MSFS Vs. X-Plane 12: Superior Flight Dynamics and Realism? You decide!

[Music] hey YouTube I'm flight Sim Community nit TR here I bought the full version of xplane 12 for 80 USD so I thought I would see if I was wrong on my thoughts about xplane maybe it really is a great Sim and I just need some time with it or maybe I'm right it's just a low effort rehash of a 15-year-old simulator I never liked the vibe of in the first place as we always do on this channel we're going to do a few comparisons first we're going to use the stock cesna 172 for both Sims in the middle of nowhere to an airport I've never been to in either Sim but I have been there in real life so I know what it looks like then we're going to take the Zebo and pmdg 737s to a major airport I've never been to in either Sim but have been to in real life Welcome to Cortez Colorado it's in the far Southwestern area of the state near Mesa Verde National Park there's no photogrammetry here there's no Custom Scenery here just Pure Stock msfs versus xplane 12 first up is Microsoft flight simulator and here are the settings we're using we're using 1080 and everything on pretty high settings but we're not maxed out for our weather we're going to use a preset of a few clouds but we're going to set a slight crosswind at 10 knots gusting at 18 knots this will check our Dynamics on takeoff roll and once we're in the air Microsoft flight simulator no longer has a turbulent setting like xplane does so we'll set the same settings as closely as possible in x plane but it can't be exact first up we have Microsoft flight simulator and it has an embarrassing showing here in Cortez the airport looks nothing like the real airport except for the fact that there is a Runway 213 and some taxiways there's one building on the entire airport which is not how the real airport looks as a matter of fact the airport is done so poorly it doesn't even have a complete apron or taxiway system msfs has a tendency to roll and Pitch down in a crosswind during a takeoff that is UN settling and unrealistic the flight Dynamics are bouncy and cartoony once you become airborne you also have that sterile feeling like you're on Rails well if the rails were built on a landslide in progress they certainly don't feel like they're on Rails to me surely with the same settings xplane will prove that it has Superior flight Dynamics right well first I can tell you that the airport is certainly much better than in Microsoft flight simulator without a doubt the buildings look similar to the real airport there's actually more than one building the apron was actually completed and the approach lighting is correctly placed with the same settings though the idea of superior flight Dynamics Falls flat on its face as the Cessna wants to pitch up prematurely with no back pressure applied to the Yol the idea of turning the ailerons into the wind is seemingly doing nothing and once Airborne the same bouncy cartoony flight Dynamics appear in little more than a Brisk wind of 12 mph gusting to 20 they honestly look a bit similar stall characteristics are actually very similar as well doing power on stalls each airplane runs out of steam at about the same speed and angle of attack before the wing dips violently recovery feels about the same as well they both do a pretty good job of simulating a stall in my opinion how do both Sims handle botched and bouncy Landings specifically pping purposing is a dangerous pilot induce oscillation that if not corrected will lead to the nose gear collapsing this pilot definitely should have gone around as you can see in xplane the Vans rv10 is a purposing machine most low-wing aircraft are more susceptible to purposing and the rv10 and xplane did not disappoint the purposing was immediate and felt dangerous and out of control as you can see I ate up a ton of Runway before slowing down but it never actually led to a crash but Microsoft flight simulator could also simulate purposing so xplane to me felt a little bit better but neither one was able to properly Sim ulate out of control pping and the subsequent crash that comes if not corrected there are several remedies for pping including adding a little power but usually the safest if it's too severe is to go around unfortunately there's some bad news for xplane that I didn't even anticipate I hit a big snag when capturing this video cuz I had no idea how abysmal xplane performance was in 4k I mean it's really bad I consider it virtually unplayable if you put all the sliders to the right you're getting under 40 FPS on a clear day in rural Colorado and then if you add clouds and Rain you're getting around 30 to 35 FPS at 3840 by 1620 this system is an i7 13700 K with a 480 super and this is a rural area in Colorado getting 30 FPS I mean imagine what would happen if we went to a place like LA or Santa Monica well imagine no more behold I'm getting less than 30 FPS on a 480 super for reference m roft flight simulator was able to keep 85 FPS all the way down to the runway in 4k also check out those hyper realistic uniform guidelines of Puddles I love how sometimes they're naturally 90° but then they're arranged organically at 45° in a grid pattern hyper hyper realism realism so obviously we all know the xplane is more realistic and has better flight Dynamics so let's check out how lame Microsoft flight simulator is with crash detection during this Landing with the highest realism set I can basically slam this airplane into the ground and Microsoft Flight seemly doesn't care no matter how crazy I get oh well I guess if you drag the wing tips it triggers a crash okay well fine but for sure xplane will have realistic damage model and I can't get away with any of the silly stuff that I'm doing in Microsoft flight simulator being so realistic it surely would let me know if I touch down too hard like let's say I cck crashed into the runway at 1,000 ft per minute okay all right well I mean if I if I stalled and rolled over and then crash through a fence and hit trees and no okay uh what about if I'm drifting through the streets of Santa Monica and aesa 172 no no nothing but guess what if you hit an overpass then that does finally trigger a crash hyper hyper realism realism realism okay I know what the problem is we're using boring stock cesa 172s that are just you know made by a Soo and laminar and they're not High Fidelity anyway so let's put the pmdg737 against the Zebo 737 and the Zebo will show us its Superior xplane flight Dynamics so for our next series of tests we're off to an exciting thriving metrop is full of culture and entertainment oh wait no I chose Kansas City instead Kansas city is in Missouri but Kansas City is also in Kansas but the airport is in Missouri Kansas City or kmci has recently undergone a large renovation they built a brand new terminal and Clos its old decrepit dfwss terminals