had to do it 4 times because X plane would freeze and wouldn't recover. With OBS recording I get my fair share of crashes in MSFS as well.

Appreciate it. If it works for you rock it. I was on fsx until msfs.

Im thinking we will find out June 22nd. Thanks for watching.

They are going to try to fix the ground handling in su 15. The feel of the air depends on your settings live weather and aircraft. I was surprised not to see more options related to realism in xplane. There is only one setting.

yep, that's why I'm delaying additional content. SU 15 in MSFS and 12.1 in XP12 both will be improved significantly.

I am old enough, I started on 4.0 on a mac. I get it. I skipped P3D. P3D has never been installed on my system. I just think the issue for me is that there have been such minor improvements over an entire decade from 10 to 12. Sounds like you relish in things not changing, especially the comment about skipping FSX. because I feel FS2002 to FS 2004 to FSX to P3D were all all very small improvements. I feel the same with X plane 9 to 10 to 11 and then to 12. But MSFS is finally a revolutionary flight sim. 2024 will be more so. 12.1 has been a disappointment but so has SU 15 in MSFS. X-Plane is not bad. It's quite good it just is not "superior" as many have asserted.

@@NightTrainIndustries I basically skipped FSX because of a bunch of things. Visually I agree it didn't look much better than FS9 but it introduced (at the time) a significant frame rate hit and too many deal breakers such as new GMax models and scenery systems that broke a lot of my FS9 investments. Years later I bought the Steam version of FSX and much better hardware, but moved on from that pretty quickly. Sure, technology moves on but I wanted to see much more visual improvement as well as backwards compatibility. I understand that's difficult in software development (I am a dev by trade) but it was much less of a case of wanting things to stay the same as it was a compelling argument to re-invest all over again. Everybody's mileage varies. I certainly don't belong to the 'this sim is superior' camp. XP12 was very disappointing when it came out and most people took the view, including myself, that it was a rushed release. 18 months on and it's in a much better place. For a procedural and instrument trainer it does everything I need it do. In many respects MSFS is superior but nowhere nears as much as it should be for a development team ten times the size. That's what really impresses me about XP, what it does with a fraction of the human resources working on it.

yeah, vulkan is pretty bad on performance. I have even had some massive frame drops in 1080 with AutoOrtho.

Yes, do love the Fact that X-Plane hasn't left the Mac community out in the cold. Thanks for watching!

Glad you think so! Thanks for watching.

X-plane is dead. Devs are prioritising MSFS now.

@@roborat2000 bullshit! Bye the way: you do not need any payware devs for x-plane.

There was a learning curve for me to x-plane. Thats why it’s taking me so long to get this content out. Im already well underway with auto ortho and sim heaven and visual xp. Running into issues but ill hash those out in the next video in the series. Thanks for watching.

@@toddel2010 You don't need them for MSFS either. Plenty of high quality freeware out there for MSFS, and FSX before that. The only reason why the payware developers are there is because they can make money, pure and simple. They aren't in XP because there is no money to be made there as the user base isn't as large.

@@roborat2000 XP is the second most succesfull sim around, XP12 has sold the most copies of any XP-release before, has increased its userbase compared to previous year (navigraph survey), has increased its team and still searching to hire. LOL. It has never been so alive. One of the reasons i deleted and left MSFS is the community who is the most toxic i've ever seen. They just cannot deal with any other sim being around and feel so insecure with the need to troll other sims. Like yourself lol.

