X-Plane 12 vs MSFS: which is better for training?
X-Plane 12 is generally the better choice for practising aircraft handling, instrument procedures and failure scenarios, while Microsoft Flight Simulator is stronger for VFR route familiarisation and visual navigation. For serious training, however, the fidelity of the aircraft, controls and procedures matters more than the simulator brand; neither desktop program alone makes training time loggable.
Here, Microsoft Flight Simulator means MSFS 2024. Most of the same training trade-offs also apply to MSFS 2020, although individual aircraft and avionics implementations differ.
Which simulator is better for each type of training?
X-Plane 12 has the stronger training bias overall, but MSFS is the better tool when accurate-looking terrain and recognisable visual references are central to the lesson.
| Training goal | Better fit | Main reason |
|---|---|---|
| VFR routes and landmark recognition | MSFS | Detailed streamed scenery makes roads, coastlines, towns and terrain easier to recognise. |
| Basic handling and energy management | X-Plane 12, narrowly | Its flight-model approach and training controls lend themselves to repeatable handling exercises, provided the aircraft model is accurate. |
| IFR procedures | Either | The specific avionics, navigation data and aircraft implementation matter more than the base simulator. |
| Failures and abnormal situations | X-Plane 12 | Instructor-style positioning and failure tools make structured scenarios easier to create and repeat. |
| Airliner flows and SOP rehearsal | Whichever has the better aircraft | A high-fidelity aircraft package can reverse the general simulator-level verdict. |
| Landing technique and control feel | Neither fully | Desktop controls, screen geometry and the lack of real control forces limit transfer to the aircraft. |
For differences beyond training, our detailed comparison of flight dynamics, procedures, scenery and performance covers the broader choice.
Why does X-Plane 12 often suit structured practice?
X-Plane 12 is particularly useful when a lesson needs repeatable aircraft states, failures, repositioning and close attention to handling.
Its blade-element-based flight model calculates forces across the modelled aircraft rather than guaranteeing realism automatically. Poor geometry, incorrect engine data or simplistic systems can still produce an inaccurate aircraft. A well-developed MSFS aircraft may therefore train a particular type better than a weak X-Plane version of the same aeroplane.
X-Plane's instructor-style map, weather controls and failure options are useful for practising an engine failure after take-off, an instrument failure or repeated approach interceptions. Exact failure support still depends on the aircraft; a custom aircraft may use systems that do not respond fully to the simulator's generic failure controls.
When is Microsoft Flight Simulator better for training?
MSFS is better for previewing an unfamiliar VFR route, locating prominent terrain and rehearsing arrival orientation around an airport.
That visual advantage should be used carefully. A building, mast, taxiway or runway marking may be outdated, generated incorrectly or absent. Treat the scenery as familiarisation, not as an authoritative source for obstacle clearance, airport layout or navigation.
MSFS can also provide sound IFR practice when the selected aircraft reproduces the relevant avionics and autopilot accurately. The idea that visual realism automatically means weak flight modelling—or that X-Plane is automatically correct—is too simplistic; our explanation of how visual realism differs from flight-model realism shows why the aircraft itself must be assessed.
Can you log training time in X-Plane or MSFS?
A normal home installation of X-Plane 12 or MSFS does not produce loggable flight-training time.
Aviation-authority qualification applies to a complete training device: its software, aircraft model, controls, displays, configuration and approved manner of use. X-Plane may be used as part of a qualified device, but installing the consumer version with a yoke and pedals does not make the setup approved. Logging rules also depend on the jurisdiction, training programme and instructor supervision.
Home simulation is still valuable for checklist flows, instrument scans, radio setup, navigation, briefings and mental rehearsal. It is much less reliable for learning control forces, flare sight pictures, braking feel or responses to hazardous weather.
How should you set up either simulator for useful practice?
A training setup becomes useful when it matches the aircraft and lesson rather than chasing maximum graphics or hardware complexity.
- Match the aircraft and avionics. Practise with the same cockpit layout, units, GPS or flight-management system used in training. Do not assume every default aircraft models the real system correctly.
- Calibrate the controls. Remove unwanted duplicate bindings, set only enough dead zone to stop sensor noise and avoid extreme response curves. Keep assistance features such as auto-rudder or automatic trim disabled unless the exercise specifically requires them.
- Use the correct procedure. Work from the applicable checklist and chart. Navigation-data mismatches can create missing fixes, changed procedure names or different runway transitions.
- Define one lesson objective. Practise a hold entry, localiser intercept or checklist flow rather than flying without a measurable goal. Reset and repeat the same conditions.
- Review errors immediately. Check altitude, speed, configuration and lateral tracking. Repeating an incorrect flow only makes the mistake harder to remove.
- Verify transfer with an instructor. Confirm that control techniques, call-outs and emergency actions match the real aircraft and training organisation.
Our step-by-step cockpit, navigation and instrument tutorials can provide structure, but real-world checklists and instructor guidance take priority.
What training mistakes should you avoid?
The most damaging mistake is assuming that repetition alone creates useful practice.
- Do not learn emergency actions from an unverified aircraft model or improvised checklist.
- Do not use simulator scenery instead of current charts and airport information.
- Do not judge landing ability by touchdown rate alone; approach stability and correct control inputs matter more.
- Do not rely on built-in ATC to teach real phraseology or local procedures.
- Do not leave hidden assistance, conflicting control bindings or excessive sensitivity curves active.
- Do not assume matching cockpit graphics mean the systems behind them are accurately simulated.
Which one should you choose for flight training?
Choose X-Plane 12 for a training-first desktop setup centred on handling, IFR repetition, failures and instructor-led scenarios. Choose Microsoft Flight Simulator when VFR route familiarisation, terrain recognition and visual orientation are the main goals.
If an instructor or training organisation already uses one platform, matching that platform and its aircraft usually outweighs the general comparison. For type-specific practice, buy or configure around the most accurate aircraft implementation—not the simulator with the most impressive screenshots.