Hi,Is there a program that can control these retards?. Thirty five minutes setting up a flight only to have an AI Runway Incursion ending in a crash and subsequent end of flight.ACES should of spent more time fixing this than adding wild animals to Africa. This is a Flight Simulator not Wild Kingdom.Anyone know of such an add-on?.Thanks

You can try AI Smoothhttp://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads-fil...45-details.htmlAlso, disable crashes that way you dont have to restart your flight

ACES has noting to do with it unless you are only using default traffic and nothing more.FSX actually does a darn good job considering everything it has to do. You can try putting all of your traffic into a single traffic file (instead of mulitple traffic files as most AI are). FSX seems to realize where planes are in relation to one another better when there's only one traffic file, but this has many disadvantages. As Ryan suggested, you can turn off crash detection as many do and just ignore the rare odd happenings. This is the simplest solution and the one I take. You can turn it back on when in the air if you wish.

Thirty five minutes setting up a flight only to have an AI Runway Incursion ending in a crash and subsequent end of flight.

I'm sure a real life pilot who spent much more time getting ready and had a real crash feels much worse than you do in FSX. :(

Hi,Is there a program that can control these retards?. Thirty five minutes setting up a flight only to have an AI Runway Incursion ending in a crash and subsequent end of flight.ACES should of spent more time fixing this than adding wild animals to Africa. This is a Flight Simulator not Wild Kingdom.Anyone know of such an add-on?.Thanks

Hi Mike,Have you tried Ultimate Traffic 2?It works great for me.

Hi,FSX should of been designed with appropriate AI traffic separation abilities, as well as the ability to detect and avoid runway incursions when the users aircraft is on an active runway and/or on short final, it wasn't and that's the fault of ACES. AI Traffic has been a problem long before FSX, additional time should of been spent in this area than in adding wildlife to a "Flight Simulator".All my AI Aircraft traffic are located in one file called trafficaircraft.utb, so having one file does not help. AI Traffic separation and avoidance is pretty bad, I could only imagine how much worse this would be if I had other traffic files. If it is in fact true that multiple traffic files make matters worse.I've installed AISmooth, this seems to have removed the "MULTITUDE" of "PIGGYBACKING" aircraft on final. Again a problem prior to the release of FSX that should of been addressed.Microsoft's claim is and has been "As Real As It Gets". Disabling crashes to avoid FSX's shortcomings is an option I do not want to utilize. If I screw up and clip something and/or land too hard and collapse a landing gear, If a crash results due to an aircraft system(s) failure I want to know about it.If AISmooth is unable to give me the results I am looking for, I will just temporarily remove all aircraft traffic as I enter the active and/or while on final.As far as a "rare odd happening", not true with traffic set to 100% at major airports such as KJFK.

If AISmooth is unable to give me the results I am looking for, I will just temporarily remove all aircraft traffic as I enter the active and/or while on final.

I think Ultimate Tfc 2 does this...

I think Ultimate Tfc 2 does this...

Yeah what Ryan said. I have UT2 and it gives you the option to clear traffic while on approach or if you want you can also use its other command to completely stop and restart traffic when you want. Since I installed it I get much better FPS even running 100% traffic and I don't see a lot of AI go arounds like I used to using WOAI or the default traffic.

I have also used FSUIPC to clear all traffic on the press of a button, a repress then reinstalls the AI traffic, handy for clearing the path ahead for landing and still having aircraft at the gates when you are clear of the runway. I now use UT2 and its included options as suggested. My biggest gripe is finding and aircraft taking off toward you when on short final thanks to an active runway change after you have been given an approach clearance.One thing is for sure there is no chance of MS fixing it now. :(

Agree with all the advice above, and to emphasise that crash detect in FS9 and FSX is best disabled for many reasons, apart from this one. Crash detect is an unnecessary addition which does nothing to enhance your sense of immersion, but does a great deal to ruin it. You know when you've crashed (usually!) and you don't need a flight reset to tell you when you've done so. In addition, some scenery can promote a crash detection even when you are close to but not touching an object having a crash detect flag. This is not the fault of the scenery but FSX setting crash detect too sensitively.I also agree with the above post that FSX does a pretty good job of AI separation considering the complexities, and I doubt that not providing wild animals would have meant any improvement in AI behaviour.Rob Young

