Just tried CS 767 with UT2 traffic on i7920 @ 3.7Ghz

[Guest j0nx]

Depends on your cpu. I have lots of headroom still left in this one. I think 4.2 is probably doable pretty easily but I am content at 4ghz. I have a D0 stepping cpu and apparently a pretty good one at that. Requires only 1.27v at 4ghz. The system I tweaked for my dad I could only get to 3.75ghz and barely at that because his temps were much higher than I would like under heavy load but still within spec. The Megahalem cooler I use really is amazing though and imo is 'fairly' comparable to a water setup. I am running the latest patch and no rex2. I use graphicsx because the rex guy would never respond to my question about the comparison between the 2 products so I stayed with graphicsx which has served me well for 2 years. What do these injections do for you? Are you sure it's not just cpu lag from so many heavies being in the same area? Once ut2 injects traffic then it is there afaik. It doesn't keep injecting traffic. I hover over airports all the time in my dodo 206 and once the traffic is there then there isn't any new traffic that pops up out of the blue. At that point then the only change in traffic is from the normal arriving and departing AI.

[Guest JamesWoods]

Depends on your cpu. I have lots of headroom still left in this one. I think 4.2 is probably doable pretty easily but I am content at 4ghz. I have a D0 stepping cpu and apparently a pretty good one at that. Requires only 1.27v at 4ghz. The system I tweaked for my dad I could only get to 3.75ghz and barely at that because his temps were much higher than I would like under heavy load but still within spec. The Megahalem cooler I use really is amazing though and imo is 'fairly' comparable to a water setup. I am running the latest patch and no rex2. I use graphicsx because the rex guy would never respond to my question about the comparison between the 2 products so I stayed with graphicsx which has served me well for 2 years. What do these injections do for you? Are you sure it's not just cpu lag from so many heavies being in the same area? Once ut2 injects traffic then it is there afaik. It doesn't keep injecting traffic. I hover over airports all the time in my dodo 206 and once the traffic is there then there isn't any new traffic that pops up out of the blue. At that point then the only change in traffic is from the normal arriving and departing AI.

You probably dont notice the effect cause your system is so powerfull.But according to UT2 producers, when you approach an airport, the traffic at the airport is not loaded until you are close, like in approach phase of your flight.So it waits till you near before it starts loading traffic at that airport, this is when i getpauses down to 1fps, but once its loaded its fine , good fps, until the next pause.The way UT2 traffic injection works is unlike any otther traffic program, cause it does not process traffic what you cant see, until you are close to the area. The problem is you get good smooth flight when far from your landing airport, but as soon as you close to your airport, ut2 starts to process all its back log traffic all at the same time.Its like putting off your laundary till christmas sort of thing. But then it takes you till new year to sort it all out. So on my system all is smooth till am about to land, then i get these pauses that are sharp and heavy down to 1fps. CAuse the cpu is busy processing ut2 traffic its been putting off till i reached the area.They have suggested giving a patch that will allow us to set the rate at which this traffic is injected, but no time scales given.For me i will use TRafficX till they sort it out.

[Guest j0nx]

Those ut2 guys will say anything I am convinced. I think they have bitten off more than they are capable of. I can fly from O' hare to Chicago city proper which is 15ish miles away and the second I look back to the O'hare area my frame rate goes from 60 to 24 so I know the traffic is still there. Try it yourself. Fly 10 miles away from a major airport and then look back at the airport and your frame rate will be cut in half. I don't know why ut2 is spreading their BS when they claim that when it is obviously not true. Once traffic is injected then it is injected and is there to stay. If it wasn't then why is there still radio communications with an airport from the AI? I'm guessing they told you that for the same reason they told me that once AI traffic is stopped through the menu then there is no more cpu cycles being taken up. I know that's not true because my frame rate is still the same when I stop the traffic. The frame rate should double for me instantly after stopping ut2 but it does not. And my system is not that much powerful than yours. I get 30fps sitting on the runway at seattle with traffic enabled when I run at 3.7ghz. At 4ghz I get 32. Not much of a difference between us there. Less than 8% and with fsx being so slow already, 8% means nothing. My double ut2 AI settings compared to yours also more than makes up for any performance increase my box may have over yours.

[cmpbellsjc 2,961]

