I fly both X-Plane and MSFS. They do offer different strengths in their own ways. I fly a lot of VFR closer to the ground, so while I appreciate that X-Plane has had more accurate towers, light posts and ground obstacles for pilots to avoid, I admit some disappointment seeing the beta 12 ground textures. On one hand, it's great they changed the gamma value in the graphics to get less flat looking color, but as was said in the video, one's often left with the impression they're looking at XP11 textures covered with more 3D trees and foliage. I flew the Brenner Pass from Innsbruck to Italy near dusk in XP11 and then MSFS- if I were to repeat that with XP12, my expectation would be that some of the buildings would still look too cartoonish, and the mountain textures would be similar with 3D trees. I know Ortho XP would help that, but only so much I imagine. At times the buildings in XP look too harshly lighted which makes them look more artificial. Maybe they could do something with that. If I were an airliner guy I could see myself getting more excited about this, like as you said once after you climb out you don't see much ground anyway. In spite of all that, I'll buy a copy of XP12 eventually. There are things XP does that MSFS won't- like look its best without a steady internet connection, boot up faster, and offers a nicer feel of flight dynamics (to me). I think it's important to have an alternative to Microsoft- if for no other reason then XP works on Mac and Linux as well. And monopolies get kinda stale when you don't have any choice 😁 What ever's your ride to today, Happy Flying!
Austin is literally a math nerd who honestly has no clue about the consumer side of the flight sim world, that is with all the respect I can give his mind which he has a very good one on him. This is his baby, it's a man gone mad in his own little custom castle, there is no money and simply not the scale needed to make a more consumer centric foundation to build off. Xplane to be is like old 2D train sims, they are great at what they do but damn they appeal to a very , very, very small crowed and will forever be that way. It almost feels like Xplane should be an opensource freeware project and not a commercial product.
@@confuseddad2865 “There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.” So goes the saying with which most of us were taught to fly.
As mentioned in the video, the first iteration of the new X-Plane version, which is still Beta doesn't look too impressive, but I'm sure Laminar Research will improve the simulator with future updates, that's why I'm not too anxious to get X-Plane 12 right now. I'll probably wait for a few months.
Hey there old buddy, finally found your channel! I did just get XP12 and I'm happy with it. I always prefer rootin' for the small guy, and M$ got enough money from me for Windows. But that said, yes, at some point LR will have to do something about the ground textures and objects to stay relevant. The new weather engine and revamped physics are fantastic though, so I can't wait to see what the future brings. Aight, take care and see you out there!
It's a pipe dream, but I really wish Laminar and Lockheed would contact ASOBO and become permanent partners. Laminar working on flight physics and weather physics, with Lockheed working on system physics like radio attenuation, ILS systems, satellites, water physics, etc. Could you imagine how great of a super sim we'd have?
@@johnmaguire2185 MSFS absolutely has the better model, but it has worse implementation. Currently the wheels on an aircraft are points with no actual surface area, meaning you get no resistance to longitudinal forces once one wheel is off the ground, and side-loads can't be simulated. If you go into dev mode on the 748 you'll notice the Center of Lift is in front of the Center of Weight and the horizontal stabilizer provides upwards lift to counter-act. This is why aircraft feel so "twitchy" horizontally. The crosswinds affecting the aircraft are arbitrarily decreased starting at 50 knots airspeed and reach 0 at 1 knot airspeed, rather than staying consistent from 0 knots upwards. I can go on and on. Laminar research has had far more time to fine tine the finer points of the aerodynamic model. Will MSFS surpass XP in this? Obviously. Has it? Not in a lot of areas.
@@WestAirAviation yeah, nailed it... MSFS implementation needs a lot of improvement.... XP12 is not impressive so far, in any way... esp the flight model... I'm debating getting a refund on XP12 or writing it off as R&D... won't be spending a dime more on it though...
Since MSFS2020 got their hand on the Bing maps and injected them in the simulator basically they have screwed every other single simulator 😂 including goat simulator
If I was a die heart x plane user, this would be perfect. But really unless if you a IFR only or study pilot, I wouldn’t justify it. Plus, with community support FS2020 is getter closer to the realism of xplane
The helicopter flight model is THE selling point for me here idk what to say other than it's really well done at least for the robinson, and well there is very little competition to it right now, nearing the release of msfs helicopters so we shall see
I haven't tested it but it looks like near to the quality of DCS helos and that's awesome :D Msfs isn't quite ready yet for good helicopter flight models
I feel like Laminar got three issues when it comes to XP: 1. XP is always a port over of a port over of a port over which you can always see as some aircraft like the KingAir 90 are still from XP9 2. Multi platform support makes it hard to improve especially the graphics, MS can focus on Windows based environments and even got some trouble with Xbox, so imagine Laminars trouble with the Win/Linux/Mac combo... 3. Austin - for sure he drives this sim but I often feel like he is not interested in the community or third party developers. iniBuilds could have provided some neat aircraft for XP12, instead they partnered with MS/Asobo to bring their A310 for free in full fidelity PLUS some more aircraft even as they had the A310 and A300 in XP first. PMDG also stopped development for XP as they didn't know there was XP11 released just weeks after they published the DC-6 for XP10. Anyway Austin seems only really interested in getting stuff like the EGT being 5% more accurately simulated when flying through a cloud. I also was flying hours and hours in XP11 with the Zibo mod, not even improvements on this end made it to XP12 (keeping in mind MS basically hired the Working Title guys to rework the whole G1000NXi, the CJ4 Proline 21 and the Longnitudes G5000 on MSFS!). Seeing the 737 now is pretty cringe - all they added is a wobbling around horizontal stabilizer. On the A330 I also got my doubts - I don't think they are going to add a proper Airbus FMC, instead we will watch that generic Boeingish FMC till XP15 (keeping in mind that one was already in place on XP9). For now I got more faith in MSFS as the team from Asobo really moves forward on reworking stuff from ground up.
I alwas felt that XP devs have too many fields of interests, but none of which are the 3d world visuals. Performnce was kinda fixed with the Vulkan renderer but still, vanilla aircraft offering was simply too segmented: a lot of half-baked planes without a DLC-grade plane, a _main dish_ if you will. At this point the main selling point to any XP versions is free Zibo stuff. As you have pointed out, even mod-grade quality won't end up in future versions... Also IMHO, a high fidelity procedural world can be better than a sat imagery based, but unpolished one. Having seen XP12 and comparing it to XP11, I can't justify buying. I just hope they won't mess with XP11 availability so future hardware will give a chance to higher fps.
Your 3rd point is one of the big reasons I swapped over to MSFS and didn’t come back. A lot will tell you the commercial work that Laminar does with X-Plane is a positive but I always saw it as almost a negative. Most people using flight sims are hobbyists. They don’t need or want a commercial flight simulator. Development work for Laminar is driven by commercial customers and not by regular consumers. As X-Plane’s customers are loading terabytes and terabytes of ortho scenery on hard drives because they want to fly over “the world” and not Austin’s “plausible world”, Laminar continues to hold on to Austin’s belief that satellite imagery looks bad. MSFS beginnings were rough but the development team does listen. They have delivered on a number of things as time has gone on. For me, the flight model is what I’d describe as “believable”. It may not be 100% to the numbers but I have an awful lot of payware planes in my previous X-Plane hangar that didn’t fly anywhere close to the numbers either. I think there’s probably a lot of people like me out there that just didn’t see enough with X-Plane 12 to bring them back.
The airbus a330 will have an airbus fmc. Idk why you would assume it won’t when Austin said they are working on it. I honestly don’t know how y’all don’t understand this Asobo has money. They have six figures. They are backed by Microsoft. See all those people they hired of course they can do that Asobo is a million dollar company and Microsoft is a billion dollar company. Add all that up and yea that’s a whole lot of bread. Laminar doesn’t have as much as those companies so they have to be smart with there money. Not only that 3D visuals aren’t everything. It’s a flight simulator. Most important thing to a flight simulator is weather, aerodynamics, and obviously the planes. Satellite scenery has become a want it isn’t a need. I mean look how much problems the scenery causes for some people. You have to be mindful and not just assume they can hire people no problem.
Xplane will never compete with MSFS on ground textures, because the parent company doesn't have another subsidiary company that specialises in satellite imagery. I was tempted to try it out before i saw the A330 has a FMC. Huge own goal imo
Satellite imagery looks nice on MSFS2020 but when you get closer to the ground is horrendeous and looks like a warzone. That needs to be improved. The rest looks fantastic.
I guess that it actually would be possible as there are not just Google and Bing around. Laminar could have some partnership with ArcGIS to use their material - the thing is that Austin is not interested in that kind of stuff. I think he is against streaming tons of cloud data because of latency as he'd like to consume every nanosecond of the CPU possible for the flight model. You won't have to worry about that if you got low res textures for the ground on the local disk, eeh?
@@deltak5457 I think cost-wise it would be too much from Laminar’s standpoint. However I think Austin should work to expand his team and hire talented people to specialize in default visuals…flight dynamics are there so why not pair that with some immersive representation of the world?
@@QuantumGamingUploads I compared the MSFS UK world updates to Orbx GB TrueEarth in X-Plane 11 and the satellite imagery had far superior resolution in MSFS. The Orbx TrueEarth did have colour correction but that side has improved a lot in MSFS too but will never be perfect because of satellite providers capture the data at different times of the year. Now you are being a bit silly because you mentioned warzone which indicates you are discussing photogrammetry, this is not satellite imagery, it's captured a completely different way and besides you can turn this off so what's the problem? For me, this looks terrific, again different providers here and some do a better job than others.
I know a lot of people will disagree and agree with me here but my personal preference is for X-Plane. X-Plane has a better performance for me and graphical mods can be installed for free in some cases with X-Plane. X-Plane also has more addons (good ones) which I prefer in a flight simulator.
