Prepar3Dv6 vs Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 - Which sim will be for you? | Real Airline Pilot

Lol.. which one? One still looks very dated yet good

Here’s my opinion. (I have all 3 simulators, not going to state X-Plane 11, or Prepar3D v5. purchase thoughts. Only the new generation simulators. I will state the compare/contrast to from Prepar3D v5/v6.) I have 3 simulators, Prepar3D, v5 (not planning to install v6) X-Plane 12 and Microsoft Flight Simulator. As much as I love Prepar3D, even when the release of v6, it is a dead simulator unfortunately. Unless you really love your modded Prepar3D v5 like I do, there is no point. Huge developers like PMDG are not going to Prepar3D v6 until they finish development for MSFS2020. One example would be PMDG stating that they won’t be working on Prepar3D v6 anytime soon until they finish their awaiting 747, which will take 2-3 years from now to release. There are work-arounds to get aircraft from Prepar3D v5 into v6, but obviously there are going to be bugs and unfortunately as far as I know aircraft like PMDG flight models are glitched. Another downside is network usage. (A huge disadvantage for people with bad bandwidth, 100% not for you if that’s the case.) Me personally, I don’t recommend Prepar3D v6. X-Plane 12 actually has a chance to compete with MSFS! With the new auto-ortho feature just like the google maps replacement mod for MSFS, X-Plane 12 can look nice, and you can have study-level aircraft. Expecting the FlightFactor aircraft, 757, 767, 777, 787, some older aircraft like the A300, A310, 737-200, they are all study-level. Thats one big-side to X-Plane 12. For example, to make X-Plane 12 look nice, auto-ortho is 20GB over the US, 5GB over UK. Bandwidth is only needed to load in the ortho. Making it an incredible storage saver and a wonderful graphical experience. Internet is not required for X-Plane 12. Another big upside to X-Plane 12 is the space it takes up. The default install is only 20GB! Its previous X-Plane 11 was 60GB, making it a massive difference. Developers are still working on it! If you’re looking for a nice balanced experience of study-level aircraft and graphical views, X-Plane 12 is for you. Graphically, MSFS is top tier, but I do see X-Plane 12 competing. If you like doing short-hauls, so far right now MSFS would be the choice. MSFS only has 2 main commercial study-level aircraft so far, 737 (PMDG) A320 (FENIX). There are other study-level aircraft like the ATR-72, Fokker 28, but I was just stating the main ones. As of right now MSFS is not worth it if you’re looking for lots of aircraft to fly and a study-level experience, but expect that to change when MSFS 2024 releases. Especially with the releases of Bluebird 757/767 being soon, PMDG 777, and some other highly pending aircraft.

I hope this helps you choose your simulator.

- Viking

There is not point of comparison between P3D and MSFS. It’s like comparing a Chevrolet Spark (P3D) with a Lamborghini Revuelto (MSFS) 💁🏾‍♂️. No more to say.

One of the things rarely mentioned is licensing. P3D has commercial licensing option that can be used for professional flight training. As far as I know MSFS does not have a commercial licence option so it can’t be used professionally for hire or reward. This puts MSFS squarely into the gaming market as opposed to P3D which is primarily focused on professional use (although many use it for gaming as well)!

I'd say MSFS is more like EFB if P3D were to be FMS

Well, I fly primarily high end military aircraft (I'm a naval air veteran, what can I say?). So the obvious response to that is... "Have you ever heard of DCS?". To which I respond, Yes, of course I have. I have it and fly it frequently and have most of the available mods for it. But as high end as the aircraft are, it is still somewhat limited in some areas, like terrain. While most of the available terrain is highly detailed, it still only has a very tiny percentage of the world as available terrain.
Anyway, from what I can see of V6, it definitely looks better graphically, but it looks like it still has the same old very stale (with the possible exception of the IFE F-35) aircraft list. I'm sorry but flying a 747 from Paris to London "by the book" just doesn't do anything for me. I'd rather go ferry hunting in the Puget Sound with a Milviz F-100 Super Sabre, or navigate said F-35B from Mirimar MCAS out to the waiting LHA off the coast and execute a perfect vertical landing while the ship cruises at 20 knots.

Academic P3D - VFR entertainment flying definitely MSFS 2024 in my opinion.

Since I'm on Xbox S, it's msfs for me. Looking forward to 2024.

As long as you will abandone p3d who has made pmdg what they are today, im very very dissapointed, so all my pmdg planes har been deleted from my computer.