My situation with UT2 has been this.I first bought it the day it came out. Spent about 1/2 hour mipping all the textures and about another 1.5 hours reassigning missing paints from my WOAI inventory. After that it was pretty smooth sailing. Then the first patch came out that fixed the problem viewing the schedule PDF that was due to some font error. Everything seemed to still be working quite well. I would get about a 20 to 30 second pause while the first traffic load commenced then I would only get a short 3 to 5 second pause every once in a while when I would get near a large airport.Now, I haven't updated to the latest patch which I think is version 1.08, but it seems that I have been getting the pauses a lot more frequently lately and they also seem to be longer pauses. Before the pause would be 3 to 5 seconds, now the pauses are more like 10 to 15 seconds. The funny thing is that I am running 100% airline and 15% GA. I recently backed it down to 75% airline and 0% GA but the pauses are still long and frequent.I have no idea what has been causing this as I haven't made any changes to hardware or setup. The one interesting note is that large AI precentages do not cause much of a difference for me FPS wise, even at large hubs, but the pauses when on final are getting to be annoying. What I have done to help, is about 10 miles out from my destination is go ahead and hit the kill traffic button. Then I can make a niice smooth approach and not have to worry about the pause.I believe the pause is just because of the time it takes to load all the needed trafic back off the hard drive. If I had one of those 10,000 RPM hard drives it probably would be pretty quick. I can see my HD light flicker like mad when the sim pauses to load traffic. Maybe they should write a new routine that will load the traffic more gradually rather than loading such big chuncks at once. Then the pauses might either go away or maybe non existant. The thing I can't understand though is how my pauses have gotten worse over the past few weeks.

[Guest Thaellar]

Interesting. I never really thought about having to inject the traffic. I thought it was already there everywhere, just not visible from far away. So that begs the question. Is it "creating" the traffic when you get nearby or is it just that all that traffic comes into view and bogs your video? If it the first one, then why don't they just do the injection when you are still 30-50 miles out. A circle of say 40 miles where the periphery get filled as you head towards it and gets vacated as you head away? Is it really complicated or just being made that way. I'm dense. I don't get it.Thaellar

[Andydigital 93]

why don't they just do the injection when you are still 30-50 miles out.

Because you would be getting 5-10 FPS if you were lucky if they did that. The UT2 models look very nice but they are far from being true optimised FSX models, most of them are FS9 models have been run through a converter to run in FSX, hence the poor frame rate and the need to keep the reality bubble far smaller than with MyTrafficX for example, which can have about 3 times as many aircraft in the reality bubble (if you use the dx10 schedules which makes sure the older FS9 models aren't used) for the same frame rate hit.

[McCrash 3]

You might have some success by using one of these AfinityMask settings. I use 15.In the FSX.cfg add the following if it is not already there[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=3use these settings for N as you test and you must EXIT the sim and relaunch between changes255 - all 8 in use254 - 7 in use with the first remaining free252 - 6 in use with the first entire CORE remaining free127 - 7 in use with the last remaining free 63 - 6 in use with the last entire CORE remaining free 1 = 1 core 0001 3 = 2 cores 0011 7 = 3 cores 011112 = 2 cores last 110014 = 3 cores last 111015 = 4 cores 1111

[jwenham 1]

Interesting. I never really thought about having to inject the traffic. I thought it was already there everywhere, just not visible from far away. So that begs the question. Is it "creating" the traffic when you get nearby or is it just that all that traffic comes into view and bogs your video? If it the first one, then why don't they just do the injection when you are still 30-50 miles out. A circle of say 40 miles where the periphery get filled as you head towards it and gets vacated as you head away? Is it really complicated or just being made that way. I'm dense. I don't get it.Thaellar

UT2 injects traffic when you are 10 miles out and will not draw AI on the ground at airports if you are over one zero thousand feet. All you that think you can set your AI level at a certain percentage and keep it there all the time are way wrong. 100% AI at KSEA is like 10% at KORD or KATL (try it) We all need to be more realistic with the AI volume settings and adjust for the area. I agree that UT2 still needs some smoothing out in a few areas but I really think the issue is all the calculating that is needed to run a high amount of AI at large airports not to mention the added ground vehicles and the scenery itself usually is more complex than at a smaller hub. Try this and see if it helps you in bigger hubs:1) find a airport of your choice that you can fly into with what you consider to be with good results with you AI at 80% (KSEA, KFLL, CYVR, KTPA) what ever works for you. After finding the airport that gives good results at 80% go into the UT2 interface in my example I am using CYVR. In UT2 place your mouse over the bar that shows the maxium amount of departures. See screen shotNow look at my destination KATL with 80% AITo prove my point with this go ahead and fly the approach to your high volume area of choice at 80% AI Most likely it will not be a enjoyable experience.Now lets tune UT2 for you high volume hub. Go back to UT2 and select your problem hub I am using KATL. Turn down the AI untill you show at the highest point no more than what the highest was at the hub where you had good results at 80% (my example was CYVR)I had to adjust my AI to 35% to get the traffic down to equal the amount of 80% AI at CYVR. So for that flight I would use a setting of 35% or lower for best performance. Try setting things that way and see if it helps overall.

[Guest PPSFA]

Specs is sig, never had the problem with a 3 year old machine, and I run the commercial traffic at 100%, since its on a schedule.

[ahuimanu 50]

Because you would be getting 5-10 FPS if you were lucky if they did that. The UT2 models look very nice but they are far from being true optimised FSX models, most of them are FS9 models have been run through a converter to run in FSX, hence the poor frame rate and the need to keep the reality bubble far smaller than with MyTrafficX for example, which can have about 3 times as many aircraft in the reality bubble (if you use the dx10 schedules which makes sure the older FS9 models aren't used) for the same frame rate hit.