I said in the video that the turbulence slider makes no sense if the air is being modeled correctly. So yes the Turbulence slider is put on light yet gives severe turbulence and makes the Zibo dance around like a Cessna in a thunder storm. The fact there is a separate slider tells me the simulation of the air is not very good and needs over done fake rhythmic turbulence to get the effect. Its easy to get. Get the Zibo, put the wind from the west at 10kts G18 and put the turbulence slider on light and watch it dance. To me it looks like X-Plane doesn't simulate the weight of the airplane and its effect on the air around it. If you came down on the front wheel of any airplane in a nose and 2 main config you'd crash the airplane pure and simple. There is a reason airplanes flare. What crash animation? It bounces off the ground and continues like nothing happens MSFS fades to a black screen that tells you you have crashed more often. My point is that if a sim is realistic, it should not necessarily fade to black let you continue if you have altered your aircraft in a fashion that would render it unusable. I would expect a wheel wobble, a flat tire, brakes that don't work something. But in the scenario with the Cessna that gear would have collapsed and the prop would have gotten shredded. The Southwest incident at laguardia the pilot landed 1 degree nose down at 946 feet per minute and the nose gear instantly collapsed and the aircraft was written off. Now PMDG does simulate this a little. You can blow tires on a hard landing or hot brakes and then jet wont move. Zibo will give red light on the nose gear but it does not mean anything for your flight or ground handling. You X-Plane guys keep saying things that are blatantly wrong about MSFS. MSFS has Computational Fluid Dynamics in its weather center and flight dynamics. Mountains create lift and turbulence, wake turbulence will be introduced with SU 15 and you can get it in active sky if you need it. ATC is super garbage in X-Plane and MSFS, that's why I didn't even consider it. . You guys always focus on parts of the video that don't matter while ignoring blatant disregard for the laws of physics like a barre oll like a fighter jet that requires no back pressure to keep it level. I do not think the Zibo and PMDG are equals in anyway PMDG is light years a head of Zibo because it is an expensive payware aircraft. That's why once the Fenix A319 comes out I will put it against the Toliss A319 that way we have advanced pay ware planes with failure simulations and the exact models. Because Toliss does not have an A320 CEO. The best free for free, stock for stock comparison is the Cessna 172. I have flown this aircraft in real life for over 20 hours and I find XP12 and MSFS to be equally poor representations of an aircraft that should be relatively easy to get right. So my point is if X-Plane has piss poor scenery it better make up for it in realism and it does not. I'm honestly shocked at how poor it performs in the realm of realism...well and performance on a high end system. I honestly thought it would be better. X-Plane 10 was fun because of all the Space stuff but X-Plane was 11 a boring rehash of 10 and 12 was an equally uninspired leap. that's why I never bought P3D. The leap from FSX to P3Dv3or 4 to P3dv5. It was basically the leap from XP-10 to 11 to 12. MSFS came along and changed the game for ever. If Laminar wants to keep rehashing the same game over and over that's fine. I'm just not paying 80 bucks for it. And I have a feeling many will be equally disappointed in the leap from MSFS2020 to 2024. But X-Plane 12.1 keeps getting hyped, but there isn't much about it that I can find. All I know is one looks good enough to suspend disbelief momentarily and one looks like a computer simulation of a flight simulator from a decade ago. I would love nothing more than for X-Plane 11 to get a real streaming deal and move over to DX-12 and have a David Vs. Goliath battle that sees them take back market share but I don't think they have it in them. I've only ever bought X-Plane to pitch in to beat patent trolls that had hemmed up Austin over nothing. But I have never ENJOYED X-Plane. But think about this. There are other people who are having the same conversation between Assetto Corsa and Assetto Corsa Competizione.