Nah I agree with you 100%. Perhaps I’m a little biased too because I’m a Mac user, and running MSFS on a bootcamp partition has given me more headaches than my DPE gives me on my checkrides, but if I’m being objective, where I fly usually, it only takes a quick Ortho4XP build in the area I want to fly to get X-Plane 12 looking comparable with MSFS where there hardly is any photogrammetry anyway.
If asobo can go from Zoo Tycoon (2017), the crew 2(2018), and A Plague Tale: Innocence(2019), and create an open "FULL" world MSFS (2020) and change the visual aspect. Its going to set the bar for a lot of other simulators. I'm sad that xp12, by a company that came out in 1995 hasn't made the visual change to help the actual VFR pilots in the sim. Someone is surely going to come in and say "xp is for IFR!" or "MSFS feels like a game" I would greatly expect xp to be different as its been in the game for 27 years, but I would expect that in that 27 years they set some cash back to change the visual aspect. Todays world not everyone can / wants to spend hundards of dollars more for what the other guy gives for free. The argument that some planes are going to come right over vs msfs only having the Fenix and the PMDG, well again falls back to a new studio vs your porting over old stuff. I had way higher expectations of xp12.
Idk how big laminar is, but asobo has the backing of Microsoft. Which is probably way bigger and more rich than laminar. This is the only possible explanation i can see. I think I'll be sticking with msfs
@@bluepyrotech I personally haven't experienced any bugs that stick out to me. I mean every piece of game and software has bugs, so I'm sure it has bugs. I haven't experienced anything yet
@@kalebchoi6372 makes sense but everytime with me trying msfs it either is buggy or have to install almost every time I open it or gets updates every 2 days
I don't think XP is for IFR anymore. When SU 10 comes out, MSFS will have the most advanced G1000 because the Working Title G1000 NXi is replacing the default G1000 in SU 10. In SU 10, the G1000 in MSFS will be superior to the G1000 of XP. Ergo, for people practicing IFR using the G1000, you are better off in MSFS in SU10 than XP, because MSFS will have the more advanced G1000, thanks to the Working Title team.
The only way Laminar Research can add the global graphics you wish for is if they were to partner with Google. MSFS utilizing Azure & Bing Maps requires the infrustructure of one of the world's largest companies. Billions of dollars of investment in mapping, a vast global network of data centres, software to convert satellite mapping to 3D scenery and optimised data streaming & networking.
tbh even the clouds look better in msfs, in xp12 they look very soft and don't have that texture of a cloud. imo xp12's only advantage in the flight model. (and maybe performance?)
Performance In xp11 is ass. And once cfd models come out for all planes in msfs XP12 won't have the flight model advantage that everyone has been going crazy about
I think some aspects of the scenery in MSFS are overstated slightly. If you live in an area that has photogrammetry then yes you can find your house and it will look pretty close to real life. However, if you don't live in such an area (like myself) then honestly it looks pretty similar to XP11 with ortho scenery. Granted I imagine most users fly in areas with photogrammetry scenery. The video was well made. In the air the sims have pulled closer together. I would give MSFS the slight edge in the weather system because it seems to do a better job of blending METARs and the prediction model (especially precipitation) for now but XP12 weather transitions seems much smoother for me with no giant wind shears in the transition area. However, the ground stuff isn't comparable and was never going to be. There are some subtle upgrades in XP12's ground (the textures are higher resolution, there are more additions of curved roads, and the default object density seems to be improved from XP11). MSFS will forever hold this crown but we all expected that and I never saw anything about XP12 revolutionizing or even attempting to compete with MSFS on this. I read somewhere and I'm paraphrasing it a bit but it boils down to the following: If you were satisfied with XP11 and it was your primary sim you will probably enjoy XP12 because of the improvements. If you were a primary MSFS user you will probably not enjoy it.
Xplane 11 default textures sucks, man. They are like an old Windows 95 desktop background, when it was a texture repeated unlimited times. At least, MSFS offers you their Bing maps textures.
Unless you live in Antarctica. If you can see your area in Bing Maps. You can see it in MSFS. The quality may go down in a country where bing's map has to use the satellite image but at least you have the correct streets, etc. X-Plane is bad even in NYC. Comparing XP 12 with MSFS when it comes to scenery and add-ons it is like comparing blackberry to iPhone 12. That's how bad the scenery is in XP. Some people continue that X-Plane has better flight dynamics but when you create a default A330 with an airbus computer all that argument goes away. Austin cannot compete with MSFS but he still wants to get some money (no doubt) he will play that x-plane has more physics until he can suck all he can with his software. In the end, he is a business guy.
Definitely Xplane 11.8 or Xp 11.5 with Xenviro. It's MSFS for me! The gap in flight dynamics is quickly closing between XP and msfs and even more so with the study level aircraft in MSFS and a super hot to trot dev team of Asobo and MS constantly pushing the boundaries
And by the time mfs gets there xplane will be ahead , mfs have more money , lr has experienced aeronautical engineers , asobo are a game developer and its going to take them alot longer than you think.
MSFS2020. After two years and update after update it is still bugged to the limit. Poor airport lighting, AI aircraft crap, AI aircraft doing wheelies. Airport lights disappearing when you approach. Don’t know about you but that sort of kills it for me
Xplane 11.5 well technically you’re correct this originally was going to be just another xplane 11 update but they decided that they can’t make money giving away free updates so they decided they call this update xplane 12. It never was never a brand new built from the ground up product or marketed as such. Took there product and built onto it.
The question one needs to ask themselves, are you interested in sight seeing with you simulator or are you interested in flight simulation? MSFS is pretty much a game and if you want the best looking game go with MSFS. If you are looking to deal with a close simulation to flying and the weather for the day you're flying, go with X-Plane 12.
Best comment I’ve seen so far. These people seem like they aren’t interested in the flight simulation part but more interested in the graphics and seeing there house.
Granted, X-Plane 12 does not us photogrametry, but I think it's land class data for autogen building generation could do with a lot of work. Our city, which no minor town, is lacking tall buildings where there should be tall buildings, and malls, or strip malls where there should be such detail. At least all of our airports, even the small ones, have all of their hangers, FBO buildings, and towers, if they exist in the real world. I use X-Plane as a fallback for when FS2020's photogrametry engine drops to autogen, whenever the Azure server connections drop too low to present photogrametry detail. Another nice thing about X-Plane 12, is it won't drop to desktop every time a USB device gets unplugged. You can also barnstorm the underpasses in X-Plane 12. And, there are no cars flying over tops of girder bridges, or overpasses. There are realistic looking street lights, instead of ufo orbs floating over roads, unlike in FS2020. LOL Lots of work needs to be done, but X-Plane 12 does look a little better, now. It is Beta, after all. Thanks for sharing this.
If they built decent tools to let us easily add what we want (a better world editor, and a better world data editor) we could easily get our various towns looking better.
I know it's a beta, but the user interface is terrible. In my opinion X-Plane's UIs have always been weak. The flight model is great though, which has also always been a feature of X-Plane. I wish Laminar Research would put a little more effort in to UI . . . especially in VR.
MSFS has better visuals. In terms of Flight Dynamics. I can't really tell XP apart from MSFS. They are both the same. MSFS in my opinion is the better option.
Yes and no. I don't expect it will look totally different when it exits beta, but I would hope there will be some incremental improvements. Also, once the free "mesh enhancements" packs are updated for XP12, things like the stupid shorelines will be fixed without any paid add-ons.
As a pilot I saved for a year to finally get my hands on a PC to run msfs. I was blown by the visual of the “game” but physics are just awful. After a month I was back in to x plane 11. I know X plane 12 won’t have my house to fly over or the amazing ground realism. But if you want real flying experience, this is secondary in my opinion.
As a student pilot, I can tell you that neither X-plane nor MSFS will give you the full experience. I do a perfect landing on C172 on the simulator (real simulator) with no challenges whatsoever. In real life, if you do not do corrections with the real weather and wind speed you will never land on the middle of the runway. it's another monster. VR can help you a little more when it comes to reality but still not the same. Most people who argue about it are because they saw a video or read it somewhere else. When you create a simulator with A330 and an FMC 737 all the physic argument goes away. That's shitty work. Austin knows he is running out of money so he releases this so he can get some cash before it is too late. In the end, he knows how this business runs.
@@AmilcarP As a private pilot, I can say its very difficult to try to replicate anything in a simulator to match the real world. It a sim after all. There are hardware limitations that you can only find in a multimillion dollar class D simulator. In my opinion, X-Plane has much better flight dynamics all around when comparing it to the real world.
Fully disagree with this talking point. The flight model talk was a thing years ago but that's not the case anymore. Both sims offer okay flight modeling.
The physics were just awful? Maybe you could explain why? The user doesn’t use the physics they use the aircraft devs flight model. MSFS boundary model is superior to XP blade element model. That’s just maths. The boundary model is a huge step up. Blade element uses lines to crate 2D airfoils. XP devs use less than 30 lines for the whole lift producing parts of the airframe. Boundary element uses surfaces to create 3D airfoils. MSFS devs can use 1000s of them to create a mesh of the airframe. You might be able to say MSFS devs need time to refine their use of the available tools in MSFS. While XP devs have had a decade or more to do that. The physics argument is a non starter.
I am in love with xp12 im so happy with what it is, im on my phone watching this video itching to go throw on my vr and hop into a flight. Just throw in some ortho and you are all good, i run ortho im so pumped about it.
I’ve been saying this since it released it’s like none of these UA-camrs or anybody for that matter seen any of the interviews or keynotes laminar never promised better scenery it wasn’t a focus and it was stated that scenery will be something that they may look into at a later date everyone hyped up the sim in their own mind and are disappointed about not getting something they were never told they was going to get
I think Austin has gotten complacent with not wanting to improve the graphics too much. It seems like he has either underestimated public expectations or willingly made it that way because he thinks it’s a niche product. There are also some visual bugs that don’t look right (sun doesn’t have proper rays, weird sun reflection on cockpit displays, night lighting too bright, cockpit too dark, anti-aliasing ruining cloud textures, and forests looking good up-close but poor from afar). Basically if you’re a regular MSFS or P3D user, the upgrade probably wouldn’t be worth it enough to switch over at the moment. If you’re an XP11 user who wants a larger update to the game (smaller audience), then they would be the ones to go for it.
