Not gonna lie…I’ve seen your videos before, but damn…this took the cake! Well done Fulton! Well done!!! Haven’t laughed this hard in quite awhile! Thank you for your service!
I like how some have "somehow" managed to obtain a pilot license but have nothing to do whatsoever with physics in general and are even amazed and agree with other retards who also have nothing to do with understanding anything correctly! Maybe they don't even deserve to understand anything correctly!;)
3:07 pilot here, you can not roll the A320 because it has the roll bank angle protection in the normal law. Turn off ADIRU 2 and 3 to enter the alternate law which will have degraded protection, you can also lower the gear and raise it again while in the alternate law to switch to direct law (no protections and no auto trim), and do the test again.
I knew it's a bank angle protection (< 60 degrees as I remember?) but HOLY HELL you just described how to override it. You sure it's an info that should be out in the internet? Isn't there regulations that forbid you to share that info? It's a double sided coin for sure - on one hand I WANT TO know more details about the planes that I fly, on the other hand - this info could potentionally (with a VERY low probability but still...) be used in a bad way, no?
@@armaga144 my man, there are public sops, fcoms, qrhs, etc. It's basic flightsim knowledge how to override FBW protections. none of this is "private". the only "private" thing about aviation is certain company specific safety sops. That's it
you failed. The A320 has a protection system that prevents it from entering a bank angle, so it is almost impossible to see this plane enter a spiral, unlike the Boeing 737.
First time to the channel? I think you’re missing the point of some of his videos. Take a step back and laugh for a moment. Not everything needs to be taken seriously. The fact that he’s score keeping should clue you into this being a video made in jest. Even the tests themselves aren’t very substantive. They’re arbitrary and look at the outliers or obscene circumstances. It’s ok to have a bit of fun every once in awhile.
@@azayasund This doesn't seem like any intended fun at all, the only real visual clue you mentionned is the score, which is used widely by comparaison videos all around UA-cam and is sometimes a good indicator in some subjects. The title and description also do not mention anything regarding if we should take the video seriously or not. He just puts some hashtags, a donation link, his specs and that's pretty much it. The creator at least doesn't seem to really pick a side, but prefers making a low-effort and unreliable video to profit of the widely talked-about release of XP12
@@berinchtein no offense, and you’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s infinitely sad that things have to be labeled a joke and that some can’t find humor in anything anymore. As if “Let’s try a barrel roll in airliners” and water landings with the gear down aren’t indicators enough that this video was made in jest (note: it all seems arbitrary and he’s not even trying to be objective), the ending was even more hilarious after he declared MSFS the “winner” of his “testing”. But go ahead, go off…lol
0:41 there is no clear winner because you have crashes off in FS2020 settings. If you enabled that in XP, the plane would bounce off in a similar way. Then, if you enable crashes in FS, the flight would end and you would see crash message. XP surely has a slightly better crash visualization (like some models are partially destructible and you can see fire and smoke animation), but this is not something I would expect from a civil aviation sim, for destruction and fire there is DCS. What I really miss in FS though is the automatic replay mode, something like even last 20 minutes of flight would be great.
Yeah in XP12 default settings, if you nose the plane down into the ground like you were going to screw it into the ground, the plane will erupt in a big ball of flames.
The Physics argument in a 2d simulation environment is so ridiculous and any real-life Pilot will tell you that it's a whole different world when flying for real. The forces on the yokes, the jarring motion of getting knocked around by pockets of air, the g-forces, and perception is what make true flight characteristics that cannot be modeled (This is what armchair pilots think they get when Austin tries to "sell" then the whole Physics thing. When you look at the sim community in general most of them like to fly airliners on autopilot so you wouldn't "feel" anything anyway. Even million-dollar level D training simulators can't give you realistic flight dynamics so what chance does a $60 pc sim have? We do get in both sims offer highly accurate aircraft in systems with advanced autopilots. Get over it boys, the whole physics thing is a red herring it's literally making up such a small percentage of your "game" experience anyway
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP12 seems still uses Blade element theory. This flight dynamics calculating tech is pretty old. Haven't found CFD visualisation option. P-Factor with Perf. Data on MSFS more accurate there. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic. Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well. ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
@@mikeyplayzwrld that person literally explained to you in the most understandable way and you still dont get the point but im not surprised at some XP users tho.
@@masflow09 Right? Armchair pilots are like that. What's funny though is that most will pop on the AP and follow a green or magenta line in an airbus or 737 claiming how fantastic the "Dynamics" are without actually having felt real dynamics. They think their $50 joysticks are going to resolve the forces of flight magically
x plane 11 was good but it is past tense, now that fs 2020 exists it is obvious that it is superior and if they still say that physics as fs 2020 is already surpassing it or already surpassed it and fs 2020 is still in development, so stop crying and accept reality.
It's not really a development issue, they make it that way because airlines don't want people to see their airplanes damaged or destroyed, it's bs but it does make sense
6:32 really gave me chills. I've been that pilot in a C172 in real life, more than once. It's not 150 knots though, 40 knots will do alright. 7:45 did not seem that real, btw.