Well said! I think that most home simmers simply don't realize that it isn't really which sim per se, it's the very complex comm/mil/gov setups, the certified systems, and all the people that go into it that really determines the difference between simulating and gaming.
For most of us (myself included), the difference between what you can accomplish at home on a desktop PC is really not much different across the sims.

I love the visuals of MSFS, but lack of properly working weather radar, TCAS not reliable, no efb yet in PMDG still makes me continue using P3D. It is possible to make it look beautiful as well. But as soon as thoose issues that are listed above are gone I'll probably switch to MSFS.

Refreshing video!! I don’t think anyone has ever done a detailed comparison of MSFS and Prepar3D like you did. Also, sharing your real life experiences about Prepar3D. Keep up the good work!!

What i don't get is why people online seem to immediately shutdown any new sim they aren't interested in, and deem it "dead". You're not losing anything by p3dv6 releasing

When it comes to the difference you must first look at the environment provided to fly in. As in the atmospheric and terrestrial accuracy/quality. Also in engineering issues, such as weight/balance, aerodynamics, etc.
This you must separate from "Procedural". Because procedural accuracy is something you place inside the environment. For instance, aircraft and airports. Realistically, this is something separate; as 3rd party companies typically provide this--although both p3d and MSFS may provide some default aircraft for their respective environments.

You can build a 737 to fly inside P3D or MSFS. A 737 can be created which is EQUAL QUALITY of procedural accuracy for both P3D and MSFS, provided both environments provide the application programming interfaces (API) to take advantage of the environment. You can put a full featured cockpit of a 737 cockpit and have it operate within MSFS as long as you have an API for each knob, doodad, slider, sensor, and readout screen. The large difference is in how well and to whom P3D and MSFS sell themselves to.


From the hardware to software point of view, it doesn't care which it connects to. The software doesn't see a large difference between an accurate representation of a Boeing 737 pedal and a Thrustmaster pedal, because from an input/API point of view, there really isn't much difference. So when it comes to "procedural quality" it mostly comes down to 3rd party companies and what they provide to the public for P3D and MSFS. If Acme Sims puts out a 737 aircraft to be used in the P3D environment for airline training, they can put it out for MSFS environment as well.
---The difference may be, if a particular environment is more accurate visually, environmentally, etc., it may be more difficult to create a product for because of the extra quality and variables of the more accurate environment. Think trying to program a plane to handle wind shear from an aeronautical engineers perspective.

This isn't MS Flight Gaming. It is MS Flight Simulator. This is what MSFS has been aiming for. They aren't marketing to only the home sim pilot, they are actually marketing higher. Just because a company "writes something" doesn't make it so or even better.

For the first challenge (VFR): Try flying the VFR corridors around Las Vegas or through Southern California Bravo airspace in P3D, MSFS, Xplane without plugging in GPS coordinates for any landmarks. Use the same single or twin type for each environment. Then compare the environment and the airplane within the environment. Which one would you as a CFII want your students to practice using? Even for 'procedures'.

Considering they just broke MSFS for PC users, its an easy decision. I don't think we'll ever see the MJC Q400

Prepard3d is nowadays far behind MSFS, no realism as the new sim has and with that demo they are confirm it, MSFS is the king!

Which I think by "training" you meant "FAA Qualified Flight Simulation Training Devices" which you can do at home by the way with commercial sims like X-plane. Maybe it would be worth a video discussing them and how they differ to sims in use by airlines?

P3D is squarely positioned to support military training scenarios and has been doing so for a long time.

Lockheed Martin’s P3D focuses on training our military forces using a complex scenario building interface.

By contrast, MSFS is a consumer product, not a military trainer.

With that said, I left P3D after version 4 due to a poor VR experience.

For me, MSFS is the obvious choice.