@@ernestz.9260 I agree I’m not gonna say xplane 12 looks fantastic my complaint has been that the majority of the criticisms on it are based on expectations that were unwarranted on top of that this is clearly an early access/beta i would think a lot of the graphical bugs and other things will be tweaked and updated over time
@@paulD427 When you announce a whole new "generation" of sim........it's reasonable to expect a dramatic increase in quality/performance. People aren't complaining that there aren't big improvements but that's all it really is..big improvements. Not worth paying $50/60 for. This should've been X-Plane 11.5. MSFS (although arguably had a lot of issues) out the box offered you a DRAMATIC change in experience from FSX. A dramatic change for the better. X-Plane 12 has released, yeah it looks better, yeah there's some big improvements and new default aircraft...all of that is great but if overall, you're product doesn't feel much different from its predecessor, people are going to feel like they got short-changed. This is exactly what's happened. Whether this is a beta release or not, the final version is not going to be vastly different what you're experiencing now (software developer here). The beta is there to identify any show-stopping bugs as well at some minor tweaks to the final product. What you see now is basically what you're going to to get....and honestly, it's disappointing. People were looking for a reason to switch from MSFS back to X-Plane but if they're giving you pretty much what you've been receiving up until now, what's the point?
@@paulD427 Mmm. A company releasing a competitive product has to have a certain graphical standard. What you are saying might be true for Austin but that doesn't change expectations. You must have realized the graphical fidelity would be scrutinized no matter what. I guess Austin tried to play it down but he's failed miserably. There are no excuses here, the scenery sucks and it's going to hit sales of X-Plane. The hard facts are MSFS flight model isn't too bad, but it looks stunning, the hard sell for X-Plane is that it doesn't do a lot better than what it did well before and that's not a good formula to grow sales.
@@FlyIslandGuy I agree I’m not a fanboy of either sim, I use and like both I’ve enjoyed xplane11 more admittedly then msfs just cause of performance on my particular rig, and I agree laminar should have marketed it more as an upgrade of 11 than a new sim. but much like msfs I feel trailers and advertising is always cherry picked scenes most of the time legit produced trailers that aren’t gameplay I was dissatisfied with msfs at release also cause it didn’t have what I was expecting despite the obvious fact they never promised what I wanted or was expecting ie s p2atc type of atc and a better pushback kind of set up and full fidelity airliners at launch none of it was shown , but I had that in mind based on hype by Microsoft much like laminar did for those that are mad, and that’s my argument against a lot of the actual complaining the audience had unwarranted expectations despite not having any basis for them
Most of the simulator reviews are by non pilots… people that want a ‘game’. Oddly, MSFS2020 is just a the point of being useful for VFR training because it is getting the ground right. X-plane like DCS is concerned about aircraft simulation, not what is outside the window. I can fail the GPS when I want in x-plane, and it will simulate it correctly. I can change the simulation for real training at any time. MSFS2020… nope. That isn’t to say that flying in MSFS2020 is a bad thing. It is very good for private pilot VFR maneuvers. It is the eye candy game, that can now simulate VFR flight at a training level.
Thats exactly why its a new update-version: everything has been improved. Thats the purpose of a new iteration. You must be new to software developpment to not understand that.
xplane will always be a better flight simulator than msfs, msfs is great visually but other than that it is very shallow simulation wise compared with xplane
Why are so many people saying the flight model is so good in XP, and better than MSFS? I'm a real world PPL pilot and have never had a problem in MSFS, indeed XP seemed too smooth! It's choppy up there, especially at the lower altitudes and MSFS does a great job modelling that. Any other issues come down to the skill of the aircraft model developer. The reason we've had a lag in GOOD new aircraft for MSFS is because it's essentially a new product, just 2 years old. XP has been filling the void left by MS until 2020. But MS came back with a blaze of glory and is going to leave Austin and co light years behind with that graphics engine. Yeah it's a beta, but to get close to MSFS graphics will take years of development and I don't get the impression they want to try and keep up. That's a mistake, as graphics matter to most consumers. I don't see a rosy future for Laminar unfortunately.
TBH i find myself liking this new sim.. Or to be precise, what i was looking for when flying in the sim Xplane deliveres better than others... Yes the visuals are lacking, but other than that this sim brought a lot of improvements in the flying and being the pilot aspect of the sim... I understand that generally most of the good thing new xplane delivers wasnt what general public are looking for.. but then were starting nitpick... Great video as always
@@maddogtungate6740 if you’re talking about logging sim time, you are correct. However, you must have an instructor with you. Kinda defeats the purpose of an at home sim if you ask me. MSFS has been really accurate and helpful to me in terms of understanding and attempting different types of approaches, departures, even practicing Atc with vatsim. Yeah, it’s not loggable. Doesn’t really matter though
Same here, I uninstalled MSFS months ago, the flight dynamics feel so arcady, much like trying to simulate car racing in Need for Speed, where in XPlane it feels like a proper airplane sim, not perfect but pretty good!
It sounds like it's a surprise that it's not satellite imagery... Laminar stated for at least a year ago that they did not believe in satellite imagery. They wanted to go another way, and not copy mfs. It comes down to the same old, do you want to find your own house in the sim, fly scenic routes but feel like you are on rails in the sky then mfs is probably better. If you like accurate simulation of physics, then xp 12 is probably the way to go. They're different products for different customers.....
Ground textures are becoming a major problem for XP. I strongly advise Laminar to talk to satellite image companies. There MUST be a solution. I don't believe that in the year 2022, there is no solution for that. I don't even expect realistic houses, but at least the ground textures should be streamed. Apart from that flight physics, addons and stability are a lot better than MSFS. But MSFS is getting better.
It's a beta, and not final release, I think a lot of people have forgotten this...look how long it has taken MSFS 2020 , it still crashes after each up date, the flight dynamics in XPlane 12 is all over MSFS
@@mikeh497 imo, all MSFS needs is to start sim right into a flight to avoid navigating menus. Very useful for flight schools. Study sim aircraft modules are beginning to arrive
So…I had $60 in hand and had every intention to give it a shot…but I already own XP11 and am extremely happy with MSFS 2020. Your video combined with other streamers showcasing the title has solidified my decision: I’m going to save my money for another add-on within MSFS. I’m not even going to waste my time or the extra hard drive space to install the sim and ortho required to get this to look somewhat decent. The clouds are too soft for my taste and there’s a lot of repetitive patterns emerging with ground/puddle and cloud textures. Cockpit textures and instrumentation has the same uninspired and (in some cases) freeware quality look to them. I was also hoping for better coloration, but it still looks like the same ole’ mute, pale colored XP. It’s more of the same, so it gives me the feeling that things won’t change much, whether that’s XP12 or beyond. Seeing the potential of MSFS has allowed me to be patient and enjoy each and every add-on and update released. It’s been quite a long time since I felt this kind of excitement for a sim…and I intend to see where Asobo/Microsoft take us next!
Xp was never about visuals it was about flight dynamics and real feel it was a TRAINING tool not a game , that's why it's FAA cirtified for use as a credited simulator (with a licence instructor in a flight school) it currently is the program that's used to train the pilots of the new electric aircraft experiment that is in VT/NY. Msfs looks pretty but it's not as complex in any other systems, in xp you can see the actual wind flow on the aircraft study the g loads ect. It's engineering factors are far superior..msfs is a game that you can fly with a Xbox controller it's not a serious flying simulator. It's great for casual vfr looking around but not good when it comes to how an aircraft actually feels...
Yeah and this is from the perspective from most Flight simmmers. Sure its great for flight dynamics but if thats its only selling point it wont survive in the FS world
Hard to tell only 24 hours after release of its beta version what XPlane 12 will be like months from now, and hopefully this will all be fixed (mmhhh...) but the ground, trees and all scenery are simply XPlane 11, nothing has changed, period. Very disappointing in that regard... Truthfully, we cannot compare this to MSFS because that would be an unfair match but this is honestly very underwhelming. We already see users streaming XP12 early access videos using Otrho4XP in 2022. What happened to Laminar's touted huge XPlane upgrade to a 'modern' simulator?
I believe we can (and should) compare to MFS. They're both flight simulators. Sure, different approaches and tech behind it. But it's the same basic market.
@@hochmaniac Lol! In that comparison, Microsoft 'smokes' X-Plane but realistically Laminar should have and could have spent more time on the graphics and made its own sim stay XPlane but with a much better and pleasant look. Austin decided instead to limit the upgrades to his wet airports (?!) when there are numerous third parties that already code airports for a living. I use MSFS, XPlane and Prepar3, each has its own 'flavor'. XPlane missed the mark big time on this release. I have dumped XPlane a year ago because of Austin's and Laminar's continued insistence on nonsense details and on keeping their sim looking very old.
@@Sputnik21 only on graphics and scenery everything it is miles ahead with xp12 first principles in recip and turbo prop and n2 for jets has been massively improved
Beta is in the title. It's not the final product. Austin said to expect changes in the future. The ground textures are supposed to change. If it's that bad, you can always go back to MSFS, the most perfect sim ever! Absolutely nothing wrong with that game.
If Austin Mayer is probably the best at creating a realistic flight model, he's also the worst "Art Director" when it comes to visuals! I'm certainly not going to waste my time or money redoing the whole planet in orthophoto or other software ! Laminar Research should have upgraded their "%#/¢*" pale greenish planet long before MSFS 2020 kicked them in the "%#/¢*" They just lost another customer!
