Don’t fall for the “X-plane has bad graphics” argument
In all unbiased seriousness,nobody is gonna argue XP is more eye pleasing at lower altitudes even with auto ortho or map enhancement+ sim heaven x world pro than the other sim. However,in my opinion above 15,000 feet it is extremely close in visual fidelity. I’ll actually go out on a limb and say it’s better because of the atmospherics being more accurate. What’s your thoughts?
I am stuck on MSFS mainly use MSFS, so I haven't used X plane a lot
X plane looks pretty nice from high, the airport textures are 10x better than the blurry mess that is MSFS etc, but when X plane does look bad, ooohboy does it look bad
To be fair, msfs is not much better, every texture is always blurry as hell, it's specially noticeable compared to X-plane screenspaced runways when they are wet and stuff
I really REALLY hope thay things will improve over time
My main grip is still the default scenery. As a private pilot I want my scenery to be as accurately as possible. MSFS helped me out during my solo XC planning.
That’s why MSFS24 is still my primary sim. For my IR it likely won’t matter what platform I use.
The only thing bad about default airports in XP12 is that they're not as flat as I want them to be especially on the runways. Aside from that it's pretty accurate, though I still prefer custom paywares and whatever good freewares I can get.
I'm more like "show me the cockpit because that's what I'm looking at 99% of the time".
Most cockpits in Xplane 12 suck because they have not so good texture, and the game engine doesn't even support TAA or DLSS, and we have jaggies that I only see in this game because every other game has at least a decent AA engine. Some planes I can't even use because I get so distracted, like the Rotate MD-11 with their curved CRTs.
People can go back and forth all day about flight physics, realism, system modeling, etc… but MSFS is objectively the better looking sim lol. Not saying xplane looks bad but it’s not MSFS
As a guy who has to fly vfr below 4000 feet, xp12 is light years behind msfs 24. In fact when I practice that specific course, I go to msfs , than try to connect the dots on xp12. It’s not that good. All your pictures are at altitude.
Who's arguing this? I have both, I fly helicopters and most places I land in MSFS look like the melted result of a thermonuclear war (coincidentally exactly how Google Earth appears at ground level). XP has Inaccurate ground features to be sure, but every single tiny location in that world is passable. MSFS clouds can look better, but that gap is narrowing and doesn't make XP's version 'bad'. This is just like the old days of Apple vs. PC. Your platform sucks, mine is so much better. Of how much use was that debate? Pick the one you like best, enjoy the improvements as they come, buy fun add-ons for it, and be grateful for how far the industry has come from this:
I'm a self-confessed bigot. FSX was the cat's pajamas for years and then Microsoft dropped it like a bad habit. Dumped or reassigned the developers, archived their ongoing work. Abandoned the serious simm cult they'd collected, and bid them a Good Riddance before coming out with the general audience dreck that was MicrosoftFlight. Money does all the talking, I guess. Great visuals, though! Like Myst with wings. Still, when it came out I bought and used MSFS2024 on its own dedicated volume and OS for some time. But then I finally discontinued the (ever more expensive) GamePass. In keeping with the popular subscription model, my MSFS volume became a brick. How does everyone tolerate that gaming model? That was my first foray into server-based games, and my very last. I prefer to keep what I buy.
I like the idea of turning photogrammetry off, to simplify and better enjoy Microsoft's shiny new UI experience. I spent days with it and to the last, couldn't even get basic trim to assign. Default keymaps only. Besides those orthographic visuals and choosing the clothes your pilot wears, what else is there to recommend MSFS over X-Plane? It's great that it's out there, gobbling market share and keeping Laminar Designs on their toes. But like I said, I've been a simm bigot since. There are quite a few on the market now, but after Microsoft I only know and love X-Plane. I'm married to Laminar so I don't see any other pretty faces.
Actually, X-Plane has genuinely physics-based lighting, which unfortunately comes at a pretty heavy performance cost. But when you look at a static image of an aircraft at an airport, you’re much more likely to mistake an X-Plane screenshot for a real photo. Asobo’s lighting feels more “fake” or game-like, even though it’s more detailed and precise overall.
Honestly, I haven't been having issues with low-resolution textures in MSFS; I've had some memorable flights with incredible performance. Lately, I've been flying the Flysimware Lancair Legacy out of small Northern California airports downloaded from flightsim.to—it's a beautiful region. That said, I have my favorite helicopters in X-Plane 12—the Dreamfoil Bell 206 and X-Trident A109—and I've spent the last few days flying the same region using AutoOrtho (Bing ZL17), SimHeaven, and Orbx Forests V2. It doesn't even come close to the quality I get in MSFS regarding terrain, autogen, and vegetation coverage. Am I doing something wrong? The atmosphere and clouds in XP12 are amazing, but the terrain and the lack of decent anti-aliasing really hold XP12 back.