​@@NightTrainIndustries Sorry for taking so long to respond. I apologise for my tone in the first comment, it was unacceptable. However, I just want to address a few of the things that've been said. I agree the slider for turbulence is not ideal. In my personal experience, it has been quite annoying to get the actual turbulence you want, i.e. if I want light-moderate, and put the slider in-between the two, you either get no turbulence, or moderate turbulence. That being said, I think the turbulence is simulated excellently in XP. We seem to have very differing experiences when it comes to the turbulence. You said that the aircraft in XP feel as though they have no weight. This actually suprised me, because I had the exact opposite opinion! I personally think XP does the weight of the aircraft very well, while Microsoft looked animated, and the aircraft fly as though they didn't have momentum outside of the x-axis (acceleration/deceleration). As far as how the aircraft performs in 10kts G18? I think it is spot on. At YBBN, an airport I've flown to IRL and so many times in the sim, these conditions are very frequent. The weather is generally like this, unless it is a calm or particularly strong day. The aircraft behaves as it does IRL. I've flown (IRL) in almost the exact conditions (it was only 10kts G15 that day), and it behaves pretty much exactly as it does in the sim. I actually made a video of one of my landings a decent bit ago, and the wind was actually exactly 10kts G18, albeit with more moderate than light turbulence, and the wind from the South. Feel free to click on my profile and find the vid, I don't have many so it would be easy to find. In the video (I accidently cut the PFD out because I messed up in OBS), the aircraft's wings had a bit of bounce, but overall, it was very stable (admittedly, the gusting in XP is linear, a sort of off then on deal). IRL, it feels very similar, though the gusts were more prevalent. As far as "fake rhythmic turbulence" goes, I really don't know a lot about it. You could ask Austin, the creator of XP. But in all honesty, I have no clue. I don't think that you could simulate 1:1 air bubbles for turbulence in any sim, but in any case, the turbulence in XP both looks and feels very realistic. For your second paragraph, I am going to have to disagree (though I'm not entirely sure my point in the first comment was understood). If you land hard enough, you can get a collapsed gear, a popped tire, you can remove your prop. If you brake too hard, your brakes will heat up, and as of the latest update, they may or may not catch fire/smoke (I haven't a chance to test yet). As far as Add-on aircraft, you should see the FlyJSim 727. You land too hard (which is unfortunately too easy in the 727 :) ), the engines can break, the gear will collapse, if you stay full throttle for too long, the engines may overheat or wear down, if you slam the throttle open, you put wear on the engine. Dynamic failures. Etc. Long story short, I don't agree with what you've said in your second paragraph, and I encourage you to test further. Addressing the weather misconceptions; I apologise. I had no clue that MSFS had these features. However, I will say that MSFS has never presented these features to myself or my friends. I actually have a great example of all of these features combined. I was doing a flight from YSSY to YMML. I've done similar flights before IRL (the same routes used routes go over the same landmarks). I was using XP12, and my friend behind me, MSFS. I know from flying over the Blue Mountains that they produce some decent turbulence. I also know that from living and flying around Melbourne, that the winter months bring awful weather; clouds, strong, turbulent winds, etc. This flight was around April. We were both using the 737-800, me the Zibo, him, the PDGM. I was having some not so nice turbulence, and winds of (if I recall correctly) 64kts from the SW (we were flying SE-ish). The turbulence was obviously from the Blue Mountains, because as soon as we passed into the flatter Victoria areas (Melbourne is in the state of Victoria), the turbulence subsided a bit. My friend on the other hand felt no turbulence. His aircraft was pretty much static. I actually uploaded another video to share to him while we were flying, and he was actually shocked by what he was seeing, because for him, there was no turbulence. Like I said above, I've flown around this area at the same time period, and from my experiences, it was 100% accurate to what was seen/felt. If you wish, you should also find the video on my KZfaq page. It is short, but you can clearly see the wings jumping up and down as we pass through turbulence (though it should be noted that the plane maintained a stable course without too much movement). Now the whole reason that neither my friend nor myself knew about these features was because they aren't easy to see. XP gives you the ability to bring up visual representations of the physics that allow you to see where wake turbulence, or lift ridge turbulence is, among other things. As far as I know, this feature is not available in MSFS. Your point about ATC is valid, and I mostly agree, they are both bad. However, for some, this feature is kinda important to them. Honestly, they would be equal in badness, but the XP ATC seems to work better more of the time. I'm not sure what your point is about the barrel roll and the non-important parts that I am mentioning. These things are important, which is why they are present in the sim. I am really confused by what you mean by the barrel roll not requiring back pressure to keep level in XP. A barrel roll requires back pressure and rudder to make it a barrel roll instead of an aileron roll. But an aileron roll requires neither back nor front pressure unless you want to have a botched barrel roll. If you could please clarify what you mean here, I would be appreciate that greatly. You have said that the PDMG 737 is better than the Zibo because it is an expensive payware? That seems a little counterintuitive, and frankly, the Zibo is on par with the PDMG, and as a bonus, it is free. I'd actually like to know why you think the PDMG is better than the ZIBO. I am sure a comparison between the Fenix A319 and the Toliss A319 would be a great idea. Personally, I don't have any Toliss products, but they look pretty good. I am sure you probably saw the FFA320 CEO, but this is very expensive, so I don't expect that you should compare it to a MSFS counterpart, although it would be another video idea. I would like to make a point that comparing individual 3rd party products doesn't exactly reflect back on the sim. An in-depth evaluation of each sim's communities would be a better reflection on the sim itself. I've never flown the C172 IRL, as I did my flight training on a Sling 2. There isn't much close to it in the sim (the R40 is close but is a bit heavy), so I can't comment on 1:1 performance, but generally I thought XP was alright. I don't know when the C172 flight model was last updated, but it may have been from XP10 - XP11. A good segue. While I was disgruntled not to upgrade to XP12 before it was made $80USD, it wasn't too bad. The last time I bought the sim was back in 2017, 7 years ago. There probably won't be another version of XP for another 7 years, unless there is another large graphics engine change. The changes from XP10 - XP11 were quite significant, and so were the changes from XP11 to XP12. The UI is mainly the same, but that's because it works fine. The graphics were made better, and so too the frame rate. In your testing, you cranked the settings to Ultra. This turns EVERYTHING to the max, even the things that consume an obnoxiously high amount of frames while practically changing nothing. There are plenty of good tutorials on KZfaq that will help with frames a lot. (p.s. turning your resolution down from 4K does help huge amounts. Even just a little less resolution makes a massive difference) The graphics are fine. Not MSFS, but yet again, it doesn't need the internet connection to make buildings look solid. It is unfortunate for Austin and Laminar Research that they don't currently have access to high-res imagery like Microsoft does. That being said, they are working on it. And in the meantime, you can use AutoOrthx (or something rather, idk the specific name). It gives high resolution textures just like MSFS, plus it doesn't take up that much space. (It uses a system like MSFS, except that it doesn't entirely rely on internet connection to construct most of the world). I don't think your final comparison between AC and ACC was very appropriate. They are owned by the same people, and out of the box, AC looks worse in my opinion. It's just AC has more compatibility and options to spruce it up, and ACC is more realistic and slightly better looking, but less options for modification. But that is not entirely important. If you have ready all of this, I thank you greatly. I am happy to continue this discussion if you wish, as it is a topic that is too often fraught by prejudice, and I think people ought to share each other's experiences so we can properly evaluate each sim for what it is.