I don’t know about X-Plane 11, I came from X-Plane 10 and very disappointed with the ground very much like 10, terrible! expected google earth just hope it can only get better 🙁
Cash grab from Austin, nothing else. He even joked in one of the streams about being excited to released to it so he could get lots of money. That’s all he cares about, period.
@@AmilcarP He never does, he did like an interview when MSFS came out, like some 2 years ago, shitting on MSFS and 3rd Party Devs. I was pissed, back then XP11 was what I was using, still use it to this day. Don't know why, but he seems to be trolling all the time. If his goal aren't normal simmers like us, why bother and release the software to us? He should go full professional for those big ass simulation companies and that's that. I try to see XP far from Austin, he's a genious, but sometimes too much of a troll.
X-Plane is still better. The essence of a FLIGHT simulator is the flying characteristics. You want good visuals? Orbx and free mesh sceneries. There you go. I have never met a person that purely flies VFR in a sim and spends more time in GA than jets. It’s hilarious listening to people say the visuals are what makes them choose MSFS when they spend 99% of their time in the sim at 30,000 feet. MSFS “raised the bar” and it’s only taken them over 2 years to knead out horrendous bugs and actually have full fidelity aircraft. Flight models and great aircraft at launch > Visuals at low altitude for the 2% of the time you fly VFR in the sim. No brainer.
I used to spend my time flying at 30,000 ft but with MSFS I actually have spent more time flying at lower altitudes in aircraft such as the PMDG DC-6, the kodiak, etc. It makes you appreciate actual flying when in xplane you really try and stay away from the visuals. Yeah you can spend thousands on orbx scenery and take up terabytes on your hard drive, that’s a hard pass for me.
The essence of a flight simulator is to practice what you will do in real life. Neither X-Plane nor MSFS will help you cover that. When I do practice landing in the C172 (touch and go) it is to practice to get used to the real deal. Why do we do simulators? Practice the cheap way. But it is never close to reality. I never flew a big jet but I can tell you that I see no difference between Zibo and PMDG 737. Both behave the same in the air. However in MSFS if you Take off from Newark and you will see the port as it is. Take off from LGA and you will see the city as it is. Saying that ORBX can simulate that is horrendous. Austin knows he cannot compete with MSFS. He will not trash his own simulator he will always say X-plane is better. In the end, it is marketing.
I fly 90% VFR in a Cessna 172 in a sim, because that’s what I fly in real life. I use X-Plane 11 with Orbx True Earth U.K. scenery, connected to SkyDemon (the app I use to plan flights and navigate in real life). I am enjoying X-Plane 12.
I contacted Orbx today, to ask if True Earth U.K. is compatible with XPlane 12. Orbx said no, not yet. A UA-cam commenter on another video told me he just copied the scenery across and it works ok, though.
Not yet because just like msfs the water is not alive it's a photo has no gradual depth it's flat then a shelf and your in deep water,this taxing water aircraft was like dropping off a cliff. Now it's more real with depth variants and gradual transition so some maps work land locked ones..but with xp12 water it's alive it freezes changes color and dynamics. The msfs world just looks like an over saturated photo.. doesn't feel alive to me.
I sit in front of PC,watch all XP12 vids and I am very sad. Why no MSFS with XP flight model? sad realy sad. All I see is a great flight model and a great rain simulator.
I have been an instructor pilot of light and ultralight aircraft for over 35 years, and I honestly do not think the graphics of the FS 2020 scenarios are adequate for the real training of light and ultralight aircraft pilots. Microsoft has designed it (rightly) for those who want to play and not for the training of pilots. for this reason it is much better to take the realism of the X-Plane flight model and build on it autonomously some dedicated scenarios. Which is what has been successfully done with the Italian project of the "VFR ESTREMO
XP12 looks like slightly improve from XP11 with a price tag and bunch of bugs!! Performance is worse. A330 being featured has 737 FMC!!, What a load of crap! being on EA doesn't excuse it from criticism. I hope XP12 can better compete with msfs though, competition is always a good thing. Alot of this BS claims about flight physics is better than on XP... Wonder what qualifies? It feels on on-rail scripted for sure for on XP, Weather, wind, drag, airport elevation and air density don't matter much on XP as it feels scripted with not much simulation at all. Watch CFD for msfs: ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
No I think X-Plane 12 Has a lot of simulation. And this a330 having a 737 fmc argument is already solved laminar is working on an airbus fmc. Somebody on discord did a flight with the a330 they told me it was flawless and they had no issues the whole way. Y’all are being to harsh on a sim that’s supposed to be early access not everything is going to be perfect. The physics are a bit better in my opinion. Some planes in fs2020 are better than X-Plane it terms of physics it really depends on what plane it is.
Who cares about the ground textures this is a flight simulator for fun and educational purposes for students professionals o r just for a hobby no other simulator have the best tech support that's enough. Microsoft doesn't care about your equipment but laminar research cares about the low end or the high consumers and utilize a lot of the physics to benefit your experience but Microsoft that's a fancy game only
I started simming in FSX, then upgraded to XP11 & P3D and I loved it. Later also purchased mfs for the visuals. Unfortunately I don’t really see how the price is justified for XP12(
It's 60$ compared to 100$..does every switch work in msfs if you turn this knob does it affect the aircraft as it does in the real one xp models this one is a training sim one is a scenery sim..
XP12 is a big letdown. I was expecting a lot more from LR developers. Especiaöly when we are in 2022 and have MSFS to compete with. It's basically a new XP11 with some rain puddles. P3D v5 will still be my primary sim.
I don't get how they still have terrible clouds and lighting.. it's 2022 and every single game or sim has had better since 2012. In fact the entire sim looks like it's right out of 2012. The clear daylight is way too dark.. still. It needs to be at least twice as bright. this is Earth, not Mars. The only cool thing here is the water effects. XPlane 9 got me into flight sim and then I got 10.. but was and still am disappointed with the progress since.
The ground textures look like xp11...??? OMG! -It was pretty known, comunicated several times before by LR and is NO surprise. So, folks, when you all really think that is important for a good flight simulator...Go to MSFS. This "First Look Video" here had its judgement before the video began. I have tested XP12 so far as well and i love it. It is a flight simulator and no "there-is-my-house sightseeing simulator"!
Go back to the MSFS game. X Plane is a flight sim. Explain doesn’t have this technology at Microsoft as as far as satellites go. So go back to your game and I’ll practice IFR provides.
X-Plane is also a game unless you have this : ua-cam.com/video/xRaiCEzDFKA/v-deo.html . Otherwise, it will not meet the certification. Flying a 737 with a joystick and a keyboard is far from a simulator. 😂
I fly both X-Plane and MSFS. They do offer different strengths in their own ways. I fly a lot of VFR closer to the ground, so while I appreciate that X-Plane has had more accurate towers, light posts and ground obstacles for pilots to avoid, I admit some disappointment seeing the beta 12 ground textures. On one hand, it's great they changed the gamma value in the graphics to get less flat looking color, but as was said in the video, one's often left with the impression they're looking at XP11 textures covered with more 3D trees and foliage.
I flew the Brenner Pass from Innsbruck to Italy near dusk in XP11 and then MSFS- if I were to repeat that with XP12, my expectation would be that some of the buildings would still look too cartoonish, and the mountain textures would be similar with 3D trees. I know Ortho XP would help that, but only so much I imagine. At times the buildings in XP look too harshly lighted which makes them look more artificial. Maybe they could do something with that. If I were an airliner guy I could see myself getting more excited about this, like as you said once after you climb out you don't see much ground anyway.
In spite of all that, I'll buy a copy of XP12 eventually. There are things XP does that MSFS won't- like look its best without a steady internet connection, boot up faster, and offers a nicer feel of flight dynamics (to me). I think it's important to have an alternative to Microsoft- if for no other reason then XP works on Mac and Linux as well. And monopolies get kinda stale when you don't have any choice 😁
What ever's your ride to today, Happy Flying!
Austin is literally a math nerd who honestly has no clue about the consumer side of the flight sim world, that is with all the respect I can give his mind which he has a very good one on him. This is his baby, it's a man gone mad in his own little custom castle, there is no money and simply not the scale needed to make a more consumer centric foundation to build off. Xplane to be is like old 2D train sims, they are great at what they do but damn they appeal to a very , very, very small crowed and will forever be that way. It almost feels like Xplane should be an opensource freeware project and not a commercial product.
Austin works hard to give us the best flight sim...... great work X plane
@@Nik531 He does but what I am saying is he has missed the mark on the consumer side of things but he knows this side of the sim is essentially dead
@@confuseddad2865 “There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.” So goes the saying with which most of us were taught to fly.
austing doing too much talk about flight model, instead of improving other aspect of the product
Laminar was showcasing that A330 like full study level plane. And here we are with a Boeing FMC in an Airbus A330. You can’t make this shit up!!
😂
@Mark Vukotich LOL!!
Airbus fmc is coming soon just so you know. Early access remember?
As mentioned in the video, the first iteration of the new X-Plane version, which is still Beta doesn't look too impressive, but I'm sure Laminar Research will improve the simulator with future updates, that's why I'm not too anxious to get X-Plane 12 right now. I'll probably wait for a few months.
Hey there old buddy, finally found your channel! I did just get XP12 and I'm happy with it. I always prefer rootin' for the small guy, and M$ got enough money from me for Windows. But that said, yes, at some point LR will have to do something about the ground textures and objects to stay relevant. The new weather engine and revamped physics are fantastic though, so I can't wait to see what the future brings. Aight, take care and see you out there!
It's a pipe dream, but I really wish Laminar and Lockheed would contact ASOBO and become permanent partners. Laminar working on flight physics and weather physics, with Lockheed working on system physics like radio attenuation, ILS systems, satellites, water physics, etc.
Could you imagine how great of a super sim we'd have?
This comment about flight physics is two years out of date. MSFS easily has the better mathematical model.
