I can speak for FSX (Microsoft Flight Sim) and XP (X-Plane), as I have used them both extensively for IFR proficiency. That being said, I've never been into the graphics, scenery and all of the add-ons that are available in both sims. What it really comes down to for me is the realism and how well I can simulate going out and flying IFR in the goo... which doesn't require much of a graphical experience.
In my opinion, X-Plane recently became my sim of choice after they upgraded the Garmin GNS430 usability. The FSX GNS430 (and Prepar3d's as far as I understand) always lacked the realism and ability to fly approaches as you would in the real world. Entering a flight plan, for example, on FSX requires you to do it during the flight setup (outside of the airplane), rather than being able to do it on the GPS itself. Whereas in XP, you simply bring up a cursor on the FPL page and enter it directly as you would in the real world. The native nav database in XP is kept up to date without having to think about it and the PROC page loads up most of the approaches. When ATC makes a change to your route it's easy to modify the flight plan, and the OBS works like the real thing when asked to fly a radial referenced from a fix. The overall experience with the GPS is more realistic when comparing XP to FSX.
I also use PilotEdge, which is hands down the best ATC experience in the flight sim world. There is a monthly fee for using PE, which seems to keep it less amateurish, and the controllers are professional and by the book.
Like someone before me said, it's really about what you're using it for. A whole discussion can be had about visual textures, frame rates, etc., which is also important to some flight sim enthusiasts. For me it came down to which sim suited my needs out of the box, which over time has come down to XP with a PE subscription.
In my opinion, X-Plane recently became my sim of choice after they upgraded the Garmin GNS430 usability. The FSX GNS430 (and Prepar3d's as far as I understand) always lacked the realism and ability to fly approaches as you would in the real world. Entering a flight plan, for example, on FSX requires you to do it during the flight setup (outside of the airplane), rather than being able to do it on the GPS itself. Whereas in XP, you simply bring up a cursor on the FPL page and enter it directly as you would in the real world. The native nav database in XP is kept up to date without having to think about it and the PROC page loads up most of the approaches. When ATC makes a change to your route it's easy to modify the flight plan, and the OBS works like the real thing when asked to fly a radial referenced from a fix. The overall experience with the GPS is more realistic when comparing XP to FSX.
I also use PilotEdge, which is hands down the best ATC experience in the flight sim world. There is a monthly fee for using PE, which seems to keep it less amateurish, and the controllers are professional and by the book.
Like someone before me said, it's really about what you're using it for. A whole discussion can be had about visual textures, frame rates, etc., which is also important to some flight sim enthusiasts. For me it came down to which sim suited my needs out of the box, which over time has come down to XP with a PE subscription.