Sorry to say, but these tests are complete inaccurate. If you test one plane in msfs, same plane needs to be tested in xp. Can’t have 737, and a320, also you’re testing the normal asobo a320, not the FBW addon which is much, much better and is one of the best free addons for msfs. Also, the a320, in normal law cannot exceed set boundaries because of the fly-by-wire system. The 737 does not have that.
I was excited to see this comparison, claiming as it did to compare flight physics. What I watched instead was a comparison of aspects of flight that only a gamer could find interesting. Crashes and collisions? Come on. And even so, I can't understand why you chose one sim over the other most times. I was hoping to see actual flight dynamics compared. I'm a pilot, and I'm willing to bet you aren't. I own both Sims, and have flown each for decades. Hands down, X-Plane flies most like real planes. MS doesn't come close. Maybe MS pleases the gamer, but it can never teach.
Thats right, but on the other hand it is no surprise, that a combat simulator which is about damaging and shooting down aircraft has a good crash model, while civil simulators have no priority set on crash simulation
@@MikeInExile nah its for the same reason why car companies dont let gta get license to use real cars. They dont want to see their own cars being used in that manner. Has nothing to do with how people are snowflakes who cares if u crash in a video game. Its a business practice.
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP12 seems still uses Blade element theory. This flight dynamics calculating tech is pretty old. Haven't found CFD visualisation option. P-Factor with Perf. Data on MSFS more accurate there. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic. Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well. ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
These "physics" aren't relevant to a flight sim at all. No one will be doing rolls, which you call "spins" in airliners or intentionally crashing, what they will want to know is the physics of the flight model!
2:37 It's not really a fair comparison, the aircraft used in XP12 seem to be a Boeing 737, unlike in MSFS where you were flying the A320. Airbus controls are electronically limited to avoid such as excessive bank angle, excessive nose dive, and stall.
Brother, if you are going to compare well, do it well, in Microsoft Flight Simulator it is 100 times more realistic than any other simulator, so you can enjoy the most realistic experience you just have to go to MFS2020 settings > assistance options > and put everything in Difficult and realistic. And this is how you will enjoy the true essence of Flight Simulator. Greetings.
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP12 seems still uses Blade element theory. This flight dynamics calculating tech is pretty old. Haven't found CFD visualisation option. P-Factor with Perf. Data on MSFS more accurate there. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic. Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well. ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
Not really. At least, not with the CFD on the 172. They're saying fs2020 is more realistic now. We'll just need to wait until they apply it to the rest of the aircraft.
It is a big problem that drives me crazy: XP physics better but mediocre graphics MSFS graphics better but physics mediocre So I end up using XP one day and MSFS next day.
I really use msfs for taking screenshots of those window pics so I can show off on instagram that I'm a frequent flyer. XP is when I want to fly the plane, experience a pilot experience.
or just buy a good addon, the video itself is already bad since they aren't even using the full realism mode of msfs, and most of the flight model behavior is dependant on the third party developer
On peut dire que dans le deux cas le réalisme n'est absolument pas au rendez-vous dans les situations extrêmes. Mais ce n'est pas dans ces situations que l'on souhaite utiliser ces deux logiciels. Non ?
IL2 sturmovik has a much better ohysic engine for contacts plane/ground, taking account of the gear's resistance linked to the brutality of the stall or the speed of the plane.
Since its all software you can relax the laws. Its what they do in real life for airshows and which is why you see A350 etc being flung around like an F-16.
All these discussions about realism, level of simulation etc. and I bet that easily more than 70% of simulator flight players (any game) don't care about all that and just want to chill and relax flying around.
Not a fair comparison on the crash because you clearly have MSFS crash damage disabled. It doesn't have a cool fire animation like XP but does indicate you crashed and end the flight however you disabled it making it unfair.
Xplane has an option for scenery developers to include solid buildings but for the most part you will not crash into them, so the hit on performance for rendering the buildings in that way is way to unneeded.
Bottom line is MFS has always been meant to be a game, first and foremost, while X-Plane has always been designed to be a simulator, as realistic as it could be. Both were originally developed by real pilots, but X-Plane still has a real pilot as its chief developer.
It’s clear msfs is much better in many ways, we all know this and don’t need this video for verification, I mean XPlane is still stuck jn 2005 minecraft mode 😂
@@tr-3b39 I mean plane physics is something X-Plane has always been focusing on, primarily. When it comes to mapping, in X-Plane 11 you will have water following terrain topology, meaning you can literally climb a hill upon water landing. Also, the pyramids in Egypt are treated like hills in X-Plane 11 by default while FSX does show the pyramids as such. Microsoft has always taken better care of those environmental details, but planes always felt more aggressive, oversimplified and heavier. They are both getting better in what each used to lack, though.