@@johnmaguire2185 MSFS absolutely has the better model, but it has worse implementation. Currently the wheels on an aircraft are points with no actual surface area, meaning you get no resistance to longitudinal forces once one wheel is off the ground, and side-loads can't be simulated. If you go into dev mode on the 748 you'll notice the Center of Lift is in front of the Center of Weight and the horizontal stabilizer provides upwards lift to counter-act. This is why aircraft feel so "twitchy" horizontally. The crosswinds affecting the aircraft are arbitrarily decreased starting at 50 knots airspeed and reach 0 at 1 knot airspeed, rather than staying consistent from 0 knots upwards. I can go on and on.
Laminar research has had far more time to fine tine the finer points of the aerodynamic model. Will MSFS surpass XP in this? Obviously. Has it? Not in a lot of areas.
@@johnmaguire2185 thats really funny
@@WestAirAviation yeah, nailed it... MSFS implementation needs a lot of improvement.... XP12 is not impressive so far, in any way... esp the flight model... I'm debating getting a refund on XP12 or writing it off as R&D... won't be spending a dime more on it though...
We need time to see what Asobo is really capable of. They will be completey rewriting the ground physics and there's a 20 km CFD on the way
Since MSFS2020 got their hand on the Bing maps and injected them in the simulator basically they have screwed every other single simulator 😂 including goat simulator
If I was a die heart x plane user, this would be perfect. But really unless if you a IFR only or study pilot, I wouldn’t justify it. Plus, with community support FS2020 is getter closer to the realism of xplane
The helicopter flight model is THE selling point for me here idk what to say other than it's really well done at least for the robinson, and well there is very little competition to it right now, nearing the release of msfs helicopters so we shall see
I haven't tested it but it looks like near to the quality of DCS helos and that's awesome :D Msfs isn't quite ready yet for good helicopter flight models
I feel like Laminar got three issues when it comes to XP:
1. XP is always a port over of a port over of a port over which you can always see as some aircraft like the KingAir 90 are still from XP9
2. Multi platform support makes it hard to improve especially the graphics, MS can focus on Windows based environments and even got some trouble with Xbox, so imagine Laminars trouble with the Win/Linux/Mac combo...
3. Austin - for sure he drives this sim but I often feel like he is not interested in the community or third party developers. iniBuilds could have provided some neat aircraft for XP12, instead they partnered with MS/Asobo to bring their A310 for free in full fidelity PLUS some more aircraft even as they had the A310 and A300 in XP first. PMDG also stopped development for XP as they didn't know there was XP11 released just weeks after they published the DC-6 for XP10. Anyway Austin seems only really interested in getting stuff like the EGT being 5% more accurately simulated when flying through a cloud.
I also was flying hours and hours in XP11 with the Zibo mod, not even improvements on this end made it to XP12 (keeping in mind MS basically hired the Working Title guys to rework the whole G1000NXi, the CJ4 Proline 21 and the Longnitudes G5000 on MSFS!). Seeing the 737 now is pretty cringe - all they added is a wobbling around horizontal stabilizer.
On the A330 I also got my doubts - I don't think they are going to add a proper Airbus FMC, instead we will watch that generic Boeingish FMC till XP15 (keeping in mind that one was already in place on XP9). For now I got more faith in MSFS as the team from Asobo really moves forward on reworking stuff from ground up.
The last one, yes. A330 will have the default FMC
I alwas felt that XP devs have too many fields of interests, but none of which are the 3d world visuals. Performnce was kinda fixed with the Vulkan renderer but still, vanilla aircraft offering was simply too segmented: a lot of half-baked planes without a DLC-grade plane, a _main dish_ if you will. At this point the main selling point to any XP versions is free Zibo stuff. As you have pointed out, even mod-grade quality won't end up in future versions... Also IMHO, a high fidelity procedural world can be better than a sat imagery based, but unpolished one. Having seen XP12 and comparing it to XP11, I can't justify buying. I just hope they won't mess with XP11 availability so future hardware will give a chance to higher fps.
Your 3rd point is one of the big reasons I swapped over to MSFS and didn’t come back. A lot will tell you the commercial work that Laminar does with X-Plane is a positive but I always saw it as almost a negative. Most people using flight sims are hobbyists. They don’t need or want a commercial flight simulator. Development work for Laminar is driven by commercial customers and not by regular consumers.
As X-Plane’s customers are loading terabytes and terabytes of ortho scenery on hard drives because they want to fly over “the world” and not Austin’s “plausible world”, Laminar continues to hold on to Austin’s belief that satellite imagery looks bad.
MSFS beginnings were rough but the development team does listen. They have delivered on a number of things as time has gone on. For me, the flight model is what I’d describe as “believable”. It may not be 100% to the numbers but I have an awful lot of payware planes in my previous X-Plane hangar that didn’t fly anywhere close to the numbers either. I think there’s probably a lot of people like me out there that just didn’t see enough with X-Plane 12 to bring them back.
The airbus a330 will have an airbus fmc. Idk why you would assume it won’t when Austin said they are working on it. I honestly don’t know how y’all don’t understand this Asobo has money. They have six figures. They are backed by Microsoft. See all those people they hired of course they can do that Asobo is a million dollar company and Microsoft is a billion dollar company. Add all that up and yea that’s a whole lot of bread. Laminar doesn’t have as much as those companies so they have to be smart with there money. Not only that 3D visuals aren’t everything. It’s a flight simulator. Most important thing to a flight simulator is weather, aerodynamics, and obviously the planes. Satellite scenery has become a want it isn’t a need. I mean look how much problems the scenery causes for some people. You have to be mindful and not just assume they can hire people no problem.
Very valid review. Good work Hoch.
Xplane will never compete with MSFS on ground textures, because the parent company doesn't have another subsidiary company that specialises in satellite imagery.
I was tempted to try it out before i saw the A330 has a FMC. Huge own goal imo
Satellite imagery looks nice on MSFS2020 but when you get closer to the ground is horrendeous and looks like a warzone. That needs to be improved. The rest looks fantastic.
I guess that it actually would be possible as there are not just Google and Bing around. Laminar could have some partnership with ArcGIS to use their material - the thing is that Austin is not interested in that kind of stuff.
I think he is against streaming tons of cloud data because of latency as he'd like to consume every nanosecond of the CPU possible for the flight model.
You won't have to worry about that if you got low res textures for the ground on the local disk, eeh?
@@deltak5457 probably more the cost of the licences to use the satellite images commercially
@@deltak5457 I think cost-wise it would be too much from Laminar’s standpoint. However I think Austin should work to expand his team and hire talented people to specialize in default visuals…flight dynamics are there so why not pair that with some immersive representation of the world?
@@QuantumGamingUploads I compared the MSFS UK world updates to Orbx GB TrueEarth in X-Plane 11 and the satellite imagery had far superior resolution in MSFS. The Orbx TrueEarth did have colour correction but that side has improved a lot in MSFS too but will never be perfect because of satellite providers capture the data at different times of the year. Now you are being a bit silly because you mentioned warzone which indicates you are discussing photogrammetry, this is not satellite imagery, it's captured a completely different way and besides you can turn this off so what's the problem? For me, this looks terrific, again different providers here and some do a better job than others.
I know a lot of people will disagree and agree with me here but my personal preference is for X-Plane. X-Plane has a better performance for me and graphical mods can be installed for free in some cases with X-Plane. X-Plane also has more addons (good ones) which I prefer in a flight simulator.
Nah I agree with you 100%. Perhaps I’m a little biased too because I’m a Mac user, and running MSFS on a bootcamp partition has given me more headaches than my DPE gives me on my checkrides, but if I’m being objective, where I fly usually, it only takes a quick Ortho4XP build in the area I want to fly to get X-Plane 12 looking comparable with MSFS where there hardly is any photogrammetry anyway.
Funny seeing you here...
@@Lazy_Aviator i-
@@BudgetFlyer What are the chances man
After going to msfs visuals I cant go backwards
I feel the same way
Exactly.
I feel the same way...
@Lungho agree.
I mean, if you fly the simulator just for the visuals...
If asobo can go from Zoo Tycoon (2017), the crew 2(2018), and A Plague Tale: Innocence(2019), and create an open "FULL" world MSFS (2020) and change the visual aspect. Its going to set the bar for a lot of other simulators. I'm sad that xp12, by a company that came out in 1995 hasn't made the visual change to help the actual VFR pilots in the sim. Someone is surely going to come in and say "xp is for IFR!" or "MSFS feels like a game" I would greatly expect xp to be different as its been in the game for 27 years, but I would expect that in that 27 years they set some cash back to change the visual aspect. Todays world not everyone can / wants to spend hundards of dollars more for what the other guy gives for free. The argument that some planes are going to come right over vs msfs only having the Fenix and the PMDG, well again falls back to a new studio vs your porting over old stuff. I had way higher expectations of xp12.
Idk how big laminar is, but asobo has the backing of Microsoft. Which is probably way bigger and more rich than laminar. This is the only possible explanation i can see. I think I'll be sticking with msfs
@@kalebchoi6372 the game with bugs?
@@bluepyrotech I personally haven't experienced any bugs that stick out to me. I mean every piece of game and software has bugs, so I'm sure it has bugs. I haven't experienced anything yet
@@kalebchoi6372 makes sense but everytime with me trying msfs it either is buggy or have to install almost every time I open it or gets updates every 2 days
I don't think XP is for IFR anymore. When SU 10 comes out, MSFS will have the most advanced G1000 because the Working Title G1000 NXi is replacing the default G1000 in SU 10. In SU 10, the G1000 in MSFS will be superior to the G1000 of XP. Ergo, for people practicing IFR using the G1000, you are better off in MSFS in SU10 than XP, because MSFS will have the more advanced G1000, thanks to the Working Title team.
The only way Laminar Research can add the global graphics you wish for is if they were to partner with Google. MSFS utilizing Azure & Bing Maps requires the infrustructure of one of the world's largest companies. Billions of dollars of investment in mapping, a vast global network of data centres, software to convert satellite mapping to 3D scenery and optimised data streaming & networking.
tbh even the clouds look better in msfs, in xp12 they look very soft and don't have that texture of a cloud. imo xp12's only advantage in the flight model. (and maybe performance?)