@@MultipilotSimulation Woah that was long, but it basically boiled down to X-Plane is better but there are a few things that need work. and.... I said they both need work. Alot of X-planers gloss over that I say MSFS has a lot of unrealistic problems that need to be fixed as well. There will be a new video in the future. I was waiting for 12.1 VS SU 15. No we have them boths so I had to start over. I have a lot more time whith X-Plane now and it's not bad but one thing I can't get right is : For me both the default cirrus vision jet and the SR22 are very twitchy and have wierd problems with the auto pilots. I read on the forum that i need to change the Vne to 350 on the vision jet and that seems to have helped with the autopilot. Many other planes are fine including the vans and the c172. Can you point me to a turtorial on how to fix that twitchiness? The twitichiness is worse than MSFS on those 2 planes. And I need the SR22 for the next video. Or are these known in the X-Plane 12 community as being twitchy and strange? 10G18 is a bit higher than I was thinking it is but there are so many different factors to the turbulence. I will go real world flying soon. and try to find a day like that. It's easy to do in Arizona, the daytime heating causes nasty terrain driven winds. but I still can't think of a time that wind would have been that visually dramatic.

@@NightTrainIndustries I look forward to seeing your comparison video! Unfortunately, I'm not sure what is causing the twitching that you've described. I don't often use the G1000 autopilot, and I haven't had a chance to use it on neither the SR22, nor the Vision jet. I usually just set the trim and throttle and let the aircraft fly itself. If you could describe what the "twitching" is, I may be able to help you further. I won't be able to test it in the sim for another week and a bit, but I will continue to look into it. From my surface level investigation, nobody else seems to have any issues. Oh and Austin released a video detailing all the new stuff in XP12.1, so you can check that out for some inspiration. Its on the official XP KZfaq channel.

Yep, i agree and think x-plane missed the boat. You can’t just keep making tweaks to the same sim. X plane had an opportunity to add real helpful features to become a real simulator. Id also add that traffic in x-plane could have been made realistic to help with sequencing and pattern work but they just made the same sim with little tweaks. Msfs actually tries harder, in my opinion. You can ice up then find warm air and have it melt. Unfortunately icing rates are too rapid.

@@NightTrainIndustries In my opinion you are throwing arguments in the air without backing it up. I don‘t think that MSFS‘s weather effects are better. And I see people complaining the whole time about unrealistic and overdone turbulences. On approach winds are not always gusty and changing that fast in real. Better simulated in XP imo. And what exactly do you mean with icing? All effects have been tuned in XP by professional pilots. I invite you to discuss your findings with them, because otherwise it just sounds like „MSFS does it better“ without any specific information. MSFS doesn‘t simualte at all the true density altitude and also you can fly into a CB without any impact. So I really wonder what you mean by „XP miss that boat“. You called yourself an MSFS-fanboy in one of your videos. This alone tells is that you are clearly biased. But I am absolutely interested by comparisons made by „neutral“ real pilots perhaps having never used any desktop-sim.

@@goldgamer8446 Point me to a video from a real world pilot then.

@@goldgamer8446 X-Plane could have done something different from MSFS and focused on hyper realistic GA ops and instead rehashed that same crap they have been doing since X-Plane 10.

@@NightTrainIndustries For example here on YT "X-Plane, as we Wish it Looked. . . " or the one from Cpt Blackbox "XP11 Toliss A321 NEO | Vienna/LOWW to Milano Malpensa/LIMC | VATSIM" starting at 1:21:00 where he explains during over 20 minutes and in great length why MSFS is lacking compared to XP in the flight dynamics. It's a video made 1 year ago but he repeats the same again and again. 3 days ago when testing the new Fenix-update he said "yeah MSFS's flightmodel isn't the greatest"; he could not really take off safely with an engine out and said that the drag&lift model in MSFS seems broken. He also complains about inertia lacking in MSFS compared to XP in many of his videos.

As do X-Planers.

Thanks appreciate it. I think i was pretty level. I called out msfs for its shortcomings as well.

I agree, a lot of the time people confuse more active movements with better flight dynamics. It's hard to convey turbulence visually though. I hope that realism is increased in MSFS2024. I guess we will see. Thanks for watching.

