I haven't used X-Plane, myself, and wouldn't have the expertise to properly judge the differences, myself. I completely agree - Microsoft Flight Simulator has always been more than a game. > MSFS is a game with nice visuals, use X-Plane if you want a real simulator I'm encouraged that so many people love X-Plane I hadn't looked at it, yet (and not exactly sure as to why), but I'll be checking it out, now. Perhaps some of the things that I'm so impressed with have been available in other simulators and I'm just seeing them for the first time, here. Bear in mind, my impressions come from not having played a modern flight simulator (outside of ones that are not intended to be accurate) in over a decade. There were moments where I had (extremely minor) anxiety while angled just right, looking out the "window" trying to get the plane to do something nuts. What I saw was impressive in that I wasn't intending to notice the physics, but it was impossible not to. Admittedly, I've probably used it for a total of 3-4 hours since its release. I am curious, though - what is it that MS Flight Simulator's latest version gets wrong about IFR that X-Plane gets right? I can't speak as to how well it simulates IFR/related things - not a pilot - though I mentioned in a previous post that my Dad basically got his IFR rating by practicing on ancient MS Flight Simulator. The flight physics, while positively amazing, wouldn't have even been able to be described to me in a manner that would have gotten me excited enough to purchase it, but on that - alone - it'd be worth it. Microsoft could do the scenery more easily than others due to Bing, and frankly, if it weren't for the scenery, I wouldn't have shelled out the cash.
I'm guessing that (for the 80s) the physics were a high priority, but graphics - even for the 80s - were not. The graphics, on our amazing CGA monitor, were Battleship Gray ground (with mixes of solid green, I think) with white lines representing "scenery". It's likely an issue of differing goals, too.Īs I mentioned in a previous post, my Dad used the 80s MS Flight Simulator for IFR training. They are using modern techniques throughout the simulator, such as using WASM along with HTML/CSS/JS for gauges, among many other interesting choices. X-Plane has been around for decades, which is why things like the G1000 are more reliable at the moment.Īircraft like the newly released Aerosoft CRJ show the potential in the sim, and this is with the developer only having their hands on the SDK for a short period of time.įor developers reading this, a peek at the SDK is interesting. MSFS is a technological tour de force that has only been out now for 1/2 a year. Are you seeing otherwise? If you need those now, Navigraph seems like a solution.
Regarding #1, the only approaches I've noticed that aren't in the simulator are some RNAV approaches to smaller airports. I'm a US certified commercial pilot and have been using simulators since the early 90s.
I've used X-Plane for many years prior to FS2020 being released, both for legal currency as well as learning the inside out of complex types I haven't flown. I disagree with a lot of the talk in the flight simulation community that always runs along the lines of "MSFS is a game with nice visuals, use X-Plane if you want a real simulator".