Yep, that's why it's always been called Microsoft Flight Simulator. I've owned XP since the beginning and each time I smacked myself for the purchase. I spent hundreds on addons for it but it flies as if on rails. MS bailed on their sim for 10+ years and each new XP release still didn't catch it. Not even close! Then P3D took it and in one release set it another 10+ years ahead of XP in every way. Now Asobo and MS have put it infinite years ahead and XP will finally die. It's obvious with this "Money grab" release of XP 12. A video showing what's new in 12 vs 11 couldn't be more than 1 minute, unless the content creator just chose to babble for additional minutes, hahahahaha.
@@danhoven I'm not in any fanclub, but reality is X-Plane is still based on prioritizing physics to make things as realistic as possible and not many real pilots complain (I'm not one btw). Since I'm not a real pilot, I have a blast flying helicopters in the old good FSX to this day, I have X-Plane 11 and I like both. Car simulators don't feel like the real deal either, at the end of the day. Defending sims is no easy task if that's even possible.
flight model arguements are ridiculous. Youre sitting behind a screen with equipment that likely wont simulate flight 100% for you. Unless you visit an actual sim machine. Otherwise, simmers cant argue if theyve never flown and even if so, its a digital program rendering instruments and how they function.. I think thats the closest to real life youll get. The feel of flying? forget it! its virtual! youre simming on your gaming chair and “yoke” you got for $200. sit down.
Yes, I agree. I hate when people make a claim about a simulators flight model. I can understand when the individual is pointing out the obvious or if they're a pilot irl. Though most of the time these claims are made by flight simmers who have only experienced flight through their home computers
Well, The flight model argument is in a way valid due to the fact that X-Plane 12 is coming to Level D simulators. MSFS isn't. But honestly, MSFS is better if you wanna relax. X-Plane is better if you wanna actually learn etc.
@@Mark36912 if you want to learn what? How to fly or how to interpret instruments? Both sims actually can or cant help in those regards. Both sims are great for learning instrument but neither can actually prepare you for real flying. Many people learn flying in a wrong way on the sim. They pitch for vertical speed and power for airspeed, which is of course wrong.
About the crash animation. It’s not that the plane just ragdolls after it hits the ground. It’s actually a blackout screen. X plane 12 still gets the point though
Hard landing not comparable. High wind - I had older X Plane some years ago and when I tried 172 in wind higher than her normal flying speed, I lost the wings practically immediately after take-off. There is no overstress damage model anymore?
I want to see realistic crash physics, aircraft damage and disintegration, as well as realistic explosions. I would snatch it up right away. I have Xplane 11 with mods but there is no mod for what I want.
“ I wanna fly and crash into stuff, why is it not accurate” Because not a single real world pilot goes to flight school to learn how to crash their plane
Do you know if this has proper triple screen support? XPlane 11 has it and MSFS will have it when Update 10 goes live - this one thing is make or break for me.
@@Nor0252 i wish i could upvote a thousandfolt. it isnt just the future, its litteraly the ultimate end. VR is just the end of every technology before that. there is no ultimatier thing.
3:10 should've compared two same planes, it is impossible to make a complete 360 roll with an airbus whereas it is possible with a Boeing. But nothing else to say. Good comparison, thanks 😊
Let's start comparing when the x-plane 12 will be released and get 9-10 updates as msfs. And yes, there are collisions with objects in the x-plane. It's just that no one includes it, to save resources.
MSFS only has 2 years in while X plane has more than 10 years. You talk like XP12 is a brand new simulator. I’ll say it like I’ve told many others XP12 is DEAD!!!
@@flightforfunchannel What the hell you talking about dude?? XP12 is using same code as previous XP’s. You going to act like a smart ass and tell me the 1982 MSFS is using same code for MSFS 2020?? Thanks man, I needed a good laugh today!!
it doesn't make sense, the airbus a320 doesn't turn completely, it's from the plane, really this comparison didn't stay very much, the airbus itself doesn't let the plane turn completely
Hi I have downloaded xplane12 on my i macos Monterey..I have issues it not working properly very slow and also graphic not looking good so do you have any advice what to do..thanks
The first 2 I thought ok that seems realistic, but the a320 has a system wich stops it exiting 40 degrees, and U compared it with a 737 wich does not have fly by wire so it can do that. You’re review of the winds was terrible, how TF do you think physics work?
Only one that I did not agree on is the spin maneuver that you tried to showcase. A Boeing 737 does not have the protections that will not allow it to spin while an Airbus does. An airbus will limit you bank and not allow you to continue further as long as the aircraft is operating in normal law. Should of have showed of the Cessna 172 entering spins to make it a fair comparison.
bro you didnt even rank them correctly. X-plain 12 DEFFENEDLY won the high winds compare to MSF2020. Plus X-plain can lift the aircraft up in the air to.
Not gonna lie…I’ve seen your videos before, but damn…this took the cake! Well done Fulton! Well done!!! Haven’t laughed this hard in quite awhile! Thank you for your service!
😊😊😂🙏
I like how some have "somehow" managed to obtain a pilot license but have nothing to do whatsoever with physics in general and are even amazed and agree with other retards who also have nothing to do with understanding anything correctly! Maybe they don't even deserve to understand anything correctly!;)
@@FULTONOFFICIALKFVI liked it.