I flew X-Plane last night for 2 hours. The Cirrus Vison jet is buggy. I had to set my null zones way to far out as it it was such a twitchy mess. Also, this thing should be able to cruise at 28,000 (non G2) with a full load, it couldn't. It's supposed to be able to hold 300kts. It won't do it. I found a post on X-Plane.org explaining that the Vne needs to be changed from 250 (which way to go laminar) to 350. That superior blade element theory sure does require an .acf file that looks suspiciously like a lookup table, you X-Plane guys say is so bad and the reason MSFS flight dynamics are not good. My point is only that the flight dynamics in X-Plane are not superior in any way to MSFS. You guys always like to focus on silly stuff I do when what you should be focusing on is the fact that the Zibo can execute a barrel roll with no pitch input what's so ever at an unbelievably high rate, pull a 6 g turn at 250 with no buffeting, stay airborne way below it's stall speed and will not wing dip no matter how hard it tries. All- X plane planes pitch way too fast and unbelievably. X-Planers can stay in their delusion of superior flight dynamics. My point is that they are equally unrealistic or equally realistic when put to the test.

​@@NightTrainIndustries You are confusing between "More realistic" and realistic, also you do realize you are talking about games and not professional stuff right?. I use all 3 sims and love each one for different reasons, but X_Plane physics goes cycles around the other 2. Is it perfect? I am not delusional, a game won't ever be 100% accurate, even F1 testing CAD is not perfect with real life and shows real testing needs to be done because million of dollars computers / programs cannot be 100% accurate. At the end of the day, it's a game. Stop the fanboysm (no matter what side you are in) Never used Zibo, and I don't see how that has ever become a benchmark in realism...

I wasn't expecting that. I wonder if laminar could incorporate frame gen? I'm guessing they can't. They are still using SMAA. no DLSS yet. Thanks for watching!

@@NightTrainIndustries Sadly, DLSS looks quite awful in VR. And since Xplane is not compatible with OpenXRToolkit which can add upscaling to DLSS, DLSS will not add to XPlane in VR. Never fly in flatscreen mode after having experienced VR... In DCS, MSAA looks great BTW, and with Foveated rendering, it runs quite steadily at 90FPS ie no stutter.

@@NightTrainIndustries You need to wait until 12.1 is out and then take a look. Trying to look at it now is putting the cart before the horse. They alway said that the graphic improves with the performance will start with 12.1 going forward. VR will come after due to the graphic change in that order. They have to get the basic graphic design they are using 12.1 performing well with all the added changes be for they can tackle to systems that must use it like VR. I just got word that the alpha looking pretty good.

A well measured response. Thank you for watching!

Isn't x plane 12 in the official page 60 USD?

@@BlackPhantom_II on steam it's 60 on the offical page still 80.

As much as I am looking forward to these updates, I don’t expect them to be revolutionary.

I'll have a video on that. One of the nice things about the videos I make is that I have a historic record of what a game or sim was like on a certian date or version. Thanks for watching!

100% True. X-Plane has The FF A350. A good A340, Toliss A340-600, A well modded A330-300, the VMAX/FF 757 and 767 series. But.. MSFS has the Bluebird 757 and 767 coming, The inibuilds a350 and Synaptic A220, Aerosoft A330 series, PMDG 777, PMDG 737 MAX, and a few other secret projects. X-Plane has had a 4 year head start. Given that many of them were developed during XP11. I think when FS 2024/2020 gets to the same point 3 years from now there will be all of these fantastic airplanes and more. Latin VFR and Captain Sim have been put on notice.

@@NightTrainIndustries Sure, but then again, I can't even remember when I read first about the "upcoming" PMDG 777 and that it was "close". Feels like years. I don't get too enthusiastic about future addons anymore because the devs really take all the sweet time they want (and then there's bugs in the release anyway).

@@ScepticGinger89 A lot of exciting things are going to happen at FSExpo24 on June 21-23. I'm guessing that not only will the PMDG 777 be released but also an official announcement on when FS2024 drops. I think everything takes more time now because the customer base is more demanding that ever. has to have 8k textures, has to have custom FMS, has to have EFB, has to have a bunch of management programs, has to have phenomenal sound etc. The old addons were laughable in complexity to the new ones. We just remember them fondly.

Uh, yeah. It would be interesting to see what share of the market p3d has now days.

@@NightTrainIndustries 0,000ish% unfortunately because it’s a great sim imo.

@@moritz3224 yeah it got abandoned when MSFS came out. X-Plane's saving grace was that all X-Plane 11 addons worked in 12. But a lot of sceneries from P3D were ported into MSFS as well.

It's actually been completely the opposite. Welcome to the internet.