"Hi,Is there a program that can control these retards?. Thirty five minutes setting up a flight only to have an AI Runway Incursion ending in a crash and subsequent end of flight.ACES should of spent more time fixing this than adding wild animals to Africa. This is a Flight Simulator not Wild Kingdom.Anyone know of such an add-on? . . .. . . Microsoft's claim is and has been "As Real As It Gets". Disabling crashes to avoid FSX's shortcomings is an option I do not want to utilize. If I screw up and clip something and/or land too hard and collapse a landing gear, If a crash results due to an aircraft system(s) failure I want to know about it.If AISmooth is unable to give me the results I am looking for, I will just temporarily remove all aircraft traffic as I enter the active and/or while on final."Although I think that "Elvis may have left the building" (it is a moot discussion as to whether or not FSX code can handle AI traffic settings at 100% at a high traffic, international, Class 'B' airport - not to mention the addition of extra payware or freeware AI traffic), here's a question for your consideration.How about having realistic expectations (as in not expecting too much from it) of the FSX AI controllers program code? It doesn't have the ability to deal with it. Fact.If you take one of the worse aspects of something and then tax that very same flaw to the extreme isn't that in itself deliberately setting yourself up for disappointment at the least, and frustration at the most?I suggest that if you want "As real as it gets" then you should make a hop in a realworld aircraft, with nothing less than realworld ATC services, and the flawless crash detection of reality "captain".As has been already stated, it has been known for years that the ATC services in MSFS leave something to be desired, crank up your AI traffic settings to 100% and conduct simulated flight ops into or out of an Int'l Class 'B' airport and you are simply expecting too much. Pile on a bunch of addon AI traffic and well . . . thanks for making me laugh today.Save moving those AI traffic sliders to 100% for your screenshots, make simulated flights with AI traffic sliders more appropriately set for the real (as opposed to desired) capabilities of the FSX program code, with consideration for the type of flying you are doing, and the airports you intend to use.As for not wanting to turn off crash detection because it violates some personal standard for realism, well how is making all traffic in the area temporarily slip into an alternate universe more realistic? Like the previous poster said, " You know when you've crashed (usually!) and you don't need a flight reset to tell you when you've done so."As far as clipping objects, well, if you are uncertain then review the replay from whatever angle you need and YOU be the judge. I trust my brain more than the MSFS crash detection for reasons already stated by "robert young".Reasonable settings for your traffic sliders is the answer imho. Of course ymmv.

Hi,Thanks ryanbatcund, rrrman2002, cmpbellsjc, yellowjack and robert young. The information you gave me is very useful, I've since made the following changes to FSX.1. Added AI Smooth - Has removed the numerous "Piggy-Back" aircraft on final, That in-and-of-itself is a tremendous fix.2. Added Ultimate Traffic 2 @ 100% Commercial Traffic / 15% GA - Since 100% of my sim time is spent in the Level-d 767-300ER, airliner traffic is more important to me than GA.3. Added Radar Contact - Tremendous add-on, Taken right from their manual: "Since RC is not an adventure, Flight Simulator‟s AI traffic is active, and our controllers will give you traffic calls when an AI plane comes too close. RC will also move AI before they become a conflict, slow or speed up AI planes while you are on final, freeze ground traffic so they do not cause runway incursions. In short, RC is as close an approximation of what real pilots experience as is currently possible."