3:07 pilot here, you can not roll the A320 because it has the roll bank angle protection in the normal law. Turn off ADIRU 2 and 3 to enter the alternate law which will have degraded protection, you can also lower the gear and raise it again while in the alternate law to switch to direct law (no protections and no auto trim), and do the test again.
I knew it's a bank angle protection (< 60 degrees as I remember?) but HOLY HELL you just described how to override it. You sure it's an info that should be out in the internet? Isn't there regulations that forbid you to share that info? It's a double sided coin for sure - on one hand I WANT TO know more details about the planes that I fly, on the other hand - this info could potentionally (with a VERY low probability but still...) be used in a bad way, no?
@@armaga144 first time on the internet kid ?
@@armaga144 my man, there are public sops, fcoms, qrhs, etc. It's basic flightsim knowledge how to override FBW protections. none of this is "private". the only "private" thing about aviation is certain company specific safety sops. That's it
@@Deezorz gotcha. Thanks for the info
i'm pretty sure that all pilots that fly these planes already know about this@@armaga144
you failed. The A320 has a protection system that prevents it from entering a bank angle, so it is almost impossible to see this plane enter a spiral, unlike the Boeing 737.
exactly
Unless you disable that system :)))
The A330 behaves the same way in X-Plane so...
@@LOLgamerCZ but for that the channel should had done the same :))) (if it is possible in msfs)
exactly
That was a really bad comparaison from both sides... please don't refer to this
First time to the channel? I think you’re missing the point of some of his videos. Take a step back and laugh for a moment. Not everything needs to be taken seriously. The fact that he’s score keeping should clue you into this being a video made in jest. Even the tests themselves aren’t very substantive. They’re arbitrary and look at the outliers or obscene circumstances. It’s ok to have a bit of fun every once in awhile.
@@azayasund This doesn't seem like any intended fun at all, the only real visual clue you mentionned is the score, which is used widely by comparaison videos all around UA-cam and is sometimes a good indicator in some subjects. The title and description also do not mention anything regarding if we should take the video seriously or not. He just puts some hashtags, a donation link, his specs and that's pretty much it. The creator at least doesn't seem to really pick a side, but prefers making a low-effort and unreliable video to profit of the widely talked-about release of XP12
@@berinchtein no offense, and you’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s infinitely sad that things have to be labeled a joke and that some can’t find humor in anything anymore. As if “Let’s try a barrel roll in airliners” and water landings with the gear down aren’t indicators enough that this video was made in jest (note: it all seems arbitrary and he’s not even trying to be objective), the ending was even more hilarious after he declared MSFS the “winner” of his “testing”. But go ahead, go off…lol
@@berinchtein may I suggest staying away from Swiss001 as well if this is your take.
I agree with you, i mean look at this nonsence when the plane gets pushed in the wind in msfs.
7:13
Note about the hard landing: You came in at 60 knots on XP12 and 90 on MSFS. That's what caused them to be different.
same as the water landing too.
@@JWC924 trying to make MSFS21020 worse than XP12, XP12 is shit end of story and it no longer has the best flight model
I like how you can even hear the overspeed lmao
@@1littlelee nah msfs is worse than xp12 if you want a genuinely realistic experience, but msfs is more just for fun tbh
Aerofly FS 4 is better than both of them. A plane should jump up again when you touch down too hard.
0:41 there is no clear winner because you have crashes off in FS2020 settings. If you enabled that in XP, the plane would bounce off in a similar way. Then, if you enable crashes in FS, the flight would end and you would see crash message. XP surely has a slightly better crash visualization (like some models are partially destructible and you can see fire and smoke animation), but this is not something I would expect from a civil aviation sim, for destruction and fire there is DCS.
What I really miss in FS though is the automatic replay mode, something like even last 20 minutes of flight would be great.
DCS does not have civilian aircraft and costs 80 dollars per module.
Yeah in XP12 default settings, if you nose the plane down into the ground like you were going to screw it into the ground, the plane will erupt in a big ball of flames.
@@wolfan8057 more like 40
He's just salty because his PC can't run FS2020 so smoothly.
The test with the a320 doesnt make sense since the airbus flight logic in normal law prevents it.
That's the whole point there. It's all just a big joke.
Why don't you put the flight model in realistic mode on fs2020?
he has it in realistic 💀
Out of the box experience?
@@mtripss No it's not in realistic mode
@@tytoos6803 how do you know?
@@tytoos6803 how do I put it in realistic
The Physics argument in a 2d simulation environment is so ridiculous and any real-life Pilot will tell you that it's a whole different world when flying for real. The forces on the yokes, the jarring motion of getting knocked around by pockets of air, the g-forces, and perception is what make true flight characteristics that cannot be modeled (This is what armchair pilots think they get when Austin tries to "sell" then the whole Physics thing. When you look at the sim community in general most of them like to fly airliners on autopilot so you wouldn't "feel" anything anyway. Even million-dollar level D training simulators can't give you realistic flight dynamics so what chance does a $60 pc sim have? We do get in both sims offer highly accurate aircraft in systems with advanced autopilots. Get over it boys, the whole physics thing is a red herring it's literally making up such a small percentage of your "game" experience anyway
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP12 seems still uses Blade element theory. This flight dynamics calculating tech is pretty old. Haven't found CFD visualisation option. P-Factor with Perf. Data on MSFS more accurate there. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic.
Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well.
ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
Pilot here, Flying on the sim is way harder than IRL. People fighting about which one has better physics, guys just enjoy the damn sims lmao
this is what i have been trying to say lol
@@mikeyplayzwrld that person literally explained to you in the most understandable way and you still dont get the point but im not surprised at some XP users tho.
@@masflow09 Right? Armchair pilots are like that. What's funny though is that most will pop on the AP and follow a green or magenta line in an airbus or 737 claiming how fantastic the "Dynamics" are without actually having felt real dynamics. They think their $50 joysticks are going to resolve the forces of flight magically
As far as realism in Collisions, both flight simulators get a 0 - Zero.
x plane 11 was good but it is past tense, now that fs 2020 exists it is obvious that it is superior and if they still say that physics as fs 2020 is already surpassing it or already surpassed it and fs 2020 is still in development, so stop crying and accept reality.
It's not really a development issue, they make it that way because airlines don't want people to see their airplanes damaged or destroyed, it's bs but it does make sense
@@canexfex5325 for real
@@M2COLD yeah fanboy
@@canexfex5325 Bro X Plane 12 is on open beta
6:32 really gave me chills. I've been that pilot in a C172 in real life, more than once. It's not 150 knots though, 40 knots will do alright.
7:45 did not seem that real, btw.
I don't know how that point went to MSFS, tbh
Sorry to say, but these tests are complete inaccurate. If you test one plane in msfs, same plane needs to be tested in xp. Can’t have 737, and a320, also you’re testing the normal asobo a320, not the FBW addon which is much, much better and is one of the best free addons for msfs. Also, the a320, in normal law cannot exceed set boundaries because of the fly-by-wire system. The 737 does not have that.
True
Some parts of MFS2020 made me feel as if I was playing GTA.
I was excited to see this comparison, claiming as it did to compare flight physics. What I watched instead was a comparison of aspects of flight that only a gamer could find interesting. Crashes and collisions? Come on. And even so, I can't understand why you chose one sim over the other most times. I was hoping to see actual flight dynamics compared. I'm a pilot, and I'm willing to bet you aren't. I own both Sims, and have flown each for decades. Hands down, X-Plane flies most like real planes. MS doesn't come close. Maybe MS pleases the gamer, but it can never teach.
couldnt agree more 😭
MSfs can definitely teach, not for flying due to the physics, but learning how to start aircraft and getting familiar with the cockpits and avionics.
Both X-Plane and Flight Simulator could stand to take a few lessons from DCS World with respect to crash/damage modeling.
Thats right, but on the other hand it is no surprise, that a combat simulator which is about damaging and shooting down aircraft has a good crash model, while civil simulators have no priority set on crash simulation
Plane companies involved in msfs dont want to see their planes get destroyed
@@Haniel93 yea true but when you going down you got just black screen when i going down i want fight whit plane
I think the REAL reason there's no crash/damage model is because we're all a bunch of 'snowflakes' these days and we're being treated accordingly! ;-)
@@MikeInExile nah its for the same reason why car companies dont let gta get license to use real cars. They dont want to see their own cars being used in that manner. Has nothing to do with how people are snowflakes who cares if u crash in a video game. Its a business practice.
There ain’t no way anyone can watch one of those msfs planes fly from the external view and tell me the physics look even semi-realistic 😂
You tell 'em.
For real! Random remark... Do you guys feel like in FS 202 there's way too much bloom and the planes always seem to be bobbing up and down?
Also the physics in MSFS aren't as bad as everyone thinks.
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP12 seems still uses Blade element theory. This flight dynamics calculating tech is pretty old. Haven't found CFD visualisation option. P-Factor with Perf. Data on MSFS more accurate there. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic.
Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well.
ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
Exactly this.
Exactly, especially if your using payware addons it becomes really good
Yeah people think physics are bad in msfs2020 because of the camera angle but in reality it isnt
747 bouncing at 120 knots isn’t bad?
Xp12 : has physics
Msfs : whats physics i skipped that on school
yeah well, the realism was turned down on MSFS in order to favor XP... and the test conditions were NOT the same. Kinda hard to compare both games.
These "physics" aren't relevant to a flight sim at all. No one will be doing rolls, which you call "spins" in airliners or intentionally crashing, what they will want to know is the physics of the flight model!
For the spin physics in MSFS, it's simply because you're using an Airbus without turning off its flight computers!
2:37 It's not really a fair comparison, the aircraft used in XP12 seem to be a Boeing 737, unlike in MSFS where you were flying the A320. Airbus controls are electronically limited to avoid such as excessive bank angle, excessive nose dive, and stall.
