Hi,Would like to know if someone can tell something about the diffrences between Ultimate Traffic and My Traffic? ;-)I got My Traffic, and I am thinking of getting Ultimate Traffic....but don

Where to start....I'll give it a go.Much better looking aircraft...round, with transparant windows and moving parts...better textures.Dead ease to install and compile..one button pushRoute maps...printable timetables.Downdloaded user and program updates...through an autoupdaterAircraft and Airport assignment and AFCAD utilitiesThe list is endless..Like you I have MyTraffic, but believe me UT goes far beyond MyTrafficGo buy and have fun

Where can I get it?Thanks,Ron

www.flight1.comI have not tried My Traffic, but Ultimate Traffic is excellent. I spent last evening going to different airports just to check out all the planes there. Even on my 1.4 Gh machine, it runs pretty well. The large airports like LAX do slow down, but I find the frame rate hit to be an acceptable trade-off for the eye-candy. At most airports I don't see much of an appreciable frame hit.Tony

Thanks for the input guys. :-)Think I will get myself a copy of UT afterall...;-)Fly safe,http://www.scandicair.com/images/SA_Banner4b.jpg

Hi Staffan,IMO the important differences are:1. MT gives you only an approximation of real-world traffic. At the larger airports you get a fairly accurate representation of the airlines you'd expect to see there. At the smaller airports it's very inaccurate. Since UT is based on actual flight schedules, you should see a 100% accurate depiction of any airport you're at.2. Both products allow you to make modifications to your traffic, but there's a world of difference in how they do it. MT uses the fs2002 sdk to create and modify traffic. (As far as I know it's the only one of the ai traffic programs that is based on the sdk.) I found that making modifications in MT was tedious at best, often difficult and frustrating, and sometimes just plain impossible. UT, on the other hand, is based on ttools. That alone would make it easier to work with, but in addition...3. UT's user interface is head and shoulders above MT's in both appearance and function. Almost everything you'll need to do in UT is automated and reasonably easy to understand. I found MT's interface to be rudimentary and in some cases inefficient.4. UT's planes look much nicer and the frame rates are the same or better as what I was getting with MT.There's more. UT has a whole raft of cool features and gizmos. For one thing, it will automatically set the radii of all your ai aircraft to conform with the latest RAFCAD matrix. This makes it a snap to use AFCAD to get your planes to park at the correct gates. Here are some screen shots of what I was able to do at KPDX...http://sidneyschwartz.homestead.com/pdxrafcad.htmlMT was a good effort but UT is better in just about every way.Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]Ultimate Traffic/Radar Contact/FSMeteo/FSSE/FSassist/FDC

Thanks Sidney,Really appreciate your input. ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/SA_Banner4b.jpg