I can agree with this. One of my major issues with X-plane is that dead reckoning is difficult because there just isn't any data for a lot of POIs, rivers especially. Crosswind I can agree. SU 15 was supposed to fix crosswind handling but it did not. I still think airplanes should simulate flat tires, jammed brakes, and wheel wobble. I'm not asking for a crash model there doesn't need to be visual indication but some change in behavior would be nice.

oh yeah, I noticed some animation issues on several airplanes. I noticed a lot of other issues too but decided to be more positive. Im asuming what you are saying is. If you have the parking brake on and tap the toe brakes the front shock will compress even though there is no speed or load, like its just an animation tied to an action and not dependent on the actual environment.

At least I tell you I'm biased. I'm just trying to convince myself X-Plane can be good. In the next video I try AutoOrtho, Simheaven, Visual XP and see if it can match MSFS.

What bothers me is how much time laminar has had to do something revolutionary but basically just made xp-11 with graphical tricks and worse performance.

@@NightTrainIndustries You're getting worse performance because you're running at 4k with 8X MSAA. That's 8 times your resolution and is halving your fps, also you have everything maxed in X-Plane but not in MSFS your settings in XP would be the equivalent of running the terrain lod on max which will give you the same performance issues. I have a system slightly worse than yours and lock my sim at 60 and my lows come in at around 50 fps which match MSFS without frame generation on my pc. You're not gonna get the same graphical fidelity in X-Plane that you do in MSFS it is impossible, I would recommend to lower your MSAA to 2x since you are at 4k and you won't see a difference between 2x and 4x, and set your shadows to "aircraft only" otherwise your cutting your performance in half for zero reason I can see your GPU is absolutely maxed, lastly you can drop your rendering distance to high since in MSFS you only have terrain lod at 100 which is quite low, I run mine at 200 personally.

And I'd like to add that your resolution are different in both sims which can be clearly seen when you open the settings pages for them, your MSFS is at 2560x1080 and X-plane is nearly at 4k

Both sims have great relistic flight modes and modules with simular issues, to each other. Enough that its not worth arguing about. Both sims setup at 3440 x 1440 wide UHD with DisplayPort cable back to my RTX3070 MSFS2020 uses Direct 11/12 running TAA or DLSS quality at Antisotropic filtering: 16X Anti alising 4x getting 30 - FPS using default aircraft at Heathrow on runway 27R Xp-12 ether Antialising: FXAA or 4x SSAA, Antstropic Filtering 4x or 8x visual and quality setting high to maximum (lower than my msfs2020 settings) Heathrow default aircraft on 27R, getting 24 -27 FPS In both sims I can increase FPS by dripping down to 1080p or lower graphic settings. With these setting In both sims, aircraft modules look great and in cockpit look sharp. But there FPS hit in Xp is high, with simpler scenary Athan in its MSFS counter part. To me MSFS2020. overall looks better with its sunlight, shadows, clouds, storms and rainbows. MSFS surrounding scenary and details are much better out of the box, no modes.

@@blackshark6417 yes because you can't run X-Plane at 4k. I think you scrubbed the video because I specifically state when each one is 4k and when each one is 1080.

I also play mfsf

Msfs

With addons and plugins X-Plane12 can be quite realistic that is true and I will show that in the next video on May 9th. Thanks for watching.

You need to get a better monitor with HDR. X-plane reminds you of games from early 2000s.

@@roborat2000I disagree, my monitor is perfectly fine. I recently bought the 27GR83Q-B from LG and love the colors when watching movies and playing other games however I still dislike the MSFS colors. It’s personal preference really.

I agree, the ground is almost always too bright and vibrant in MSFS. But, that about the only area I see benefit for XP.

My take is that because it is several different photos taken at different times you can go from too bright to too dark to just right. Photogrammetry has the issue where it is too dark and too vivid due to diferent sources. AutoOrtho will have the same issues. I do agree it tends to be too bright and green/tan tinged. X-Plane is consistent because it uses ancient technology. Land class tiles. My problem is everything in the x plane world looks the same. but I could see how the consistency would be favorable.

@@federalvoidx4612 That still sounds like a tuning issue. Just because you have a newer monitor or TV doesn't mean it doesn't need to be set correctly. Nvida actually has many overlay that will desaturate colors and make MSFS look so damn real you'd think you were really in world, whereas XP buildings have always looked like they were taken out of a cartoon.

800 fpm would never be a crash? I think you need to take some real-world flight instruction. If you came down at 800 fpm on the nose gear it would absolutely destroy the gear and once the gear collapses there goes the prop.

@@NightTrainIndustries im talking 737 you were using Zibo and PMDG when you said that, -800vs hard landing, nothing out of the world

@@NightTrainIndustries check the NLG landing in Madeira, you need to learn a lot

@@Lagomosa disagree the southwest la guardia incident disproves your theory. 960 fpm immediately destroyed nose landing gear so i don’t know what your talking about. Anything harder than 600 fpm or 1.4 gs is going damage an airplane. Maybe not a airplane like a maule or kit fox but a 737 or c172 absolutely.

