X-Plane 12 vs MSFS 2024: Which Should You Use?

People ask this like there’s a correct answer:

“Which is better: X-Plane 12 or Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024?”

If you force a winner, you’ll get a clean take… and a misleading one. Because the most accurate reveal is the one that disappoints the tribalists:

Neither is “better.” You shouldn’t have to choose.

Not because they’re the same—they aren’t—but because they’re excellent in different ways. The smart move isn’t picking a forever-sim. It’s choosing the sim (and aircraft) that best fits what you want to do today.

The trap: this question steals flight time

This debate has a weird side effect: it turns simming into research. You start chasing “the best” like you’re making a permanent decision, and suddenly you’re spending hours in:

• comparison videos
• forum arguments
• settings rabbit holes
• addon debates
• “physics vs visuals” philosophy

Meanwhile, you could’ve flown three legs or done ten patterns.

So let’s answer the question in a way that actually helps you fly more.

Where X-Plane usually wins: aircraft depth

It’s fair to say—especially if you’ve spent real time in both ecosystems—that X-Plane tends to have a higher average density of serious, systems-rich aircraft, where the “fidelity” shows up not just in checklists, but in how the airplane behaves.

That’s not a fanboy statement. It’s a reflection of platform culture and the kinds of developers X-Plane has historically attracted.

If you want a single exhibit for that argument, it’s hard to do better than the Hot Start Challenger 650—a sim aircraft that’s deep “on paper” and deeply rewarding to operate. It’s the kind of addon that can sell a platform all by itself if your idea of fun is realism, procedure, and an airplane that expects you to behave like a professional.

If your version of “fun” is serious operations, flows, and systems discipline, X-Plane (and especially the CL650) can feel like the home field.

Where MSFS is now top-tier: Comanche, Black Square, Fenix

Where people go wrong is treating the previous section as if it ends the conversation. It doesn’t.

Because MSFS has matured into a platform with multiple aircraft that belong in the top tier of consumer flight simulation—full stop. Not “good for MSFS.” Not “pretty close.” Just legitimately excellent.

And the best proof is the exact shortlist that keeps coming up for good reason:

• A2A Comanche – one of the most convincing “alive” piston GA experiences in any sim
• Black Square lineup – deeply satisfying analog complexity with real training value
• Fenix Airbus – airliner systems fidelity that has become a reference point

These aren’t “exceptions that prove the rule.” They’re a sign the landscape changed.

So the most accurate version of the “planes are better in X-Plane” claim is this:

X-Plane still tends to have a stronger average baseline for high-fidelity aircraft across its ecosystem, but MSFS has multiple aircraft that compete at the same highest level—and in some categories set the standard.

Where MSFS 2024 often wins: world + low-friction flying

When MSFS is working, it does something other sims still struggle to match:

It makes the place feel like the mission.

The California updates are a perfect example of the kind of flying where MSFS shines: low and slow, alone, exploring, enjoying the geography as if it matters. The world isn’t just background; it’s the reason you took off.

And yes—you can enhance X-Plane visually. You can build gorgeous setups with ortho, overlays, lighting, weather, and tuning.

But here’s the practical distinction:

MSFS often reduces the distance between “I want to fly” and “I’m flying.”

That friction matters. If you can launch and instantly be in a believable world that invites you to roam, you simply fly more.

Why immersion matters (including sound)

It’s easy to dismiss immersion as cosmetic until you notice what it does to behavior.

Sometimes the right engine sound, the right cockpit lighting, or the way the world feels in VR genuinely changes what you do next:

• you stay in the pattern longer
• you run tighter traffic
• you do one more landing
• you finish the flight you planned instead of bailing early

That isn’t fluff. That’s motivation—and motivation is the difference between “I own the sim” and “I use the sim.”

If a sim makes you fly more, practice more, and finish flights more often—it's winning where it counts.

The real answer: pick by mission

This is why the question fails: it assumes one permanent winner when the truth is situational.

• Want scenery-first VFR exploration and world immersion? MSFS 2024 often wins.
• Want procedure-heavy depth, systems discipline, and aircraft that reward serious operation? X-Plane 12 often wins.
• Want a specific aircraft experience? Often the aircraft decides the platform (Comanche / Black Square / Fenix / CL650).

So the mature answer becomes:

Use both. Stop trying to crown a champion.

I choose not to choose

Two great sims.
Different strengths.
Different moods.
Different reasons to fly.

The only real mistake is spending your limited time trying to “solve” a question that doesn’t have a single winner.

Fly what makes you fly more.