Performance In xp11 is ass. And once cfd models come out for all planes in msfs XP12 won't have the flight model advantage that everyone has been going crazy about
Allmost all plugins work for xp12 also as of today, fs economy even works and is updated.
Some people just can't be happy.... X plane is the best Flight sims I don't care what cat shit looks like.... It flys great
I think some aspects of the scenery in MSFS are overstated slightly. If you live in an area that has photogrammetry then yes you can find your house and it will look pretty close to real life. However, if you don't live in such an area (like myself) then honestly it looks pretty similar to XP11 with ortho scenery. Granted I imagine most users fly in areas with photogrammetry scenery.
The video was well made. In the air the sims have pulled closer together. I would give MSFS the slight edge in the weather system because it seems to do a better job of blending METARs and the prediction model (especially precipitation) for now but XP12 weather transitions seems much smoother for me with no giant wind shears in the transition area.
However, the ground stuff isn't comparable and was never going to be. There are some subtle upgrades in XP12's ground (the textures are higher resolution, there are more additions of curved roads, and the default object density seems to be improved from XP11). MSFS will forever hold this crown but we all expected that and I never saw anything about XP12 revolutionizing or even attempting to compete with MSFS on this.
I read somewhere and I'm paraphrasing it a bit but it boils down to the following: If you were satisfied with XP11 and it was your primary sim you will probably enjoy XP12 because of the improvements. If you were a primary MSFS user you will probably not enjoy it.
Xplane 11 default textures sucks, man. They are like an old Windows 95 desktop background, when it was a texture repeated unlimited times.
At least, MSFS offers you their Bing maps textures.
Unless you live in Antarctica. If you can see your area in Bing Maps. You can see it in MSFS. The quality may go down in a country where bing's map has to use the satellite image but at least you have the correct streets, etc. X-Plane is bad even in NYC. Comparing XP 12 with MSFS when it comes to scenery and add-ons it is like comparing blackberry to iPhone 12. That's how bad the scenery is in XP. Some people continue that X-Plane has better flight dynamics but when you create a default A330 with an airbus computer all that argument goes away. Austin cannot compete with MSFS but he still wants to get some money (no doubt) he will play that x-plane has more physics until he can suck all he can with his software. In the end, he is a business guy.
msfs without photogrammetry looks nothing like xp12 with ortho lmao. It looks x10 better even with photogrammetry off, have you even compared them??
Definitely Xplane 11.8 or Xp 11.5 with Xenviro. It's MSFS for me! The gap in flight dynamics is quickly closing between XP and msfs and even more so with the study level aircraft in MSFS and a super hot to trot dev team of Asobo and MS constantly pushing the boundaries
And by the time mfs gets there xplane will be ahead , mfs have more money , lr has experienced aeronautical engineers , asobo are a game developer and its going to take them alot longer than you think.
I agree. This should never be called as xp 12. Hopefully they are build a new one from ground up, so it will be a true next gen flight sim.
MSFS2020. After two years and update after update it is still bugged to the limit. Poor airport lighting, AI aircraft crap, AI aircraft doing wheelies. Airport lights disappearing when you approach. Don’t know about you but that sort of kills it for me
Isn’t X Plane more accurate in instrument flying and with actual cockpit functionality like the G 1000?
@@DC3Refom Asobo has test pilots and aeronautical engineers working with them on the field all the time...don't know from where you got that one.
From a camera And physic perspective.X-plane is still the king!
This vid with 720p is sub par. Other videos with higher res look a lot better. But maybe this is a beta.
Xplane 11.5 well technically you’re correct this originally was going to be just another xplane 11 update but they decided that they can’t make money giving away free updates so they decided they call this update xplane 12. It never was never a brand new built from the ground up product or marketed as such. Took there product and built onto it.
The question one needs to ask themselves, are you interested in sight seeing with you simulator or are you interested in flight simulation? MSFS is pretty much a game and if you want the best looking game go with MSFS. If you are looking to deal with a close simulation to flying and the weather for the day you're flying, go with X-Plane 12.
Maybe, used to be that way. Things change.
@@tedburg6042 And pilots with real life experience will let you know when that change represents the realm thing.
Best comment I’ve seen so far. These people seem like they aren’t interested in the flight simulation part but more interested in the graphics and seeing there house.
Granted, X-Plane 12 does not us photogrametry, but I think it's land class data for autogen building generation could do with a lot of work. Our city, which no minor town, is lacking tall buildings where there should be tall buildings, and malls, or strip malls where there should be such detail. At least all of our airports, even the small ones, have all of their hangers, FBO buildings, and towers, if they exist in the real world. I use X-Plane as a fallback for when FS2020's photogrametry engine drops to autogen, whenever the Azure server connections drop too low to present photogrametry detail. Another nice thing about X-Plane 12, is it won't drop to desktop every time a USB device gets unplugged. You can also barnstorm the underpasses in X-Plane 12. And, there are no cars flying over tops of girder bridges, or overpasses. There are realistic looking street lights, instead of ufo orbs floating over roads, unlike in FS2020. LOL Lots of work needs to be done, but X-Plane 12 does look a little better, now. It is Beta, after all. Thanks for sharing this.
If they built decent tools to let us easily add what we want (a better world editor, and a better world data editor) we could easily get our various towns looking better.
Love your videos Hoch!!! Thanks for your insight and for being awesome my man!!!
I appreciate that!
I know it's a beta, but the user interface is terrible. In my opinion X-Plane's UIs have always been weak. The flight model is great though, which has also always been a feature of X-Plane. I wish Laminar Research would put a little more effort in to UI . . . especially in VR.
Basically what it comes down to is, do you want to pay $119 for a scenery simulator, or $60 for a flight simulator?
ah no you pay 60 dollars for a sim that looks horrible. Worse then FSX. MSFS has the all round advantage.
MSFS has better visuals. In terms of Flight Dynamics. I can't really tell XP apart from MSFS. They are both the same. MSFS in my opinion is the better option.
Xplane 11 with filter😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If this is beta, then that means the game is basically going to look how what you see.
Yes and no. I don't expect it will look totally different when it exits beta, but I would hope there will be some incremental improvements. Also, once the free "mesh enhancements" packs are updated for XP12, things like the stupid shorelines will be fixed without any paid add-ons.
As a pilot I saved for a year to finally get my hands on a PC to run msfs. I was blown by the visual of the “game” but physics are just awful. After a month I was back in to x plane 11. I know X plane 12 won’t have my house to fly over or the amazing ground realism. But if you want real flying experience, this is secondary in my opinion.
As a student pilot, I can tell you that neither X-plane nor MSFS will give you the full experience. I do a perfect landing on C172 on the simulator (real simulator) with no challenges whatsoever. In real life, if you do not do corrections with the real weather and wind speed you will never land on the middle of the runway. it's another monster. VR can help you a little more when it comes to reality but still not the same. Most people who argue about it are because they saw a video or read it somewhere else. When you create a simulator with A330 and an FMC 737 all the physic argument goes away. That's shitty work. Austin knows he is running out of money so he releases this so he can get some cash before it is too late. In the end, he knows how this business runs.
@@AmilcarP As a private pilot, I can say its very difficult to try to replicate anything in a simulator to match the real world. It a sim after all. There are hardware limitations that you can only find in a multimillion dollar class D simulator. In my opinion, X-Plane has much better flight dynamics all around when comparing it to the real world.
Fully disagree with this talking point. The flight model talk was a thing years ago but that's not the case anymore. Both sims offer okay flight modeling.
XP12 can be used as a platform for future scenery expansions that blow away the current fidelity of MSFS….
The physics were just awful? Maybe you could explain why?
The user doesn’t use the physics they use the aircraft devs flight model. MSFS boundary model is superior to XP blade element model. That’s just maths. The boundary model is a huge step up.
Blade element uses lines to crate 2D airfoils. XP devs use less than 30 lines for the whole lift producing parts of the airframe.
Boundary element uses surfaces to create 3D airfoils. MSFS devs can use 1000s of them to create a mesh of the airframe.
You might be able to say MSFS devs need time to refine their use of the available tools in MSFS. While XP devs have had a decade or more to do that. The physics argument is a non starter.
I am in love with xp12 im so happy with what it is, im on my phone watching this video itching to go throw on my vr and hop into a flight. Just throw in some ortho and you are all good, i run ortho im so pumped about it.
Tried Ortho today, performance tanks down to unplayable so I'll just wait for some ORBX true earth scenery!
@@PainDive1 whats your pc specs
@@nick-dm3if 5800x @4.7 all core, 3090ti FTW3 also OC, 32gb DDR4 at 3800 1:1 infinity fabric cl16, two 1Gb 980pro in raid 0.
Meh staying with XP11 and MSFS. Not gonna spend alot of new addons :(
0:27, this isn't Beta. This is full release with bugs to be fixed that's it. I doubt textures/graphics will change.
I’ve been saying this since it released it’s like none of these UA-camrs or anybody for that matter seen any of the interviews or keynotes laminar never promised better scenery it wasn’t a focus and it was stated that scenery will be something that they may look into at a later date everyone hyped up the sim in their own mind and are disappointed about not getting something they were never told they was going to get
I think Austin has gotten complacent with not wanting to improve the graphics too much. It seems like he has either underestimated public expectations or willingly made it that way because he thinks it’s a niche product. There are also some visual bugs that don’t look right (sun doesn’t have proper rays, weird sun reflection on cockpit displays, night lighting too bright, cockpit too dark, anti-aliasing ruining cloud textures, and forests looking good up-close but poor from afar).
Basically if you’re a regular MSFS or P3D user, the upgrade probably wouldn’t be worth it enough to switch over at the moment. If you’re an XP11 user who wants a larger update to the game (smaller audience), then they would be the ones to go for it.