@@NightTrainIndustries you don't know shit

Very odd comparison.

Well yes, I literally say that in the video. In the first video I literally tell you I haven’t liked x plane since x-plane 10. This video was made because there were 150 comments on the first video about how superior x-plane is. I just don’t believe the hype that x-plane is superior to msfs in the realm of flight dynamics. Ground handling sure. But so many comments were like msfs is a play toy x box game and x plane is a serious FAA approved flight simulator for real flight simmers. I’m just showing they are both unrealistic silly games.

I'll give you that, for sure. I was very worried when it first came out but so far Microsoft has been positive about MSFS. But yeah without an internet connection MSFS is usable but would not be as good of experience as X-Plane.

News flash, if you have windows you're already connected to the internet, all the time with a Microsoft account, so stop being a pedantic baby.

@@ImpendingJoker don't tell me you don't know how to use it without an account

@@Lagomosa Sure I do, and used it for years without one but what's your point? If you are running a legit copy, you've got an account. If you're not, then that is on you.

@@ImpendingJoker you can have it legally and offline, so gtfo pedantic 🐥

30 fps would be fine if it were steady. Same with 24, but those are just averages with much lower numbers. I guarantee you’d notice if your movie went from 24 to 18 or lower. My point is if a 4080 super can get 85 in msfs in 4k how can x-plane12 only get 22. I was expecting a little worse but 1/4 of the frame rate is insanely bad performance. Thanks for watching.

You guys making that comparison REALLY need to learn the difference between non-interactive and interactive mediums and the fact the frame rate isn’t even the only difference that’s important. Also, 24 FPS sucks regardless of the medium, and the only reason the movie industry still uses it is money, time and storage, not because it’s good.

@@WhiteHawk77 No, despite its origins, they maintain the 24 fps standard because it mimics the motion blur we naturally see with out eyes. High framerates look bizarre and unnatural - like sped up slow motion.

@@Borodin410 no, it doesn’t, higher frame rates look better and more realistic, the higher the better. The world doesn’t look anything remotely like 24 FPS video, if it does to you, you have an issue. This is about money, time (rendering VFX etc) and storage of film or data and home disc media, nothing more, but you believe the joke that is “the magic” if you want. 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@Borodin410 and of course that completely ignores the point you can’t compare video to an interactive medium, games and sims are not the same as video, video doesn’t have the effect of you needing to make inputs to change how it plays out, doesn’t allow you to more the camera at varying speeds and video doesn’t have more and more input lag the low the frame rate gets that affects said inputs, you can’t compare the two, it simply doesn’t work the same.

Boy, You don't sugar coat it. A straight shooter! Thanks for watching.

My point is a 6 g, 250 kts 90degree turn in a 737 and rolling and yawing violently 15 degrees in a 10 gt wind gusting to 18 is not realistic flight dynamics. To me flight and ground dynamics are tied together if I land hard I would expect the characteristics to be different from a butter landing but that dosen't seem to be the case. I'm really just not impressed with the flight dynamics. People seem to be confusing instability with realism. MSFS tried to pull that crap but now they have gotten rid of the turbulence slider because if it is a true fluid dynamics simulation it shouldnt need a turbulence slider.

But the flight dynamics aren't better. This isn't the first video to show that the two are almost exactly the same in that regard.

@@ImpendingJoker That‘s wrong and I disagree. You can watch almost every professional pilot using both sims and who streams, confirming that XP feels more realistic.

@@NightTrainIndustries where do you get the G? BS, in X-Plane if overstressed it will break, but you always can watch replay, its all up to the plane developer how good it is. Its really clear that you dont understand, the basics of flying and how this two simulators approach it. Flight simulator uses lookup tables. Xplane uses blade element theory. Do the homework in that.before trying to do a comparison and shame yourself.

@@NightTrainIndustries you are not entitled to talk about the dynamics because you don't have hours in the sim, keep using it and you will see all the holes in msfs appear, you say ground effect? Lmao in msfs in doesn't exist, you can float all runway, you can butter always, the dynamics of majority of planes feel like a train and i can say this because i have thousands of hours in both simulator. Your are a disgusting fanboy that doesn't even know how each sim works. Research, it's free.

I'll give them the benefit of the the doubt, the early 2010s. Thanks for watching.

Thats what I try to do. Thanks for watching.

You're not wrong, that's the point of the video.