Brother, if you are going to compare well, do it well, in Microsoft Flight Simulator it is 100 times more realistic than any other simulator, so you can enjoy the most realistic experience you just have to go to MFS2020 settings > assistance options > and put everything in Difficult and realistic. And this is how you will enjoy the true essence of Flight Simulator. Greetings.
The 737 doesn't have any protections against spins but a320 has the alpha floor protection that makes it impossible more than 90 degrees
no you turn main law off and alternate
@@ayaan7017 lol idk if it's possible to turn off manually
it is@@Minecrafter14321
@@Minecrafter14321turn the irs of will
@@lforleee2004 lol
I don’t think the test was accurate
But it was f*cking hilarious watching the planes crash
what aiport is that at 1:34?
Too be fair. You had damage OFF on MSFS 2020. But yes the physics model of XP-12 is better.
I saw a video that compared the sims, and found the physics are similar.
The notions that XP has better flight simulation is just a notion. It maybe valid in the past but XP12 seems still uses Blade element theory. This flight dynamics calculating tech is pretty old. Haven't found CFD visualisation option. P-Factor with Perf. Data on MSFS more accurate there. MSFS in the other hand has CFD, which you can actually see the simulation and simulated surfaces on the airplane. XP maybe using 5 simulated surfaces on an airplane and MSFS uses hundreds of simulation surfaces in an aircraft, thus makes it more accurate and realistic.
Here's the CFD simulation in visual and data form. And I would like to see XP to provide with their simulation data as well.
ua-cam.com/video/Ndl07_7PsWg/v-deo.html
Not really. At least, not with the CFD on the 172. They're saying fs2020 is more realistic now.
We'll just need to wait until they apply it to the rest of the aircraft.
even with the damage on in msfs its literally just a screen that says " you crashed" obviously xplane12's would be better still
@@xplaneaviator737 Seeing a crashed model tho is not really that nesecary. Its a small unimportant aspect
Can’t really compare yet because X-Plane 12 is in early access so we would have to wait till I come out fully to really compare.
At the rate XPlane 12 is fairing in comparison to MSFS they probably wont ever take it out of Beta
@@vinylrabbit7295 Yeah, maybe it will take 2 years like MSFS to get it where you don't have an issue every time you load into a flight.
FS2020 Physics? 😂 X-Plane best ever
No way you tried to roll the a320... LMAO
😊😂😂😂😂
The A320 fly by wire system does not let the aircraft do a barrel roll.
just tie a piece of 1000 foot steel wire to the tail of an tbm 930, and then you can wire by fly.
It is a big problem that drives me crazy:
XP physics better but mediocre graphics
MSFS graphics better but physics mediocre
So I end up using XP one day and MSFS next day.
Yes you said it!! I think that is the biggest problem with these two sims and that is why I went to DCS it has the best of both worlds.
I really use msfs for taking screenshots of those window pics so I can show off on instagram that I'm a frequent flyer. XP is when I want to fly the plane, experience a pilot experience.
physics are similar.
Just buy a a good addon already. And enjoy.
or just buy a good addon, the video itself is already bad since they aren't even using the full realism mode of msfs, and most of the flight model behavior is dependant on the third party developer
When I seen the wheels down I was like oh no. It made me think of Archer letting the wheels down and crashing the sea plane..
I can do a lot with 6"
On peut dire que dans le deux cas le réalisme n'est absolument pas au rendez-vous dans les situations extrêmes. Mais ce n'est pas dans ces situations que l'on souhaite utiliser ces deux logiciels. Non ?
Tu as tout à fait raison, ce sont que des jeux vidéos, mais fs2020 a plus proche de la réalité que xp12
"Landing in water" - You crashed in the water, you definitely not landed or ditched
The person "playing" the keyboard is making comparisons in simulators?
You're very smart.
IL2 sturmovik has a much better ohysic engine for contacts plane/ground, taking account of the gear's resistance linked to the brutality of the stall or the speed of the plane.
Il2 sturmovik was way ahead of its time especially 1945 the physics were unforgiving
did he really tried to do a spin with an airbus? XD LMAO
3:30 your flying an airbus so it wont let you roll (because of fly by wire)
Since its all software you can relax the laws. Its what they do in real life for airshows and which is why you see A350 etc being flung around like an F-16.
A crash in MSFS just goes to a black screen..Unless you have crashes disabled
is it possible to satisfactorily run Xplan11 or 12 with 5600g?
i do think so(but xp 12 will be a bit laggy as its still being optimized),while msfs...nahh
I love how your plane just says don't sink 😂
All these discussions about realism, level of simulation etc. and I bet that easily more than 70% of simulator flight players (any game) don't care about all that and just want to chill and relax flying around.