@@ernestz.9260 I agree I’m not gonna say xplane 12 looks fantastic my complaint has been that the majority of the criticisms on it are based on expectations that were unwarranted on top of that this is clearly an early access/beta i would think a lot of the graphical bugs and other things will be tweaked and updated over time
@@paulD427 When you announce a whole new "generation" of sim........it's reasonable to expect a dramatic increase in quality/performance. People aren't complaining that there aren't big improvements but that's all it really is..big improvements. Not worth paying $50/60 for. This should've been X-Plane 11.5. MSFS (although arguably had a lot of issues) out the box offered you a DRAMATIC change in experience from FSX. A dramatic change for the better. X-Plane 12 has released, yeah it looks better, yeah there's some big improvements and new default aircraft...all of that is great but if overall, you're product doesn't feel much different from its predecessor, people are going to feel like they got short-changed. This is exactly what's happened. Whether this is a beta release or not, the final version is not going to be vastly different what you're experiencing now (software developer here). The beta is there to identify any show-stopping bugs as well at some minor tweaks to the final product. What you see now is basically what you're going to to get....and honestly, it's disappointing. People were looking for a reason to switch from MSFS back to X-Plane but if they're giving you pretty much what you've been receiving up until now, what's the point?
@@paulD427 Mmm. A company releasing a competitive product has to have a certain graphical standard. What you are saying might be true for Austin but that doesn't change expectations. You must have realized the graphical fidelity would be scrutinized no matter what. I guess Austin tried to play it down but he's failed miserably. There are no excuses here, the scenery sucks and it's going to hit sales of X-Plane. The hard facts are MSFS flight model isn't too bad, but it looks stunning, the hard sell for X-Plane is that it doesn't do a lot better than what it did well before and that's not a good formula to grow sales.
@@FlyIslandGuy I agree I’m not a fanboy of either sim, I use and like both I’ve enjoyed xplane11 more admittedly then msfs just cause of performance on my particular rig, and I agree laminar should have marketed it more as an upgrade of 11 than a new sim. but much like msfs I feel trailers and advertising is always cherry picked scenes most of the time legit produced trailers that aren’t gameplay I was dissatisfied with msfs at release also cause it didn’t have what I was expecting despite the obvious fact they never promised what I wanted or was expecting ie s p2atc type of atc and a better pushback kind of set up and full fidelity airliners at launch none of it was shown , but I had that in mind based on hype by Microsoft much like laminar did for those that are mad, and that’s my argument against a lot of the actual complaining the audience had unwarranted expectations despite not having any basis for them
Most of the simulator reviews are by non pilots… people that want a ‘game’.
Oddly, MSFS2020 is just a the point of being useful for VFR training because it is getting the ground right.
X-plane like DCS is concerned about aircraft simulation, not what is outside the window.
I can fail the GPS when I want in x-plane, and it will simulate it correctly. I can change the simulation for real training at any time. MSFS2020… nope.
That isn’t to say that flying in MSFS2020 is a bad thing. It is very good for private pilot VFR maneuvers. It is the eye candy game, that can now simulate VFR flight at a training level.
This is basically just X-Plane 11 with better graphics, aircraft, clouds, scenery and customization.
That’s it’s basically
Thats exactly why its a new update-version: everything has been improved. Thats the purpose of a new iteration. You must be new to software developpment to not understand that.
Is the FPS better than msfs. That would be the main selling point for me I usually get 40-50 fps in msfs so will it be better ???
So far, yes. But this is Vanilla XPlane. In XP11, once you started adding the various add-ons and plugins, the FPS would drop
In my case, it is actually the opposite, Xplane 12 runs worse than both MSFS and Xplane 11.
@@hochmaniac i personally would get a 737, a320, A380 and a 747 in the sim so is that alot that would make frames suffer??
Sorry, my house does not look like my house in MSFS 2020.
Just a reminder, you guys dont have to buy it.
Yup, won't be.
Totally. Just for a moment I was going to fork out too much money for XP11 with lipstick. Thanks for reminding me this would be a silly investment
As long as PlaneMaker exists, it will always be the reason why X-Plane is better for me as a FLIGHT simulator than MSFS
xplane will always be a better flight simulator than msfs, msfs is great visually but other than that it is very shallow simulation wise compared with xplane
I will be sticking to X-Plane 11
Why are so many people saying the flight model is so good in XP, and better than MSFS? I'm a real world PPL pilot and have never had a problem in MSFS, indeed XP seemed too smooth! It's choppy up there, especially at the lower altitudes and MSFS does a great job modelling that. Any other issues come down to the skill of the aircraft model developer. The reason we've had a lag in GOOD new aircraft for MSFS is because it's essentially a new product, just 2 years old. XP has been filling the void left by MS until 2020. But MS came back with a blaze of glory and is going to leave Austin and co light years behind with that graphics engine. Yeah it's a beta, but to get close to MSFS graphics will take years of development and I don't get the impression they want to try and keep up. That's a mistake, as graphics matter to most consumers. I don't see a rosy future for Laminar unfortunately.
TBH i find myself liking this new sim..
Or to be precise, what i was looking for when flying in the sim Xplane deliveres better than others...
Yes the visuals are lacking, but other than that this sim brought a lot of improvements in the flying and being the pilot aspect of the sim...
I understand that generally most of the good thing new xplane delivers wasnt what general public are looking for.. but then were starting nitpick... Great video as always
You can't use microsoft to accurately use it for pilot training. Xplane you can.
Meh. My uncle is a 787 captain and he doesn’t like XP flight model.
@@fastica I'm mainly speaking for GA planes. Commercial planes are a different animal. Commercial planes mostly fly them selves.
I did it. Helped me a lot with my instrument rating
@@Tylerfromtjstudios Microsoft is not FAA approved, Xplane is as well as Prepar3d.
@@maddogtungate6740 if you’re talking about logging sim time, you are correct. However, you must have an instructor with you. Kinda defeats the purpose of an at home sim if you ask me. MSFS has been really accurate and helpful to me in terms of understanding and attempting different types of approaches, departures, even practicing Atc with vatsim. Yeah, it’s not loggable. Doesn’t really matter though
I’m enjoying XPlane 12. I own MSFS but for some reason I just can’t get into it.
Same here, I uninstalled MSFS months ago, the flight dynamics feel so arcady, much like trying to simulate car racing in Need for Speed, where in XPlane it feels like a proper airplane sim, not perfect but pretty good!
When will x-plane 12 be available on steam? I can't wait to see if it is superior to the "EXTREME VFR" project:
My understanding is it's just a matter of time for Steam to approve it
The lighting engine is amazing. Even the aircraft external modeling is. That’s all it has over MSFS unfortunately
X-plane flies so much better.
It sounds like it's a surprise that it's not satellite imagery... Laminar stated for at least a year ago that they did not believe in satellite imagery. They wanted to go another way, and not copy mfs. It comes down to the same old, do you want to find your own house in the sim, fly scenic routes but feel like you are on rails in the sky then mfs is probably better. If you like accurate simulation of physics, then xp 12 is probably the way to go. They're different products for different customers.....
X-Plane being X-Plane. 30+ years eating dust from the others...
Ground textures are becoming a major problem for XP. I strongly advise Laminar to talk to satellite image companies. There MUST be a solution. I don't believe that in the year 2022, there is no solution for that. I don't even expect realistic houses, but at least the ground textures should be streamed.
Apart from that flight physics, addons and stability are a lot better than MSFS. But MSFS is getting better.
Is this for ATARI or SEGA ?
Commodore 64
It's a beta, and not final release, I think a lot of people have forgotten this...look how long it has taken MSFS 2020 , it still crashes after each up date, the flight dynamics in XPlane 12 is all over MSFS
XP12 is disappointing as it is now. I'll come back to it in one year to see how it has improved but chances are that MSFS will still own it.
MSFS still look's a game.
@@mikeh497 imo, all MSFS needs is to start sim right into a flight to avoid navigating menus. Very useful for flight schools. Study sim aircraft modules are beginning to arrive
So…I had $60 in hand and had every intention to give it a shot…but I already own XP11 and am extremely happy with MSFS 2020. Your video combined with other streamers showcasing the title has solidified my decision: I’m going to save my money for another add-on within MSFS. I’m not even going to waste my time or the extra hard drive space to install the sim and ortho required to get this to look somewhat decent. The clouds are too soft for my taste and there’s a lot of repetitive patterns emerging with ground/puddle and cloud textures. Cockpit textures and instrumentation has the same uninspired and (in some cases) freeware quality look to them. I was also hoping for better coloration, but it still looks like the same ole’ mute, pale colored XP. It’s more of the same, so it gives me the feeling that things won’t change much, whether that’s XP12 or beyond. Seeing the potential of MSFS has allowed me to be patient and enjoy each and every add-on and update released. It’s been quite a long time since I felt this kind of excitement for a sim…and I intend to see where Asobo/Microsoft take us next!
Does anyone know if Turtle Beach Velocity One control yoke compatible with X Plane 12 ???
Xp was never about visuals it was about flight dynamics and real feel it was a TRAINING tool not a game , that's why it's FAA cirtified for use as a credited simulator (with a licence instructor in a flight school) it currently is the program that's used to train the pilots of the new electric aircraft experiment that is in VT/NY. Msfs looks pretty but it's not as complex in any other systems, in xp you can see the actual wind flow on the aircraft study the g loads ect. It's engineering factors are far superior..msfs is a game that you can fly with a Xbox controller it's not a serious flying simulator. It's great for casual vfr looking around but not good when it comes to how an aircraft actually feels...
