See how MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 compare with real flying across flight dynamics, aircraft systems, weather, scenery, ATC and training value.
MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 are highly realistic visual and procedural simulators, but neither fully reproduces real flying. MSFS 2024 generally improves aerodynamics, ground interaction and environmental detail; aircraft fidelity still matters more than the base simulator. Both lack sustained physical forces, real risk and consistently human-like ATC.
Is MSFS 2024 more realistic than MSFS 2020?
MSFS 2024 has the higher overall realism potential, although it is not automatically more accurate in every aircraft or situation. It offers newer aerodynamic, ground-contact and environmental simulation features, but developers must configure their aircraft to use them properly.
| Area | MSFS 2020 and 2024 comparison | Main real-world limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Scenery | Both provide convincing global scenery. MSFS 2024 usually offers better close-range ground detail and surface presentation. | Streamed imagery may be old, obscured or reconstructed incorrectly; buildings, vegetation and airports are not guaranteed to match reality. |
| Flight handling | MSFS 2024 has newer simulation capabilities, but the individual aircraft model remains decisive. A well-developed MSFS 2020 aircraft can outperform a basic MSFS 2024 one. | Desktop controls rarely reproduce real control loading, friction, vibration or aerodynamic feedback. |
| Aircraft systems | Fidelity varies from simplified default aircraft to detailed models with accurate electrical, hydraulic, navigation and failure logic. | Even detailed aircraft may simplify circuit breakers, abnormal behaviour, component wear or maintenance consequences. |
| Weather | Both can generate persuasive cloud layers, precipitation, wind and changing conditions. MSFS 2024 provides a more developed environmental simulation. | Turbulence, icing, convection and local airflow are approximations rather than a perfect reconstruction of the atmosphere. |
| ATC and traffic | Useful for basic clearances and traffic awareness, but instructions, sequencing and AI behaviour can be implausible. | Automated ATC cannot consistently reproduce a human controller adapting to workload, weather and pilot performance. |
| Physical sensation | Neither version solves this without specialist external hardware. | A normal home setup cannot reproduce sustained acceleration, seat-of-the-pants cues, fear, fatigue or the consequences of a mistake. |
Visual geography is one of the simulators' strongest areas, particularly for VFR familiarisation. It should not be treated as a survey-grade copy of Earth; our explanation of where MSFS 2024's streamed world is accurate and where it can break down covers airports, terrain, buildings and photogrammetry in more detail.
The practical verdict is aircraft-specific. A mature, high-fidelity airliner in MSFS 2020 may simulate its real counterpart more faithfully than a less developed aircraft in MSFS 2024. Likewise, an aircraft carried over from 2020 may not use every capability available in the newer simulator.
Why can the flight model still feel unrealistic?
MSFS can model normal flight convincingly, but realism declines when the aircraft data, controller setup or comparison conditions are wrong. Stabilised climbs, cruise, approaches and navigation are generally easier to reproduce than control forces, runway feel, stalls, spins and other edge-of-envelope behaviour.
A meaningful performance comparison requires the correct mass, centre of gravity, flap configuration, power setting, altitude and atmospheric conditions. Comparing a remembered real flight with an incorrectly loaded simulator aircraft proves very little.
- Controller response: A short desktop joystick is far more sensitive than a full-size control column. Excessive dead zones, aggressive sensitivity curves or a spring-centred yoke can mask what the flight model is doing.
- Assistance settings: Autorudder, assisted take-off, AI piloting and other aids can interfere with direct control inputs. They are useful accessibility features, but they change the realism comparison.
- Aircraft implementation: Attractive textures and a working flight management system do not guarantee accurate lift, drag, engine or propeller modelling.
- Incorrect visual cues: A narrow monitor view, unsuitable field of view or misplaced camera can make speed, height and flare timing feel wrong even when the calculated performance is reasonable.
- Runway and weather differences: Elevation, temperature, wind, runway slope and surface condition all affect take-off and landing performance.
Aircraft systems have the same dependency. Some models accurately reproduce start-up logic, power sources, navigation modes and realistic failure chains; others provide only the controls needed for an ordinary flight. Simulator version alone does not reveal that depth.
Can MSFS teach you to fly a real aircraft?
MSFS is useful for procedural practice and familiarisation, but a normal home installation cannot teach the complete physical skill of flying an aeroplane. Its strongest uses are cockpit layout, checklist flows, navigation, instrument scanning, avionics practice and rehearsing an unfamiliar route or approach.
It is much weaker for learning control feel, landing flare, crosswind judgement, stall recognition, outside lookout and decision-making under genuine pressure. A simulator pilot can also pause, reset or repeat an exercise without experiencing risk, noise, discomfort, radio workload or concern for passengers and equipment.
Our broader comparison of which skills transfer from home simulation to real aviation explains these differences in physical feedback, workload and weather judgement. Home simulation should support instruction, not replace it, and simulator time should not be claimed as loggable training unless it is conducted through an approved device and programme under the applicable aviation rules.
How do you make MSFS 2020 or 2024 more realistic?
The largest improvement comes from correcting the aircraft, controls and operating method before adding visual extras. A disciplined MSFS 2020 setup can be more convincing than an incorrectly configured MSFS 2024 installation.
- Choose the aircraft carefully. Look for documented flight-model and systems depth rather than judging only the exterior model or feature list.
- Calibrate every control axis. Remove unwanted input noise, confirm that throttles reach their full range and use only as much dead zone or response adjustment as the hardware requires.
- Disable conflicting piloting assists. Keep accessibility features that you need, but turn off aids that override rudder, trim, take-off or landing inputs when assessing the aircraft itself.
- Load a credible scenario. Set realistic fuel, payload, centre of gravity, weather, runway and aircraft configuration. Begin from a suitable cockpit state rather than expecting every flight to start ready for departure.
- Compare evidence rather than sensation. Check speeds, climb rates, fuel flow and procedures against reliable operating data under matching conditions. Monitor field of view and controller geometry before blaming the flight model.
- Improve only the weak layers. Aircraft overhauls, traffic tools and scenery enhancements can help, but install them to solve an identified limitation. Our guide to targeted realism modifications for aircraft, traffic and scenery explains where add-ons make a meaningful difference.
Overall, MSFS 2024 is the stronger starting point for visual and aerodynamic realism, while MSFS 2020 remains highly credible with a well-developed aircraft and properly configured hardware. Neither version duplicates the forces, responsibility and unpredictable workload of flying the real aircraft.