5:08 the 737 Ryanair has 2 wheels 💀
How do you make in msfs2020 that you can crash without the game saying you crashed? How does the game still continue after a big collision or crash?
he turned off realistic model and damage
just in assistance menu desactivate crashes and damage
@@LeandroMDL thanks
It's just a setting, the flight model is unaffected, just disables crashes... otherwise all we'd see in his vid would be a "Fade to Black"
Not a fair comparison on the crash because you clearly have MSFS crash damage disabled. It doesn't have a cool fire animation like XP but does indicate you crashed and end the flight however you disabled it making it unfair.
Ryanair’s A330 😂? 5:06
5:07 why am I seeing a Ryanair A330 or something 🤣🤣
Xplane has an option for scenery developers to include solid buildings but for the most part you will not crash into them, so the hit on performance for rendering the buildings in that way is way to unneeded.
After 911 , MS remove the effect of crash.
3:08 a320 flybywire be like: not today buddy
Bottom line is MFS has always been meant to be a game, first and foremost, while X-Plane has always been designed to be a simulator, as realistic as it could be. Both were originally developed by real pilots, but X-Plane still has a real pilot as its chief developer.
It’s clear msfs is much better in many ways, we all know this and don’t need this video for verification, I mean XPlane is still stuck jn 2005 minecraft mode 😂
Hard to say XPlane is realistic, looks like 2D minecraft.
@@tr-3b39 I mean plane physics is something X-Plane has always been focusing on, primarily. When it comes to mapping, in X-Plane 11 you will have water following terrain topology, meaning you can literally climb a hill upon water landing.
Also, the pyramids in Egypt are treated like hills in X-Plane 11 by default while FSX does show the pyramids as such.
Microsoft has always taken better care of those environmental details, but planes always felt more aggressive, oversimplified and heavier. They are both getting better in what each used to lack, though.
Yep, that's why it's always been called Microsoft Flight Simulator. I've owned XP since the beginning and each time I smacked myself for the purchase. I spent hundreds on addons for it but it flies as if on rails. MS bailed on their sim for 10+ years and each new XP release still didn't catch it. Not even close! Then P3D took it and in one release set it another 10+ years ahead of XP in every way. Now Asobo and MS have put it infinite years ahead and XP will finally die. It's obvious with this "Money grab" release of XP 12. A video showing what's new in 12 vs 11 couldn't be more than 1 minute, unless the content creator just chose to babble for additional minutes, hahahahaha.
@@danhoven I'm not in any fanclub, but reality is X-Plane is still based on prioritizing physics to make things as realistic as possible and not many real pilots complain (I'm not one btw). Since I'm not a real pilot, I have a blast flying helicopters in the old good FSX to this day, I have X-Plane 11 and I like both.
Car simulators don't feel like the real deal either, at the end of the day. Defending sims is no easy task if that's even possible.
flight model arguements are ridiculous. Youre sitting behind a screen with equipment that likely wont simulate flight 100% for you. Unless you visit an actual sim machine. Otherwise, simmers cant argue if theyve never flown and even if so, its a digital program rendering instruments and how they function.. I think thats the closest to real life youll get. The feel of flying? forget it! its virtual! youre simming on your gaming chair and “yoke” you got for $200. sit down.
Yes, I agree. I hate when people make a claim about a simulators flight model. I can understand when the individual is pointing out the obvious or if they're a pilot irl. Though most of the time these claims are made by flight simmers who have only experienced flight through their home computers
That would def. make msfs the ultimate sim annihilating the whole market
Well, The flight model argument is in a way valid due to the fact that X-Plane 12 is coming to Level D simulators. MSFS isn't. But honestly, MSFS is better if you wanna relax. X-Plane is better if you wanna actually learn etc.
@@Mark36912 if you want to learn what? How to fly or how to interpret instruments? Both sims actually can or cant help in those regards. Both sims are great for learning instrument but neither can actually prepare you for real flying. Many people learn flying in a wrong way on the sim. They pitch for vertical speed and power for airspeed, which is of course wrong.
About the crash animation. It’s not that the plane just ragdolls after it hits the ground. It’s actually a blackout screen. X plane 12 still gets the point though
Hard landing not comparable. High wind - I had older X Plane some years ago and when I tried 172 in wind higher than her normal flying speed, I lost the wings practically immediately after take-off. There is no overstress damage model anymore?
Yo, in MSFS20 when you crash the screen blacks out and a beezing sound starts....
I want to see realistic crash physics, aircraft damage and disintegration, as well as realistic explosions. I would snatch it up right away. I have Xplane 11 with mods but there is no mod for what I want.
same here
I really don’t understand what criteria you used to give the last 6 points
1:16 airport name?
Thank bro to making this video
Nice video
hi bro, how do you handle the plane? I mean, do you use joystick, keyboard, mouse?
Joystick
You compared a beta version to a two year old release?
“ I wanna fly and crash into stuff, why is it not accurate”
Because not a single real world pilot goes to flight school to learn how to crash their plane
Bro you had me until the turned off damage crash in Microsoft flight simulator 😂
whats the point landing on water with retracted gear? it's not how it should be done
The Airbus won't let you menouver unless you turn off the protection in msfs.
The A320 neo has a system that prevents the plane to roll over
My man trying to bank the a320 in normal law with a full side stick deflection. It won't go beyond 60 my friend.