To Aviator4life,Yet again you spew remarks that are not Germane to the topic at hand and you are again misinformed."Although I think that "Elvis may have left the building" (it is a moot discussion as to whether or not FSX code can handle AI traffic settings at 100% at a high traffic, international, Class 'B' airport - not to mention the addition of extra payware or freeware AI traffic), here's a question for your consideration."If Elvis left the building its a good thing he came back with John Dekker and Doug Thompson, the creators of Radar Contact. Guess its also a good thing that the developers of Radar Contact didn't think it to be a moot point in regards to AI Traffic and the ability of FSX to handle traffic at 100% with proper coding. Be it, third party software, but none-the-less, it is possible and has been proven by these gentlemen and a product called "Radar Contact"."How about having realistic expectations (as in not expecting too much from it) of the FSX AI controllers program code? It doesn't have the ability to deal with it. Fact."Guess my expectations are realistic, with proper coding it "IS" possible to run traffic at 100%. The proof is in a product called Radar Contact. "FACT""If you take one of the worse aspects of something and then tax that very same flaw to the extreme isn't that in itself deliberately setting yourself up for disappointment at the least, and frustration at the most?"No, you take that flawed aspect and you FIX IT. Guess its a good thing that John Dekker and Doug Thompson didn't give up on AI Traffic. As a result, I now run FSX AI Traffic the way I want to run it, without disappointment and/or frustration."I suggest that if you want "As real as it gets" then you should make a hop in a realworld aircraft, with nothing less than realworld ATC services, and the flawless crash detection of reality "captain".Yet again, another irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with the FSX problem at hand. Since you have made numerous non-relevant statements such as this in the past, I've come to expect these types of childish remarks from you and shall waste no more of my time addressing them."As has been already stated, it has been known for years that the ATC services in MSFS leave something to be desired, crank up your AI traffic settings to 100% and conduct simulated flight ops into or out of an Int'l Class 'B' airport and you are simply expecting too much. Pile on a bunch of addon AI traffic and well . . . thanks for making me laugh today."You know what they say about he who laughs last. I guess you are incorrect again. Radar Contact has given me the ability to run AI Traffic at 100% out of airports designed by FSDreamteam, FlyTampa, Imagine Simulation and Cloud 9 to name a few. Guess I'm not expecting to much, as I have realized these settings with Radar Contact."Save moving those AI traffic sliders to 100% for your screenshots, make simulated flights with AI traffic sliders more appropriately set for the real (as opposed to desired) capabilities of the FSX program code, with consideration for the type of flying you are doing, and the airports you intend to use."My AI Traffic sliders are just fine at 100% with Radar Contact. No need for me to lower my settings below this, my overclocked I7-975 handles AI Traffic just fine."As for not wanting to turn off crash detection because it violates some personal standard for realism, well how is making all traffic in the area temporarily slip into an alternate universe more realistic? Like the previous poster said, " You know when you've crashed (usually!) and you don't need a flight reset to tell you when you've done so." Guess with Radar Contact I don't have to do anything, I get to keep my crash detection and I do not have to have traffic temporarily slip into an alternate universe. So, FSX is now more realistic than ever.Reply, if you must. As always, I shall not waste anymore of my time replying to you and this topic. To everyone mentioned above I thank you for your advice on this matter.

"Hi,Is there a program that can control these retards?. Thirty five minutes setting up a flight only to have an AI Runway Incursion ending in a crash and subsequent end of flight.ACES should of spent more time fixing this than adding wild animals to Africa. This is a Flight Simulator not Wild Kingdom.Anyone know of such an add-on? . . .. . . Microsoft's claim is and has been "As Real As It Gets". Disabling crashes to avoid FSX's shortcomings is an option I do not want to utilize. If I screw up and clip something and/or land too hard and collapse a landing gear, If a crash results due to an aircraft system(s) failure I want to know about it.If AISmooth is unable to give me the results I am looking for, I will just temporarily remove all aircraft traffic as I enter the active and/or while on final."Although I think that "Elvis may have left the building" (it is a moot discussion as to whether or not FSX code can handle AI traffic settings at 100% at a high traffic, international, Class 'B' airport - not to mention the addition of extra payware or freeware AI traffic), here's a question for your consideration.How about having realistic expectations (as in not expecting too much from it) of the FSX AI controllers program code? It doesn't have the ability to deal with it. Fact.If you take one of the worse aspects of something and then tax that very same flaw to the extreme isn't that in itself deliberately setting yourself up for disappointment at the least, and frustration at the most?I suggest that if you want "As real as it gets" then you should make a hop in a realworld aircraft, with nothing less than realworld ATC services, and the flawless crash detection of reality "captain".As has been already stated, it has been known for years that the ATC services in MSFS leave something to be desired, crank up your AI traffic settings to 100% and conduct simulated flight ops into or out of an Int'l Class 'B' airport and you are simply expecting too much. Pile on a bunch of addon AI traffic and well . . . thanks for making me laugh today.Save moving those AI traffic sliders to 100% for your screenshots, make simulated flights with AI traffic sliders more appropriately set for the real (as opposed to desired) capabilities of the FSX program code, with consideration for the type of flying you are doing, and the airports you intend to use.As for not wanting to turn off crash detection because it violates some personal standard for realism, well how is making all traffic in the area temporarily slip into an alternate universe more realistic? Like the previous poster said, " You know when you've crashed (usually!) and you don't need a flight reset to tell you when you've done so."As far as clipping objects, well, if you are uncertain then review the replay from whatever angle you need and YOU be the judge. I trust my brain more than the MSFS crash detection for reasons already stated by "robert young".Reasonable settings for your traffic sliders is the answer imho. Of course ymmv.