Sorry, but after all your very interesting videos before, I don't fully agree with this video. If the title was "In my opinion MSFS is a game and P3D is a trainer" you would have hit the nail on the head with this content. The video could have been so much shorter as the point had been only hit in the last sentences and briefly in the middle. The core message should probably be that the best suited simulator for you is that one, depending on what you make of it. That's right. 😉
Personally, I differentiate here primarily between private and commercial use and thus also between the target group and licensing. It is at least true that P3D would be better suited for procedure training with an FTD, since the focus here is not too much on the graphics and the cart will run in the standard much better and more stable than the MSFS. But that doesn't mean that you can't make a game out of it. Depending on which addons you use or missions you design. I can imagine that this could also be done in a similar way as in MSFS.
If Lockheed Martin had wanted, they could have cut their trailer as action-packed as the MSFS 2024 trailer, too. What Microsoft/Asobo have done here with the trailer is perfect marketing to appeal to the masses. They are showing what you can do with the MSFS and are highlighting certain properties. That doesn't mean MSFS is limited to just that. It's like a car commercial. I often see the cars driving through beautiful landscapes in short sequences and not like in reality in a rush-hour traffic jam, where everyone has their finger in their nose. Of course, Microsoft/Asobo could have shown the trailer realistically, e.g. for an airliner, by showing how you constantly look at the FMC and hope that the ToD is getting closer, because you've been on that island for the sixth time this week and also hope that you still get the last train home because you were again delayed due to slots. Not to mention the flight before when some idiots back in the cabin thought they have to get drunk already on the plane and you would have liked to throw them already out over the Alps. And then you think of the poor sweet FA, who has to keep them calm, although you prefer to keep her...🤪

Yes, with the MSFS 2020/24 a very wide target group or mass is addressed, which is primarily addressed through the graphics and the presentation of the missions. And therefore they should also be animated to fly or at least to flight simulation. The 12 million users (if I remember correctly) according to Asobo are speaking for themselves. However, I personally think it is too easy to break down the MSFS 2024 into a simple game without further justification. Mainly because of the points mentioned in the video, which are based on the MSFS 2020. I think you have to look a little deeper here and hide the gaming part, since Asobo is planning significant improvements for the MSFS 2024 compared to the MSFS 2020. On the one hand, all physics should be significantly revised and massively expanded. As I have read, through cooperations with various universities and institutes. I also found it interesting in their presentation how they calculate how materials interact so that a balloon can also collapse realistically. I wouldn't expect that from a pure game. 🤔
And on the other hand, a lot of work is being done on stability and performance (e.g. through real multi-core support😁). Furthermore, other points criticized at MSFS 2020, such as ATC and the TCAS topic mentioned in the video, will also be worked on.

The MSFS 2020 / 2024 should cover the entire spectrum of aviation you can imagine. And if you are rushing in Africa across the steppe with a lawnmower, you can also see the critters running around there. You don't necessarily have to dismiss this as a mere gimmick, but as part of the depiction of reality. This creates immersion. That's why many people do the PPL. At its core is their own entertainment. Just in reality. And to put it bluntly: If I were doing in MSFS some target practice missions somewhere in the steppe with ground vehicles like in the P3D, it could happen that an antelope would suddenly come in between. Just like in reality. I don't think the P3D does that. 🤔😛

However, if you compare the graphics and the environmental representation of the MSFS simulators with the P3D, then they are having a huge advantage over the P3D in training. Namely the VFR training. When I fly from A to B in a Cessna, just armed with a VFR map (especially in VR), I can do it in MSFS just as well as in reality (especially after the world and city updates). I am every time positively shocked when I compare both😃. So I am using the MSFS for this kind of training, too. In order to get this kind of scnery in P3D, I would have to emtpy the ORBX store before...🙄

(And once I did a preparation for a real flight in MSFS. I was then later shaken up in reality in a similar way to my moving platform. I found that fascinating...🙃)

I also bet that if MS/Asobo wanted to, they could license MSFS (or a version of it) for professional use as well. But they don't have this target group. P3D should always go into this kind of licensing and the masses can do beta testing for a fee.

Apart from all the mission blablabla of both simulators, you have to put the pure skeletons side by side and to compare them. I mean by that for example the design of the flight models, movements, flight physics, weather physics, controlling the (PC) hardware and so on. I think you will get a big surprise.

In my opinion, depending on how seriously you take the simulation, you can use the MSFS 2020 / 2024 for training as well as the P3D for playing. I am always looking at the core of the software in connection with the appropriate hardware/peripherals and not the (gaming) extras around it. The most important thing is always the seriousness behind it.

