Yeah, I mean, I think the "flight models are too accurate to be fun" thing is true in some cases, but it's a different issue than I'm complaining about. For me, I'd rather have super accurate flight models and really great controls via keyboard and mouse, with graphics that look like Battlezone (1980s arcade game for the youngsters) than incredibly detailed landscapes and cockpits that might be almost photorealistic but give almost no thought to what it's like to use on a normal computer without a full dedicated setup.

I think this might be because X-Plane isn't the type of "game" many folks are looking for in a flight sim.

X-Plane prioritizes correctness and details above all else - whereas something like Microsoft Flight Simulator prioritizes eye candy and fun.

Want to fly to Area 51, attempt to land a 747 on an aircraft carrier, fly above the pyramids of Egypt, fly between buildings and perform aerobatics - choose MS Flight Simulator.

Want to practice patterns, procedures, participate in a live online ATC simulated community, familiarize yourself with new territory or airstrips, learn a new aircraft - choose X-Plane.

That's not to say you can't use X-Plane for fun, it just means doing things like aerobatics might not come easy due to the focus on realism.

Both are excellent simulators in their own right - just need to find the one you prefer. I personally fly X-Plane 11, Microsoft Flight Simulator and Prepar3D (based off older MS Flight Simulator codebase). Each has pros and cons.

That is the reason GranTurismo was soo popular. It was quite a shitty simulation but visually really good and accessible to everyone. However hardcore simracer were just glad other sims like Assetto Corsa exist.

Looks to me like MSFS is the way to go for someone who wants planes with the same "granturismo" approach.