See whether X-Plane 12 or Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is better for VR, with clear advice on visuals, performance, controls and hardware.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is better for most VR sightseeing and VFR flying because its streamed world, lighting and terrain create stronger visual presence. X-Plane 12 is the better VR choice when consistent control feel, aircraft handling, local scenery and lower reliance on internet streaming matter more. Hardware and aircraft choice can reverse the verdict.
That comparison mainly concerns PC VR. Xbox Series X|S has no MSFS 2024 VR mode, while PSVR2 support for PlayStation 5 and PS5 Pro is supplied through a free 2026 update. The direct head-to-head comparison is therefore on PC, subject to each headset's supported runtime and operating system.
X-Plane 12 vs MSFS 2024 VR at a glance
The practical split is visual immersion versus predictable local operation and control feel.
| Priority | Better choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Scenic VFR flying | MSFS 2024 | Detailed streamed terrain, aerial imagery and photogrammetry where available |
| Aircraft handling and control response | X-Plane 12, often | Its aerodynamic modelling and control feel appeal to pilots practising handling |
| Motion-controller-first flying | X-Plane 12, usually | Native cockpit manipulation is generally more central to its VR workflow |
| Offline or repeatable scenery | X-Plane 12 | Locally installed scenery avoids dependence on world streaming |
| Performance consistency | X-Plane 12, often | The workload can be more predictable, although aircraft, weather and add-ons can erase the advantage |
| Complex aircraft fidelity | Depends on the aircraft | Systems, VR manipulators and display clarity are aircraft-specific rather than guaranteed by either simulator |
Which simulator looks better in VR?
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 usually looks better in VR, especially at circuit height and during low-level VFR flying. Its aerial imagery, terrain detail, buildings, atmospheric lighting and streamed world provide a stronger sense of location and scale.
X-Plane 12 has convincing weather, lighting and airport environments, but its default world is more conventional and less geographically detailed. The difference becomes less decisive during airline cruise, instrument conditions or cockpit-heavy operations, where readable instruments and stable frame timing matter more than the terrain below.
Cockpit clarity is not an automatic MSFS victory. Headset resolution, render scaling, anti-aliasing and the aircraft's panel textures determine whether small labels and glass displays remain legible. Aggressive upscaling can improve performance while making flight displays noticeably softer.
Why X-Plane 12 can still feel more convincing
X-Plane 12's strength is dynamic rather than photographic realism. Its aerodynamic model and control response are often preferred for practising flare control, crosswind technique and aircraft handling, although no simulator engine makes every aircraft accurate by itself. The aircraft developer's geometry, systems and performance data still matter.
That advantage is clearest with a physical yoke, stick, pedals and throttle. Holding a virtual yoke with motion controllers gives no resistance or reliable centring, so neither simulator should be judged solely by that control method.
Which simulator runs better in VR?
X-Plane 12 often delivers more predictable VR performance, but there is no universal frame-rate winner. Preset names cannot be compared directly because the simulators render different scenery, weather and object loads.
MSFS 2024 can become CPU-limited around detailed airports, dense traffic and complex avionics, then GPU-limited at high per-eye resolution or demanding cloud settings. X-Plane 12 can become CPU-limited through world objects, plug-ins and complex aircraft, while anti-aliasing, clouds and headset supersampling can place the GPU under heavy load.
A fair comparison uses the following process:
- Match the headset workload. Use the same refresh rate and approximately the same per-eye resolution, checking that another VR utility is not adding a second layer of supersampling.
- Create a clean baseline. Start with a default aircraft, clear weather, a quiet airport, minimal traffic and non-essential plug-ins disabled.
- Prioritise frame-time stability. A steady native or reprojection-assisted rate feels better than a higher average that repeatedly crosses the reprojection threshold.
- Add complexity one item at a time. Test the intended aircraft, airport, weather and traffic separately so the actual bottleneck is visible.
Our guide to optimising MSFS 2024 for VR explains the useful order for adjusting OpenXR, render scale, level of detail, VRAM use and reprojection. If a hardware upgrade is part of the decision, compare headset resolution and memory demands before choosing a GPU for flight-simulator VR.
What setup problems can skew the comparison?
Several common configuration faults can make one simulator appear far worse than it really is.
- Wrong OpenXR runtime: MSFS 2024 may launch on the monitor without entering the headset, or it may use an unintended runtime. Follow these OpenXR and headset-detection checks for MSFS before comparing performance.
- Double render scaling: High supersampling in the headset software combined with a high in-simulator render scale can overwhelm the GPU without an obvious settings error.
- Unstable reprojection: Repeatedly moving above and below a runtime's target causes judder and visible artefacts around propellers, cockpit frames and moving terrain.
- Controller assumptions: Both simulators support VR cockpit interaction on compatible setups, but individual aircraft may have poor hit areas, unsupported knobs or awkward virtual yokes. Physical controls remain the more dependable solution.
- Add-on and overlay load: Detailed airports, traffic tools, aircraft systems, recording overlays and plug-ins can produce stutters that are wrongly blamed on the base simulator.
- Streaming conditions: MSFS 2024's best world detail depends on a stable connection. Delayed terrain or changing ground detail may be a network problem rather than a headset or GPU fault.
For X-Plane, our X-Plane 12 headset and controller setup covers runtime selection, cockpit interaction and the first performance adjustments without assuming that every headset behaves identically.
Which VR flight simulator should you choose?
Choose MSFS 2024 for visual immersion; choose X-Plane 12 for local, repeatable operation and a stronger emphasis on handling.
- Pick Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 if scenic VFR flying, recognisable terrain, detailed cities and atmospheric presentation are your priorities, and you have capable hardware plus reliable broadband.
- Pick X-Plane 12 if aircraft response, procedural practice, motion-controller interaction, locally installed scenery and reduced dependence on streaming matter more.
- Let the must-have aircraft decide if you mainly fly one type. Its VR manipulators, systems depth, display legibility and performance can outweigh the strengths of the simulator beneath it.
For most new PC VR simmers with suitable hardware, we would choose MSFS 2024 for the stronger sensation of being in a real place. We would choose X-Plane 12 for repeatable procedure work, local scenery and aircraft behaviour. Neither choice compensates for an unstable runtime, an overloaded GPU or an aircraft with poor VR support.