Yeah and this is from the perspective from most Flight simmmers. Sure its great for flight dynamics but if thats its only selling point it wont survive in the FS world
Hard to tell only 24 hours after release of its beta version what XPlane 12 will be like months from now, and hopefully this will all be fixed (mmhhh...) but the ground, trees and all scenery are simply XPlane 11, nothing has changed, period. Very disappointing in that regard... Truthfully, we cannot compare this to MSFS because that would be an unfair match but this is honestly very underwhelming. We already see users streaming XP12 early access videos using Otrho4XP in 2022. What happened to Laminar's touted huge XPlane upgrade to a 'modern' simulator?
I believe we can (and should) compare to MFS. They're both flight simulators. Sure, different approaches and tech behind it. But it's the same basic market.
@@hochmaniac Lol! In that comparison, Microsoft 'smokes' X-Plane but realistically Laminar should have and could have spent more time on the graphics and made its own sim stay XPlane but with a much better and pleasant look. Austin decided instead to limit the upgrades to his wet airports (?!) when there are numerous third parties that already code airports for a living. I use MSFS, XPlane and Prepar3, each has its own 'flavor'. XPlane missed the mark big time on this release. I have dumped XPlane a year ago because of Austin's and Laminar's continued insistence on nonsense details and on keeping their sim looking very old.
@@Sputnik21 only on graphics and scenery everything it is miles ahead with xp12 first principles in recip and turbo prop and n2 for jets has been massively improved
@@DC3Refom are you sure?
Beta is in the title. It's not the final product. Austin said to expect changes in the future. The ground textures are supposed to change. If it's that bad, you can always go back to MSFS, the most perfect sim ever! Absolutely nothing wrong with that game.
If Austin Mayer is probably the best at creating a realistic flight model, he's also the worst "Art Director" when it comes to visuals! I'm certainly not going to waste my time or money redoing the whole planet in orthophoto or other software ! Laminar Research should have upgraded their "%#/¢*" pale greenish planet long before MSFS 2020 kicked them in the "%#/¢*" They just lost another customer!
I feel like xp I feel like is great cause the flight model that's it, p3d beats it with add ons and 3rd party devs as well as fs2020
its really X plane 11.
This game pains my heart...
I don’t know about X-Plane 11, I came from X-Plane 10 and very disappointed with the ground very much like 10, terrible! expected google earth just hope it can only get better 🙁
Cash grab from Austin, nothing else. He even joked in one of the streams about being excited to released to it so he could get lots of money. That’s all he cares about, period.
Well, Laminar Research is a for profit company, so yes, making money is his priority. Just like Microsoft.
I tell you whats a cash grab saints woke row
@@hochmaniac At least Microsoft / Asobo tries to deliver and do QA with his community. When was the last time Austin did that?
@@AmilcarP He never does, he did like an interview when MSFS came out, like some 2 years ago, shitting on MSFS and 3rd Party Devs. I was pissed, back then XP11 was what I was using, still use it to this day. Don't know why, but he seems to be trolling all the time.
If his goal aren't normal simmers like us, why bother and release the software to us? He should go full professional for those big ass simulation companies and that's that.
I try to see XP far from Austin, he's a genious, but sometimes too much of a troll.
X-Plane is still better. The essence of a FLIGHT simulator is the flying characteristics. You want good visuals? Orbx and free mesh sceneries. There you go. I have never met a person that purely flies VFR in a sim and spends more time in GA than jets. It’s hilarious listening to people say the visuals are what makes them choose MSFS when they spend 99% of their time in the sim at 30,000 feet. MSFS “raised the bar” and it’s only taken them over 2 years to knead out horrendous bugs and actually have full fidelity aircraft. Flight models and great aircraft at launch > Visuals at low altitude for the 2% of the time you fly VFR in the sim. No brainer.
I used to spend my time flying at 30,000 ft but with MSFS I actually have spent more time flying at lower altitudes in aircraft such as the PMDG DC-6, the kodiak, etc. It makes you appreciate actual flying when in xplane you really try and stay away from the visuals. Yeah you can spend thousands on orbx scenery and take up terabytes on your hard drive, that’s a hard pass for me.
I fly GA
The essence of a flight simulator is to practice what you will do in real life. Neither X-Plane nor MSFS will help you cover that. When I do practice landing in the C172 (touch and go) it is to practice to get used to the real deal. Why do we do simulators? Practice the cheap way. But it is never close to reality. I never flew a big jet but I can tell you that I see no difference between Zibo and PMDG 737. Both behave the same in the air. However in MSFS if you Take off from Newark and you will see the port as it is. Take off from LGA and you will see the city as it is. Saying that ORBX can simulate that is horrendous. Austin knows he cannot compete with MSFS. He will not trash his own simulator he will always say X-plane is better. In the end, it is marketing.
I fly 90% VFR in a Cessna 172 in a sim, because that’s what I fly in real life. I use X-Plane 11 with Orbx True Earth U.K. scenery, connected to SkyDemon (the app I use to plan flights and navigate in real life). I am enjoying X-Plane 12.
I fly 90% ga and 10% jets, so now you’ve met one.
XP12 is what XP11 should be
But are the Orbx XP11 sceneries compatible?
Pretty much nothing is compatible with XP12 out of the box, other than Zibo
I contacted Orbx today, to ask if True Earth U.K. is compatible with XPlane 12. Orbx said no, not yet. A UA-cam commenter on another video told me he just copied the scenery across and it works ok, though.
Not yet because just like msfs the water is not alive it's a photo has no gradual depth it's flat then a shelf and your in deep water,this taxing water aircraft was like dropping off a cliff. Now it's more real with depth variants and gradual transition so some maps work land locked ones..but with xp12 water it's alive it freezes changes color and dynamics. The msfs world just looks like an over saturated photo.. doesn't feel alive to me.
I’ve tried it. Definitely X-plane 11.6 for me.
I sit in front of PC,watch all XP12 vids and I am very sad. Why no MSFS with XP flight model? sad realy sad. All I see is a great flight model and a great rain simulator.
I have been an instructor pilot of light and ultralight aircraft for over 35 years, and I honestly do not think the graphics of the FS 2020 scenarios are adequate for the real training of light and ultralight aircraft pilots. Microsoft has designed it (rightly) for those who want to play and not for the training of pilots. for this reason it is much better to take the realism of the X-Plane flight model and build on it autonomously some dedicated scenarios. Which is what has been successfully done with the Italian project of the "VFR ESTREMO
XP12 looks like slightly improve from XP11 with a price tag and bunch of bugs!! Performance is worse. A330 being featured has 737 FMC!!, What a load of crap! being on EA doesn't excuse it from criticism. I hope XP12 can better compete with msfs though, competition is always a good thing.
Alot of this BS claims about flight physics is better than on XP... Wonder what qualifies? It feels on on-rail scripted for sure for on XP, Weather, wind, drag, airport elevation and air density don't matter much on XP as it feels scripted with not much simulation at all.
Watch CFD for msfs: ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
No I think X-Plane 12 Has a lot of simulation. And this a330 having a 737 fmc argument is already solved laminar is working on an airbus fmc. Somebody on discord did a flight with the a330 they told me it was flawless and they had no issues the whole way. Y’all are being to harsh on a sim that’s supposed to be early access not everything is going to be perfect. The physics are a bit better in my opinion. Some planes in fs2020 are better than X-Plane it terms of physics it really depends on what plane it is.
Who cares about the ground textures this is a flight simulator for fun and educational purposes for students professionals o r just for a hobby no other simulator have the best tech support that's enough. Microsoft doesn't care about your equipment but laminar research cares about the low end or the high consumers and utilize a lot of the physics to benefit your experience but Microsoft that's a fancy game only
I started simming in FSX, then upgraded to XP11 & P3D and I loved it. Later also purchased mfs for the visuals. Unfortunately I don’t really see how the price is justified for XP12(
It's 60$ compared to 100$..does every switch work in msfs if you turn this knob does it affect the aircraft as it does in the real one xp models this one is a training sim one is a scenery sim..
Dead on arrival.
XP12 is a big letdown. I was expecting a lot more from LR developers. Especiaöly when we are in 2022 and have MSFS to compete with. It's basically a new XP11 with some rain puddles.
P3D v5 will still be my primary sim.
P3D is literally uglier than XPlane 10.
I don't get how they still have terrible clouds and lighting.. it's 2022 and every single game or sim has had better since 2012. In fact the entire sim looks like it's right out of 2012. The clear daylight is way too dark.. still. It needs to be at least twice as bright. this is Earth, not Mars. The only cool thing here is the water effects. XPlane 9 got me into flight sim and then I got 10.. but was and still am disappointed with the progress since.
Looks like this kids are complaining again. With Free software like ortho and simheaven evertthing much vetter.
Microsoft is for gamers xplane is for sim aviators.
Lmao this is just so wrong
Call me bias but I agree
Looks crap period. The rain effect is better than fs tho.
I can't get in the game of x plane 12
its like msfs2020
MSFS is deeply sad when the internet or their servers get overloaded. X-Plane is just kind of sad when you are mostly looking for killer visuals.
It looks terrible… There is no difference. I would not waste my money on this. It can’t compete with MSFS. It is as if they have no clue.
Go to MSFS and buy a car.
The ground textures look like xp11...??? OMG! -It was pretty known, comunicated several times before by LR and is NO surprise. So, folks, when you all really think that is important for a good flight simulator...Go to MSFS. This "First Look Video" here had its judgement before the video began. I have tested XP12 so far as well and i love it. It is a flight simulator and no "there-is-my-house sightseeing simulator"!
The only bar microsoft raised was the visuals ie. eye candy. The flight model sucks.
Go back to the MSFS game. X Plane is a flight sim. Explain doesn’t have this technology at Microsoft as as far as satellites go. So go back to your game and I’ll practice IFR provides.
Cope
X-Plane is also a game unless you have this : ua-cam.com/video/xRaiCEzDFKA/v-deo.html . Otherwise, it will not meet the certification. Flying a 737 with a joystick and a keyboard is far from a simulator. 😂
You mad?
Awww did someone hurt you feelings? You little snowflake.
These xp fanboys need to chill out. Just accept laminar released a pile of steaming trash