Side note: An FFS/FTD with the MSFS graphics would tempt me. Especially to train for airports like Innsbruck, Madeira,... 😄

In summary, I would say that you can't speak of the MSFS as a pure game, nor of the P3D as a pure trainer. It's not that black and white. They are only sold as that. It always depends on what you are making of them.
If you ask me which simulator to use, I would say that if you want to have a licensed trainer, then P3D. For everything else, go with the MSFS. 😉

Nonetheless, thank you for your otherwise great videos!😀

(And sorry for some typos. It was a long day.😐)

I appreciate your tutorial videos Mr Emannuel and thank you for them. Your insight is what drew me to your channel. I have a question for you. This may be different for each company, but isn't the sim displayed on the screens just the scenery/world to fly in? For example, I know the Socal Crew doing World Flight is switching from P3D to MSFS for their full 737 cockpit. One of the guys on the team explained in his stream that the sim is just the world to fly in. Everything about the aircraft, including flight dynamics, is injector into the sim through an outside source. I know other full cockpit sims that I've seen was the same concept when it comes to using X-Plane as thier virtual world to fly in. If that is the case, then any sim can be considered a entertainment or training tool, as you rightfully said, depending on what you make of it.

Let's see, a FSX clone with slightly updated graphics, or an overated scenery simulator/flight game, I'm gonna say....neither. X Plane FTW.

The only thing the FSX and P3D have going for them is support for military radars (A-A, A-S) and various weapons systems and sensors. It seems that Asobo has gone out of its way to not support any of these functions in MSFS.

I think you are trying to give brownie points to something which just looks so dated. How can VFR training be any better in P3D? How can a Fenix or PDMG system modelling be any worst off in MSFS? Military and full cockpit simulators are of course very different and that's really the key difference - how P3D is deployed in the professional environment - but if you compare the core simulator, then MSFS would definately hold it's own in many areas as a training tool with the right content, adding FS Acadamy to this and you have a pretty powerful package for the desktop user.

Here's one thing most don't realize this day and age; FSX, I mean Prepar3D, you do not require internet connectivity. MSFS 2020/2024 you do.

What people don't realize is that P3D is not better than msfs in term of flying characteristics. The main reason why P3D is used in schools and in the professional world is because Lockheed Martin is a professional solution. they provide the tools, provide support and after sales support to those schools and professional companies. Something Microsoft will never do. Just like a big company will never rely on avast or norton antivirus to protect their datas and their security, those profesional will never rely on a $60 public simulator without profesionnal support behind, no matter how nice it is.

As a retired airline pilot I respectfully disagree with a lot of what you say about msfs. I think it’s totally amazing, and yes, even as a potential training tool for some things. People go on about hand flying and realistic handling, but how many of your hours are non-autopilot ones?

If I'd have to break it down for me it would be the following:
If one is not in a proper training situation including the hardware or aircraft neither P3D nor MSFS are suitable for full scale training.

I as a home user cannot do proper training if I install consumer level addons into my sim of choise, nor can I expect to be able to fly a real C130 using the academic version of P3D as it will have its own restrictions. Same goes ofc. for MSFS.

I personally think that MSFS is the one for me because it provides a better sensation of flying (I don't like the word action as it's still not an arcade game!) than P3D. It provides a realistic yet spectacular impression of what flying at FL380 actually feels, on what it feels to fly low into the deep jungle on STOL operations and on how much work it really is to get started. Also depending on what actual aircraft one uses (like the Fenix A320) it is well able to simulate proper normal procedures, which is enough for me in most cases.

While MSFS might not be the correct tool strictly for flight training, especially for abnormal procedures, it is the right tool to get an impression on what flying an aircraft means and why it has become one of the biggest dreams of humanity. It is the tool to form future pilots out of people, something P3D is limited in due to the overall design as being a tool meant to be used additional to real hands on training in real life.

I choose Microsoft Flight Simulator because I do not have a Multi-million dollar full motion flight simulator cockpit, and don't intend to spend millions of dollars on one. And I'm not trying to go back to school to learn a new career. I have no desire to be a real pilot. I enjoy the entertainment value of Microsoft flight simulator, I have a great time doing group flights online with others, and at the same time, I am learning a lot about aircraft and their functions. There really is no question or competition here. Microsoft flight simulator started the flight simulator community over 40 years ago and is continuously breathing new life into it, as they have just done with flight simulator 2020. Now, every other flight simulator is popping out of the woodwork and trying to profit off of Microsoft's success.