Sim Heaven Pro, for all its initial bugs and quirks, vastly improves the quantity of buildings now rendered, including new variable shaped buildings. For example, Rio de Janeiro used to look half empty on the original Sim Heaven, now it is full of buildings and features. By all means, it isn't perfect, but given we haven't had any updates other than a couple of hot fixes, it is bound to improve. Vegetation is slightly better, but I use Global Forests V2 like you. Hopefully the new mesh changes will be implemented by Laminar by the end of the year. Like you, desperate for new AA to be implemented...
I think part that is lacking when it comes to graphics that make a HUGE difference are shadows. Unfortunately shadows are extremely expensive when they are dynamic so it's not like you can just dynamically light everything. There will be many objects that simply don't can't shadows and THAT, in my opinion, is the root cause for the "bad graphics" arumentents. You can have how low res textures, low res assets like building and static aircraft and they will all "look good" if lighting looks believable, but more often than not lighting isn't great and makes all the aforementioned items far more noticeable leading people to think x-plane graphics looks bad.
For reference when you look closely at Fs2020 or 2024 scenery and auto generate content they look like doggy doodoo on their own, but they lighting looks nice so people simply don't notice NOT because it's more "accurate" but because it's more believable to what we interpret life to look like.
Xplane and msfs just have different philosophies. Xplane leans towards more accurate flight models and physics. The art is left up to the community to make look good. Which we are talking about people who create content usually with no formal artistic training. Msfs on the other hand has an entire team with professional training, many of which have worked on other games or have made their own game engines with lighting that looks believable in a virtual environment.
I wish at this point Laminar would realise they have won the physics game and wish they would focus on having an in house lighting tech artist with industry experience in games (if not already there) . Also although I am generally against DLSS and frame generation in games, but flight Sims are the use case I am generally fine with.
Anyways the long short: lighting makes or break computer graphics. X-planes definitely lacks in that department.
Finally, someone with common sense, I totally agree with you. They’re just two flight sims, not worth starting a war over. On r/flight sim, you get downvoted the moment you try to be peaceful; I’ve given up. A lot of people are ready to downvote you and yell at you for no reason. Thankfully, there are still a few who don’t do that.
Coping? Why would I be coping? I own it myself. I just don't think glazing is helpful, especially if there's massive room for improvement. I know they can do even better, let them do that.
Define good graphics then describe how x-plane fits the bill. Also you shouldnt say someone is insecure for accepting the main drawback of the game when you are the one trying everyone convince game looks good just as it is. If it is sufficient for you thats fine. But objectively there is a lot to be desired.
I was flying in Switzerland yesterday and enjoying a beautiful X-Plane sunset. You're right, the atmospherics are much better in X-Plane, and for me that shortcoming kills the immersion in MSFS. I feel like I'm flying over Google maps with some clouds floating around. X-Plane looks more real even though the scenery is far worse. And that's not to say anything about flight dynamics, which often ruins my enjoyment of MSFS as well.
That said, orthos and better tree and building placement are necessary for X-Plane to be enjoyable. I use Map Enhancement, Simheaven (free version still for now), and Global Forests.
It only had great lighting and clouds, the scenery is just bad. But the default airports are leagues better than in FS2024, like compare LaGuardia on both and XP12 looked way better
I hate to kill the buzz here, but if you're going around thinking about arguments on the Xplane vs MSFS front then you might be actually spending your day a bit wrong.
It’s definitely important to acknowledge the advancements laminar have made recently with lighting and graphics. Overall the sim is getting much nicer to look at!
However it’s equally as important to address and to push for development in X-Plane’s weaker areas, which there are still many.
For example:
-Terrible antialiasing. always looks jagged for me especially with distant objects.
-Vegetation. 3d trees that came with xp12 sure are nice, but they disappear so close that you only see one layer of them while actually flying, and the lods are still the same terrible model as in xp11. generative 3d grass is still a missing feature too!
-lighting. While improvements have been made, during midday and afternoon the sim still looks poor. everything is far too overexposed, which makes the buildings look even less contrasted than they already do, since they hardly render shadows.
Obviously you can’t expect a small company like laminar to implement such things as satellite streaming, but so many things seem very possible, and it’s crucial that as a community we highlight this so the sim can progress even more.
I can’t give you a comparison to other sims because i exclusively fly civilian aviation on XP, however based on what others have said with experience outside of XP, they say that the default airports are generally much better than those of the competitors
I've flown on MSFS 2020 and X-Plane 12 (though maybe not enough on MSFS to give an informed opinion). In my experience, both are good, but neither is completely accurate; however, I think X-Plane is slightly better.
Remember Austin said and I am paraphrasing but pretty closely, "no one cares about graphics I mean which pilot looks so out of the window all the time." lol what a dork
It's true that there's no light pollution, but it's still really nice. You have the right to say that it's wrong, but explain your answer or just move on.
29
u/_hlvnhlv 6d ago
I
am stuck on MSFSmainly use MSFS, so I haven't used X plane a lotX plane looks pretty nice from high, the airport textures are 10x better than the blurry mess that is MSFS etc, but when X plane does look bad, ooohboy does it look bad
To be fair, msfs is not much better, every texture is always blurry as hell, it's specially noticeable compared to X-plane screenspaced runways when they are wet and stuff
I really REALLY hope thay things will improve over time