Do you know if this has proper triple screen support? XPlane 11 has it and MSFS will have it when Update 10 goes live - this one thing is make or break for me.
VR is the future, so much better.
@@Nor0252 I bought a VR in 2020 and returned it because it made me sick. Maybe when the tech improves I'll try again.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 I get sick in a real plane, but not in VR, so may be it won't get ironed out 😄
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 thats because of the fps. anything above 120fps shows that almost nobody is sick anymore in research from meta.
@@Nor0252 i wish i could upvote a thousandfolt. it isnt just the future, its litteraly the ultimate end. VR is just the end of every technology before that. there is no ultimatier thing.
The games are not about crashing the planes.
3:10 should've compared two same planes, it is impossible to make a complete 360 roll with an airbus whereas it is possible with a Boeing.
But nothing else to say. Good comparison, thanks 😊
To bad you turned off the crash physics in MSFS to do this comparison, or it would have won them all.
Let's start comparing when the x-plane 12 will be released and get 9-10 updates as msfs. And yes, there are collisions with objects in the x-plane. It's just that no one includes it, to save resources.
MSFS only has 2 years in while X plane has more than 10 years. You talk like XP12 is a brand new simulator. I’ll say it like I’ve told many others XP12 is DEAD!!!
@@MustafaGT As long as people are using it, no, it is not. Just like how FSX, P3D, and FS2004 are not dead.
@@MustafaGT The first version of MSFS appeared in 1982, and this is already 40 years old, not 2.
@@aerofiles5044 True!!
@@flightforfunchannel What the hell you talking about dude?? XP12 is using same code as previous XP’s. You going to act like a smart ass and tell me the 1982 MSFS is using same code for MSFS 2020?? Thanks man, I needed a good laugh today!!
Remember xplane 12 is in its beta stage
it doesn't make sense, the airbus a320 doesn't turn completely, it's from the plane, really this comparison didn't stay very much, the airbus itself doesn't let the plane turn completely
I don’t know how you gave spin maneuvering and wind to MSFS
A320 systems in msfs don’t allow for a spin - just like in real life
What airport does u use in the video?
Hi I have downloaded xplane12 on my i macos Monterey..I have issues it not working properly very slow and also graphic not looking good so do you have any advice what to do..thanks
your pc cant handle x plane 12 or you dont have your graphics turned up
@@waba4115 … or x plane just doesn’t look good ( joke)
@HomeSchool Dre My words mate. But you have to say msfs 2020 is just beautiful....
@HomeSchool Dre Yeah. Sadly X-Plane 12 is a bit buggy atm. But it makes sense due to it being early access.
Why have you Crashs in FS 2020 disabled?
The first 2 I thought ok that seems realistic, but the a320 has a system wich stops it exiting 40 degrees, and U compared it with a 737 wich does not have fly by wire so it can do that. You’re review of the winds was terrible, how TF do you think physics work?
Do a functionality test of the switches and you will have the result: XPLANE=100 , FS2020= 2 . XPLANE is much much much better !
why did u try an spinnmanuver with an a320
this thing got an flightenvelope protection
it cant spinn
Ok so...which one is better: MFS2020 or XPlane?
Imagine using keyboard to steer the plane
bro was landing a cessna at 100 knots
Dis toi tenable the damage on FS2020 ? It seems like there is no damage...
For crash you have disabled all dmg, if not the screen become black and stop the game....
3:53 вы должны были включить директ мод на a320. Или взять Boeing 737
Only one that I did not agree on is the spin maneuver that you tried to showcase. A Boeing 737 does not have the protections that will not allow it to spin while an Airbus does. An airbus will limit you bank and not allow you to continue further as long as the aircraft is operating in normal law. Should of have showed of the Cessna 172 entering spins to make it a fair comparison.
Bro said that a flying plane that flies because of WIND WITHOUT ANYTHING is more realistic.
3:58 mate. you're comparing an airbus to a Boeing. Boeing planes can spin, while airbus planes have built in systems to prevent spins.
bro you didnt even rank them correctly. X-plain 12 DEFFENEDLY won the high winds compare to MSF2020. Plus X-plain can lift the aircraft up in the air to.
XPlain 😂
@@cupofjoen don't act like you never made grammar mistakes.
@@WinterSoldier6554 It's not a grammar mistake, it's a spelling error.
@@adarob92 literally has no difference
@@cupofjoen The Grass Plain sim. Didnt you hear of that? Your goal is to let the grass grow and feed animals. Nice game
soccer goal scorer 2:33
Yeah man, you are right 100%
Thanks 🙏
I see more channel but his channel is grate this will frist guy shows reality of water in xplane and msfs2020
The a320 fbw system prevents it from flipping over so it that’s why it wouldn’t bank. But still good video
How u can compare if in fs2020 you disabled the damage... mah
the wind part in mfs killed me 😂
Why are you comparing crashes and not physics like you stated
Which airport is this @ 01:44?
Just type 56S you will find it