"Yet again, another irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with the FSX problem at hand. Since you have made numerous non-relevant statements such as this in the past, I've come to expect these types of childish remarks from you and shall waste no more of my time addressing them."Just because you choose to label something as irrelevant doesn't make it so. Maybe you should re-read my post so that you can understand it better.Perhaps there are others here who don't have the money to run out and purchase Radar Contact and/or UT2. I was simply offering an alternate way of dealing with the problem, sorry that you mistook it for something else. This is also why I added the YMMV at the end.Lastly, thank you very much Mike, since I am certain that I, among others, am tired of your immature, overly defensive attitude, when presented with ideas different than your own. I will be sure to reciprocate the favor and will ignore your next post about "retards" and "absolutely ridiculous" vendor situations.Have a nice day! :(

To Aviator4life,"Just because you choose to label something as irrelevant doesn't make it so. Maybe you should re-read my post so that you can understand it better." The comment about real world aviation has nothing to do with FSX nor its ability to handle AI Traffic. That comment is just another one of your snide remarks aimed to get my goat as they say. Therefore it is irrelevant, maybe you should re-read that paragraph."Perhaps there are others here who don't have the money to run out and purchase Radar Contact and/or UT2. I was simply offering an alternate way of dealing with the problem, sorry that you mistook it for something else. This is also why I added the YMMV at the end."By quoting my entire statement, your comments were directed at me. If this particular comment was meant for others, then I suggest you address your comments separately, instead of quoting my entire statement. Are you saying your alternative way of dealing with the problem is to tell myself and others here at AVSIM to rent a real aircraft, when in your own words they may not be able to afford a relatively cheap add-on. If your not telling myself/others to rent a real aircraft, then what's the purpose of this snide remark?."Lastly, thank you very much Mike, since I am certain that I, among others, am tired of your immature, overly defensive attitude, when presented with ideas different than your own. I will be sure to reciprocate the favor and will ignore your next post about "retards" and "absolutely ridiculous" vendor situations."Since your comments are filled with snide remarks that serve no purpose other than an attempt to get my goat, something that will not happen. I would hope that you refrain from responding to "ALL" of my posts in the future as I am not interested in your comments an/or snide remarks.Knowing that you must get the last word in before this ends, take your best shot.However, I Will No Longer Respond.

"Yet again, another irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with the FSX problem at hand. Since you have made numerous non-relevant statements such as this in the past, I've come to expect these types of childish remarks from you and shall waste no more of my time addressing them."Just because you choose to label something as irrelevant doesn't make it so. Maybe you should re-read my post so that you can understand it better.Perhaps there are others here who don't have the money to run out and purchase Radar Contact and/or UT2. I was simply offering an alternate way of dealing with the problem, sorry that you mistook it for something else. This is also why I added the YMMV at the end.Lastly, thank you very much Mike, since I am certain that I, among others, am tired of your immature, overly defensive attitude, when presented with ideas different than your own. I will be sure to reciprocate the favor and will ignore your next post about "retards" and "absolutely ridiculous" vendor situations.Have a nice day! :(

Mike,The replies you have unambiguously directed squarely at others and I in your need to vent frustration do more to indicate your intentions and basic nature than anything I could ever muster.You try yet again with your last reply to bait me into some kind of personal conflict, in spite of the fact that in the preceeding reply you made, you stated:". . . I shall not waste anymore of my time replying to you and this topic." Now, I am leaving this thread, your overly defensive rhetoric, and moving on. This is a choice on my part, not a successful manipulation by you, and I will keep my word. Real self-esteem comes from within, not from bullying or "impressing" others.No need to take yourself so seriously. Now, I refuse to further undermine the purpose of these forums by indulging your need for "drama" any further.