Microsoft Flight Simulator vs Aerofly FS 4: compare realism, scenery, VR, performance, offline use, platforms and add-ons before you choose.
Microsoft Flight Simulator is better for most simmers because it offers a far larger world, richer live weather, broader aircraft and add-on support, and more varied flying. Aerofly FS 4 is the better choice for fast loading, high frame rates, straightforward offline flying and particularly smooth VR, especially on less powerful PCs.
For a desktop comparison, “Aerofly FS” means Aerofly FS 4. Aerofly FS Global is a separate mobile product, covered alongside its competitors in our guide to choosing a mobile flight simulator.
On the Microsoft side, the comparison primarily concerns Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024. MSFS 2020 produces a similar overall verdict, but content management, activities, physics and dependence on streamed data differ; our breakdown of the MSFS 2020 and 2024 differences explains those changes.
Microsoft Flight Simulator vs Aerofly FS 4 at a glance
The main trade-off is Microsoft’s breadth and connected world against Aerofly’s speed, consistency and simpler operation.
| Area | Microsoft Flight Simulator | Aerofly FS 4 |
|---|---|---|
| World and scenery | Global streamed world with satellite imagery, detailed airports and photogrammetry in supported locations | Clean, sharp presentation with detailed regions, but less ground variety and density overall |
| Weather | Live and configurable weather with a more convincing large-scale atmosphere | Simpler weather system that is easier on performance but less comprehensive |
| Aircraft | Broad first-party fleet and a much larger add-on market; system depth varies by aircraft | Smaller selection with responsive handling and interactive cockpits; fewer specialist add-ons |
| Performance | Demanding, particularly with dense scenery, traffic, glass cockpits and high resolutions | Fast loading and high, consistent frame rates are major strengths |
| VR | Visually rich but requires substantial PC performance and careful settings | Usually the stronger option for fluid, low-friction PC VR |
| Offline use | Possible in a reduced form after setup, but streamed scenery and connected features need internet access | Core flying with installed scenery is less dependent on a continuous connection |
| Platforms | MSFS 2024: Windows PC, Xbox Series X|S, PS5 and PS5 Pro. MSFS 2020: Windows PC and Xbox only | Aerofly FS 4 has Windows, macOS and Linux desktop releases |
| Add-ons and community | Large choice of aircraft, airports, scenery, utilities and hardware integrations | Smaller ecosystem with fewer options for extending the simulator |
Which simulator has more realistic scenery and weather?
Microsoft Flight Simulator has the more realistic overall world and weather system. It is better suited to global sightseeing, bush flying, real-world route recreation and flights where changing cloud, wind and visibility conditions matter.
That lead comes with caveats. Photogrammetry is limited to supported areas, streamed scenery can lose quality when bandwidth or server access is poor, and automatically generated buildings sometimes look wrong at low altitude. Our assessment of realistic flight-simulator scenery explains why coverage, resolution and consistency need to be judged separately.
Aerofly FS 4 can look exceptionally crisp, especially from the cockpit and inside its better-covered regions. It lacks the same density and environmental variation, but its consistent frame delivery may produce a more convincing sense of motion than a more detailed simulator suffering from stutters.
Which has better flight physics and aircraft systems?
Neither simulator wins every physics comparison because the specific aircraft matters more than the name on the box.
Aerofly FS 4 is not an arcade game. Its responsive flight model, stable frame timing and clear control feedback work particularly well for hand-flown general aviation, aerobatics and VR. Its limitation is breadth: there are fewer aircraft and fewer third-party alternatives when the included model does not reproduce the system or variant required.
Microsoft Flight Simulator covers more aircraft types and offers a much deeper add-on market, from light aircraft to complex airliners. Default-aircraft fidelity is uneven, however, and attractive graphics do not prove that engine management, autopilot modes, electrical failures or performance figures are accurate.
For procedural airline flying, unusual aircraft or a specific cockpit variant, Microsoft Flight Simulator is generally the safer choice. Before deciding, check the exact aircraft rather than comparing generic claims about each simulator’s physics.
Which is better for VR or a less powerful PC?
Aerofly FS 4 is usually better for VR and modest PC hardware. It starts quickly, maintains smooth frame delivery more easily and requires less settings work to achieve a comfortable headset experience.
Microsoft Flight Simulator can provide the more impressive view, but dense airports, traffic, clouds and glass-cockpit displays can put pressure on both the processor and graphics card. In VR, reducing render resolution or using aggressive upscaling may erase some of its visual advantage.
VR support still depends on the operating system, headset and runtime; Aerofly’s advantage chiefly concerns compatible PC VR configurations. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 supports PC VR, while PSVR2 support for its PlayStation 5 edition is scheduled through a free update in 2026.
Can Microsoft Flight Simulator and Aerofly FS work offline?
Aerofly FS 4 is the more dependable choice when regular offline flying is a requirement.
Once the simulator and required scenery are installed, Aerofly does not rely on a continuously streamed world to the same extent. Downloads, updates and any connected data still require internet access, and scenery availability depends on what has actually been installed.
MSFS 2020 can use locally installed offline world content, although visual quality is reduced without streamed data. MSFS 2024 is more streaming-dependent. Installation, updates and account setup also require connectivity, so neither Microsoft edition should be bought on the assumption that its full global presentation will remain available offline.
Which simulator should you choose?
Microsoft Flight Simulator is the stronger single purchase for most users, while Aerofly FS 4 is the better specialist choice when speed, VR or offline access outweigh world detail.
- Choose Microsoft Flight Simulator for global exploration, live weather, varied aircraft, detailed airliner operations, a large add-on library or console support.
- Choose Aerofly FS 4 for fast sessions, fluid PC VR, reliable performance, installed offline scenery or native desktop support beyond Windows.
- Choose Aerofly on a Mac rather than assuming Microsoft Flight Simulator has a native macOS edition; our Mac flight-simulator shortlist covers the practical alternatives.
A mistake we see often is comparing Aerofly FS Global on a phone or tablet with desktop MSFS, or treating every aircraft and scenery region as equally detailed. Match the exact edition, platform, aircraft, airport, control hardware and VR headset to the flying you intend to do. For most broad interests Microsoft wins; for a polished, quick-loading and unusually smooth flying experience, Aerofly FS 4 remains a credible alternative.