FS 2020 and X-plane 11
FS 2020 and X-plane 11
FS2020 doesn't seem to carry certification. XP11 might work for logging hours, but only in a certified setting. I wouldn't pick a simulator based on that. For my own training as a private pilot, I'd avoid relying on it for the real flying experience. It's mainly helpful for VOR navigation and basic visual cues like spotting mountains or hills if the environment is good. I'd prefer MSFS since your home airport would look nice there, and VOR works well there. It's a newer platform with lots of potential. If you can afford it, get both so you can switch to X-Plane if MSFS has issues—especially since it's still quite new.
I spend a lot of time on FS2020 (over 500 hours since August), aiming for my PPL in real life after recovering from COVID-19. Generally, @Hymenopus_Coronatus has a point. At most, FS2020 helps you grasp the fundamentals—reading instruments, understanding gauges, VOR/DME/GPS, practicing patterns, mastering dead reckoning, and getting a feel for radio communication and following ATC instructions. If you want to use it seriously for practice, the 172 (steam gauge) and 152 are the only ones that really cover these basics well. The Garmin still has room for improvement, but its setup in the TBM seems the most practical for learning. I don’t use the TBM often, but that’s what others say. I plan routes in ForeFlight and practice dead reckoning on the 152 with a stopwatch—both fun and educational. On the 152, radios behave exactly as they do in reality; you can check ATIS for your departure or arrival airport, adjust settings, and connect just like in the cockpit. PGatcomb on YouTube shares excellent tutorials that make FS2020 approachable and enjoyable, such as learning basic IFR approaches. Still, once you get actual seat time, you’ll see FS2020 is only as close to real flying as F1 2020 is to driving—it looks impressive but lacks the tactile experience. A small downside is that it’s easy to create poor flight plans in simulation, jump into autopilot with a quick switch, and let the system handle everything without much effort. That’s why I prefer the 152; it keeps me engaged, requiring constant input, corrections, and radio checks, which feels more rewarding than the passive experience of the 787.
The primary thread handles most tasks. FS2020 typically relies on just a few cores, making the performance gap between a 5600X and a 5950X negligible. On my setup, I usually experience 20-60% CPU load, with my 5700XT reaching about 80-99% usage while achieving 30-35fps at 1080p Ultra.
Absolutely, I understand your point. Flying for enjoyment works well for a quick overview of a new location, but it doesn’t provide solid training. The commercial planes aren’t ideal either—they’re often unreliable and still in development. General aviation aircraft, on the other hand, are really enjoyable to fly without autopilot, which is a major improvement over other simulators. It’s this freedom that makes flying VFR truly possible worldwide!
Absolutely, I recall testing FS 5.0 on my parents' 386 and struggling to locate our town—it didn’t feel very realistic. FSX didn’t perform much better. However, with FS2020, I shared a screenshot with my mom, and she thought I was actually there visiting.
Even X-Plane didn’t perform well. The home airport required around 100 GB of ortho+scenery just to look good, while the surrounding area remained poorly rendered.