Andy,You are so right. My dream is to use ALL of the MyTrafficX models and use them with the schedules/injection/real FPs from UT2. I know that some MyTrafficX models are being used with UT2, but some very low performing FS9 models are also being used. I am always a hair away from just going back to MyTrafficX over this.

[Andydigital 93]

I already have gone back to MTX only Jeff, performance is always the main concern for me as far as an AI package goes, AI are usually too far away for me to notice the difference anyway.

[Guest JamesWoods]

I already have gone back to MTX only Jeff, performance is always the main concern for me as far as an AI package goes, AI are usually too far away for me to notice the difference anyway.

I too am going back to TrafficX till UT2 fix thier bugs.

[jwenham 1]

I just tried the Affinity Mask Tweek from McCrash with it set at 15 and also ran with the FPS limiter and got very much improved results. Did a test flight in the CoolSky MD80 from KCLT to KATL real world weather (which is pretty crappy in ATL today) and maintained no lower that 18 FPS with 59% AI which is alot in ATL. Very happy with the results with that combo of tweeks. Thanks for that McCrash!Jim

[duckbilled 310]

That is good to know that it is a UT2 problem and not an FSX problem.Right now in FS9 I can land at ATL/Imagine Sim or EGLL/Aerosoft with manageable fps drops on approach (probably down to 18 or so). The total legs for all of my my bgls is in the 850,000 range and I am running ai at 100% across the board with ASA, GE... One way I get around the FPS drop is to take off from busy airports and land at less busy airports. I tend to fly from major hubs to holiday destinations so this strategy fits my flying style perfectly.I loved UT for FS9 and I still believe it is the best traffic program for FS9. Yes, I have deactivated many of the schedules and replaced them with WofAI over the past 5 years. Nonetheless, I still fire up the program to replace repaints for old schedules when I don't care if the flights are up to date. I really would have purchased it in a second had I not read this thread. Thank you!Again, back to my original question: I now believe the problems are not with FSX. Nonetheless, if FSX can not run with the above performance based on a I7, GTX 285 rig with 6BG of CL6, than I am not switching over to FSX at this time. It is just not worth the money. I would rather feed the upgrade bug with the best system for FS9. Anyone want to talk me out of an upgrade?BTW, the idea that I have to live with lower ai percentages is not valid because I don't have to live with lower ai percentages in FS9.One other question: does UT2 ever create a traffic BGL? Is it possible to use all of the tools UT2 offers to create traffic and copy traffic BGL and aircraft over to the scenery file or do I have to run UT2 with FSX to have traffic? If I could just copy everything over and leave UT2 off, it would eliminate the traffic population issue.

[Guest JamesWoods]

That is good to know that it is a UT2 problem and not an FSX problem.Right now in FS9 I can land at ATL/Imagine Sim or EGLL/Aerosoft with manageable fps drops on approach (probably down to 18 or so). The total legs for all of my my bgls is in the 850,000 range and I am running ai at 100% across the board with ASA, GE... One way I get around the FPS drop is to take off from busy airports and land at less busy airports. I tend to fly from major hubs to holiday destinations so this strategy fits my flying style perfectly.I loved UT for FS9 and I still believe it is the best traffic program for FS9. Yes, I have deactivated many of the schedules and replaced them with WofAI over the past 5 years. Nonetheless, I still fire up the program to replace repaints for old schedules when I don't care if the flights are up to date. I really would have purchased it in a second had I not read this thread. Thank you!Again, back to my original question: I now believe the problems are not with FSX. Nonetheless, if FSX can not run with the above performance based on a I7, GTX 285 rig with 6BG of CL6, than I am not switching over to FSX at this time. It is just not worth the money. I would rather feed the upgrade bug with the best system for FS9. Anyone want to talk me out of an upgrade?BTW, the idea that I have to live with lower ai percentages is not valid because I don't have to live with lower ai percentages in FS9.One other question: does UT2 ever create a traffic BGL? Is it possible to use all of the tools UT2 offers to create traffic and copy traffic BGL and aircraft over to the scenery file or do I have to run UT2 with FSX to have traffic? If I could just copy everything over and leave UT2 off, it would eliminate the traffic population issue.

to best of my knowledge UT2 does not create bgl, you have to run the UT2 the way it comes. There is a ut2services.exe file that it runs alongside fsx.exe.I think all the traffic injection problem is related to the new non bgl method they have used. Other traffic addons dont have this issue of fps dropping down to 1fps during approach. I normally get less fps nearer gorund and airports, but never ever ever down to 1fps as i do with ut2.But this drop is only for the few seconds it injects traffic, however this happens a couple of times during the whole approach / landing phase. normally during approach i get 14~20fps depending on area, and i get locked 30 at cruise. If you got well cooled OC'd I7 920 or above , there is nothing left to keep you in FS9. But if you cant afford the full spec required, then i suppose its better to spend less on upgrade to improve your fs9.