My goal wasn't to expose anyone, I don't even know who those people are, the only flight sim channels I follow is Aus Flight Simmer, Swiss 001, Q8Pilot and Obsidian Ant. Air Nott and British Av geek are up and commers. A330 driver is okay, but I don't follow him much. I just was genuinely curious if X-Plane 12 was better than I thought it was. Last X-Plane I owned was 10 and it was so lack luster I stuck with my FSX installation. I thought perhaps I was wrong and X-Plane really was hyper realistic, but after being frustrated with bad performance, lackluster scenery, ATC and AI traffic worse than MSFS. The only thing X-Plane had left was its Blade Element Theory BS and it proved to be only slightly better in some scenarios.

@@NightTrainIndustries We all thank you for your honesty. Cheers. I couldn't agree more with you.

@@NightTrainIndustries You should check all activex-posts. He is the most toxic and angry troll i've ever seen in any sim forum. He is so desperate that he can only attack people and talk with words like exposing etc. You will see that all of his posts starts by attacking others. I am happy to see that you are above that level. Guys like activex are 100% poison for the good and passionate MSFS-users. I would seriously consider banning him from your channel tbh. But it's up to you.

@@activex7327 Can you point us out to where they stated that XP was that superior? I've only seen posts where you attacked them and showed how much you hate XP. These users you attacked simply responded.

@@goldgamer8446 Just go back to the MSFS videos comparing MSFS vs Xplane where you and others kept shouting over each other how Xplane's Flight dynamics are superior and Xplane is the only FAA certified simulator and MSFS is a game. Those comments are everywhere, go read them. You've been attacking the MSFS, I only stated the facts (what you refer to as attack, dreamer). How did you like this video fanboy.

You said a whole lot of nothing about how he could improve at making reviews. Sounds like YOU got some X-plane fanboy in you mr hypocrite.

Seems like the opposite. I also bought XP a couple months ago and went back to MSFS after a week or so. MSFS with the new CFD flight models is right there with XP. Other than XP having better outside sunlit ground IMO, there was literally no area where XP was noticeably better. I think the “flight dynamics” thing no longer applies.

@@federalvoidx4612 We are both fanboys of our respective sims (video author and me). Nevertheless you cannot deny some of my points made.

It's not really a review. If a game has a feature it should work. So by your logic MSFS and X-Plane should get rid of crash detection. To me crash detection and flight dynamics are tied together. For intance a 90 degree 6 g turn at 250 knots would not be possible in a 737 (it's only rated to +2.5Gs). Also, If im slamming an airplane down then obviously that's not being simulated correctly. The PMDG does do some things like blow the tires when you land hard but all the zibo does is turn the front gear light red but makes no meaningful change to any of its ground or flight characterisics.

@@NightTrainIndustries MSFS and X-Plane should get rid of crash detection, every real pilot I've seen using either sim turn it off immediately. The whole point of flight simulation is to simulate flight not explosions and crumpling of a fuselage, we don't even have that kind of data lol. A lot of racing sims also avoid damage to the cars because of licensing and performance, very few have acceptable crash physics and plus if you really need that kind of thing we have DCS which simulates air combat in which damage is a part of the simulation and is important. I have never crashed or damaged an airplane and have no need to practice that in a flight simulator and airline level flight simulators don't simulate it either, has nothing to do with flight modelling.

I haven’t come to that conclusion… need to do more testing. I want to do pmdg vs zibo. But very controlled and measured. Like performance at mtow. Performance during a full flight. Fuel burn, landing distance, speed brake efficiency. Flap speeds, stall speeds. Next video will be with auto ortho, visual xp and sim heaven. We will see if it’s a literal game changer. Thanks for watching.

I'll be putting the Zibo Vs. PMDG in a set of controlled tests for all phases of flight.

Some kiddo told me once that the 737 could land in an aircraft carrier needing less than 500mtrs of runway because the cibo did so lol

Eh, not worried.

Oh the angry and lonely child activex is back. People speaking about him in some forums. And there are no dislikes working on YT. Once a troll always a troll.

@@Hanslims The toxic Hans is back guys, the dreamer, and the purchaser of Copy/Paste aircraft that made him so angry that he has devoted his time to spam every MSFS post. Unfortunately, the reality is different, most users and devs left, and the ones that stuck around have released copy/paste aircrafts. 🤣🤣 How did you like the video troll? 🤣🤣

@@activex7327 Which copy-paste are you talking about?

@@Hanslims Let's start with IXEG. Price tag $90. New features in XP12: Coffee pot. That's an expensive coffee pot. Honestly, pretty much all of them look and function like in XP11 and you have top pay double compared to aircraft in MSFS, not to mention the MSFS are light years ahead in terms visual fidelity.

Autoortho is pretty good, but not as good as i was hoping it would be on a high end machine. 12.1 may be a leap but some say it wont be. We still don’t know much about MSFS2024. Im starting to learn more about x-plane developers. Im glad they aren’t jumping ship to cash in on the MSFS gravy train. It is a good time to be flying. Have a good one!