As I mentioned in a previous post, my Dad used the 80s MS Flight Simulator for IFR training. The graphics, on our amazing CGA monitor, were Battleship Gray ground (with mixes of solid green, I think) with white lines representing "scenery". I'm guessing that (for the 80s) the physics were a high priority, but graphics -- even for the 80s -- were not.

Microsoft could do the scenery more easily than others due to Bing, and frankly, if it weren't for the scenery, I wouldn't have shelled out the cash. The flight physics, while positively amazing[0], wouldn't have even been able to be described to me in a manner that would have gotten me excited enough to purchase it, but on that -- alone -- it'd be worth it[1].

I can't speak as to how well it simulates IFR/related things -- not a pilot -- though I mentioned in a previous post that my Dad basically got his IFR rating by practicing on ancient MS Flight Simulator.

I am curious, though -- what is it that MS Flight Simulator's latest version gets wrong about IFR that X-Plane gets right?

[0] Admittedly, I've probably used it for a total of 3-4 hours since its release. What I saw was impressive in that I wasn't intending to notice the physics, but it was impossible not to. There were moments where I had (extremely minor) anxiety while angled just right, looking out the "window" trying to get the plane to do something nuts.

[1] Bear in mind, my impressions come from not having played a modern flight simulator (outside of ones that are not intended to be accurate) in over a decade. Perhaps some of the things that I'm so impressed with have been available in other simulators and I'm just seeing them for the first time, here. I'm encouraged that so many people love X-Plane; I hadn't looked at it, yet (and not exactly sure as to why), but I'll be checking it out, now.