I've never been to the new terminal but those old terminals were certainly past their Prime unfortunately neither simulator depicts this new terminal and neither stock airport is very impressive although once again xplane proves it does have better stock airports so how does the pmdg737 do with wind set at 10 knots gusting at 18 well to me that looks probably about what to expect with such a heavy aircraft a little wing bounce some minor directional change some Pitch some YW but overall pretty minor and pretty smooth I'd expect the same in the Zebo and xplane here's our weather settings wind is 10 gusting to 18 and we'll add a little bit of light turbulence all right that seems a bit extreme for 10 knots gusting to 18 in light turbulence let's check the settings again no that's correct that I would say is moderate to severe tgats dare I say almost a cartoonish and unrealistic level of turbance the way this thing is rocking and bouncing you certainly couldn't have anyone out of their seats and can that coffee on your trade table goodbye this slider makes no sense it's basically how out of control and overdone would you like your turbulence setting slider at none you get nothing at light you get way too much and the higher you go in the light category you start bordering on moderate to severe turbulence this is supposedly moderate turbulence but in 100 plus flights per year I have never encountered a turbulence that would look like this visually most moderate turbulence I've encountered has been of the vertical nature and I've never had an airplane sway this severely given the same weight and weather conditions on takeoff the Zebo is faster out of the gate but they both lift it off at the same time and place they're both mild mannered in a 10 knot gusting to 18 knot crosswind I'd like to do a more in-depth takeoff and landing and specific flight envelope comparison but that'll have to wait for another video even with the add-on aircraft crash detection isn't n realistic you can hit the runway at 1,000 ft per minute you can stay airborne at 80 to 100 knots you can crash bounce and go about your day like nothing happened in the Zebo you can even do a 90° 6G turn at 250 knots without overstressing the airplane the Zebo can even do a barrel roll with an impressive roll rate very realistic hyper hyper realism the rain effects are also supposedly fantastic in explane and you know what I would totally agree if rain had the physical properties of KY Jelly the way too long way too thick streaks are really strange looking especially out the side view effects not too bad when you're on the ground in the Zebo but as soon as you start your takeoff roll it looks like you have giant Korean glass noodles stuck to your windshield msfs is depiction of rain on a windshield isn't perfect either but it's much closer reality with thin wavy flows and speckled areas neither of them looks really realistic when compared to actual rain hitting the windshield of an airplane at speed all right so we have one last thing to compare live weather I was looking for an interesting place for weather and right now there's a line of storms moving through St Louis Missouri check out the satellite and the radar it should be clouded in with heavy rain let's see if we get that first up xplane TW 12 xplan doesn't look too bad I'm impressed with how varied and detail the clouds have become with live weather to me though this just doesn't match the mear the synoptic picture I'm getting from satellite and radar a little disappointing for my first live weather comparison test and xplane let's see if Microsoft flight simulator does any better well it certainly does look stormy so the mear part is correct and kind of the synoptic picture is correct but how about the rest of the sky it looks okay in some areas is but the break in the cloud deck looks too numerous from the satellite and radar picture it looks a little better than xplane but not close enough how do I know because luckily the local TV station in St Louis actually has a webcam at Lambert Airport as you can see it's actively raing the cloud deck is high but continuous towards St Louis though it's a different picture it's still in the middle of a thunderstorm cell this was all taken and captured in a 10-minute window still amazing technology and I'm happy to have have it every time I make one of these videos I come to a realization that I wasn't expecting and of course that realization is that in making this video both these Sims still have a long ways to go many of you have commented that we should be so lucky to have two amazing Sims now but I say BS these Technologies and Graphics have existed for over a decade xplane is stuck in 2010 and Microsoft flight simulator was about 5 years past due Google Earth has been out since June of 20 5 we've had this technology for almost two decades now but Bean counters couldn't find a way to make it profitable so we got stuck with FSX p3d and xplane for the better part of a decade xplane guys stop with this xplane is FAA approv crap that's only if it's attached to a basic or Advanced Aviation training device that costs between $8 and $20,000 and guess what news flash p3d and FSX can also be used as a FAA approved simulation software W when paired with a batd or aatd that's because the physical system is what FAA cares about the flight model just needs to meet a few parameters that even the default Cessna 172 and FSX met so don't try to be high and mighty over the FAA approval thing so my conclusion is that xplane 12 has neither Superior flight Dynamics or Superior realism the turbulence is overdone the rain on the windshield effects look weird the clouds are blurry and lack detail unless you have live weather and that 4K performance has got to be a sore spot for xplane fans but you know what I do understand why you might want both Sims especially if we can get the scenery up to par with Microsoft flight simulator in my next video I'm going to redo these comparisons and add a few more by adding Auto Ortho Sim heaven and visual XP ultimate to xplane 12 will we get a visually similar Contender or will we be plagued by issues my prediction is a little bit of both but every time I make one of these videos my initial prediction is usually challenged or downright wrong like And subscribe if I earned it or just keep lurking in the shadows and scrubbing through my videos while the Subscribe button eludes you YouTube tattles on you lurkers what do you call a happy Cowboy a Jolly Rancher I'm nitr and I'm pulling shocks partner [Music]

Channel: Night Train Industries

Views: 11,784

Keywords: 737, Boeing, Cessna 172, FS2020, KMCI, KSTL, Laminar Research, MSFS, Microsoft Flight Simulator, PMDG, X-Plane 12, Zibo, flight dynamics, live weather, realisim

Id: fjdcJOTMndM

Length: 14min 47sec (887 seconds)

Published: Thu Apr 18 2024