If P3D is for training and MSFS is for gaming, P3D will need to up its aircraft game - either internally or through 3rd parties. In the end, training comes down to aircraft systems as much or more than the environment, so I have to ask myself: Am I better off "training" with PMDG or Fenix in MSFS, or (insert unknown developer here) in P3D? There is a reason I still fly the PMDG 777 in P3D V5 - it is the most realistic version of the airplane in a home sim. With PMDG not supporting P3D V6, the most realistic 777 in a home sim will be in MSFS. So if a real world 777 pilot wants to run some procedures at home before a line check, I'm guessing he will be in MSFS and not P3D for training. I'm sure commercial organizations/military will develop their own aircraft internally for V6, but for the home pilot, legit aircraft add-ons will be required for training, and I don't see any third-party developers doing that for home users in V6. I don't think P3D is dead as a sim, but it sure looks dead for at-home desktop pilots.

Thanks again for this one. It was a nice video, once again. People who write that P3D and XPlane are dead, don't understand that these simulators are not 1:1 comparible with MSFS. They are all different and have their different history. It's really worth to inform yourself about that. For me as a non-pilot it is exciting to learn to fly a new aircraft. For example today I learned how to use inbound radials in an Airbus to make smoother turns during my ILS-approach. For a professional pilot that might be daily stuff, but for me it is exciting to learn these kind of things. I think Prepar3D has lots of planes to learn this kind of things.

Even if pmdg and fslabs to bring compatibility no one would pay 3 times the price for a flight model downgrade compared to the Fenix, they were good for many years but unfortunately titling the game for realistic simulation use can no longer draw and mislead simmers. Sure it is a better training environment but for simming nah

This is wrong. So your telling me flying on rails is realistic? It feels pretty artificial for me. I was on prepared for ages but I moved over and I can’t see my self switching back. Especially as fslabs has stated they have no plans to bring compatibility for the 320 series over to v6. There’s no chance at all

Hi Emanuel! Once again you nailed it. Thank you!

I'm not convinced by the point you are trying to make. If you are running the sim on a desktop with various commercially available peripherals, MSFS will surely offer more, regardless of the focus of the reapective advertisements. For the vast majority of flight sim entheusiasts, the answer to the question: "What is the sim for you?", is going to be MSFS. For military aviation the answer is probably DCS!

I choose msfs

I think the whole you can only train in a sim that focuses on it is well toxic and making an actual commercial sim out to be an arcade game... Which you can train to drive an IRL car in Mario kart any of them as the bacis of motion in a land vehicle is the same... Sure it won't teach you what you need to know to get a Leaner's but you'll be better off driving with a co-driver then the guy who did not train before hand... Why isn't that true for flight? Yes an industrial sim is not a the same as an commercial sim. And they are not the same as a realistic game and an arcade game but you'll still be better off I and many others think then if you had no idesa what a plane was and went to your first discovery flight.... Which who are also real airline and other types of pilots I'm not included by the way I just study it alot and have thusneds of hours as a virutral piot but do want to be a sport pilot one day and want to train virtally... Which is why I watch you by the way...

Neither, I’m staying with P3Dv4.5

P3D and X-Plane are so dead it's time to let them both R.I.P.

Thank you for the video. Most of the viewer comments match best to a video about selecting the best religion.

I don't know what you mean saying that MSFS can't be used for training, I am a real world IFR pilot and I use it to practice real world approaches all the time.

Tbh, there is no other way but to go with msfs
Yes the addons take time but otherwise msfs is the next generation.
P3d wont be able to compete.

I think p3d is dead. Not many Devs left. For me personal keeping xplane and msfs parallel is the way to go. Msfs for its great look and lovely aircraft like pmdg and Fenix and xplane for aircraft variety and the (for my taste) better overall feeling when flying.

Great explainer video between the two simulators. I can see now why P3Dv6 is a major improvement for the commercial industry compared to what was available before. 👍

I tried p3d 5. x and it was dismal. I’m not knocking the devs it’s just p3d isn’t what vast majority of what ppl want. The aerodynamic feel of P3D is just plain and unrealistic. It’s for instrument practice and process. If ms2024 turns out as ms/asobo have said there won’t even be a discussion anymore

It's all computer *simulation*.

Have you watched the FS24 presentation in FSEXPO before doing this video?

You say MSFS isn’t suitable for training, Emi, but I would say it depends; I’ve been using MSFS for instrument practice for RW IR and it seems fine for that - I imagine you couldn’t use it in a full motion A320 simulation, but it’s by no means useless for people like me. Much better doing this procedural stuff and getting your head around it on your desktop simulator for free than in the real aircraft for hundreds and hundreds of pounds per hour.

I'd imagine P3D will be the superior flight simulator, the whole package of MSFS is better for my needs though.

2024 and its not even close