Ultimate Traffic 2 and me..

[BobP 56]

I recently purchased UT2 for FSX. I have used UT(1)? for many years with FS9 and still enjoy airports loaded with traffic. I understand that UT2 (at least for me) will add significantly fewer airplanes due to frame rate limitations of FSX. I have UT2 working without a significant drain on frames and FSX resources. I also have about the same amount of traffic now that I did with FSX default traffic. :) So why spend the money. I can view all the AI from FSCommander on my client computer. I see 50 to 100 aircraft (depending on location and UT2 settings) on the FSC map, however, I will be lucky to see 1 or two of them in the air or on the ground. I'm not a plane watcher and have no interest in sitting at KPHL comparing landings and take offs to schedule. I would gladly swap 75% of the AI being generated for 25% showing up on TCAS and at the airports I frequent. I do have MyTrafficX and it does a better job of localizing traffic. However, I want to trade computer resources for AI I can see and interact with during a flight. Is there anything else out there? Thanks.Bob.. :)

[ESzczesniak 128]

Do you have UT2 with SP1? My understanding was that the original UT2 had very little traffic on the ground at any given time (much like you're describing), but that SP1 added much more traffic. I just bought and installed UT2 this morning (I bought purposely for the lower FPS hit), but haven't actually had a chance to check out what it looks like for me. The screenshots I've seen with SP1 show quite a bit of traffic though.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Hey Bob, do you have the latest version installed with SP1?With the latest version you can adjust the distance to spawn AI, altitude above ground that AI will be visable, target FSX FPS to cut AI, max AI to spawn.I had the original version of UT2 but disabled it until the service pack came out. Last week I uninstalled the original version and did a clean install with the new version that includes the service pack. I can tell you the new version is a lot better. Pior to the SP I had a problem with the pauses while the AI were loading approaching an airport, not anymore since you can set the distance to spawn.Also the SP includes some new models which have greatly increase the performance at large hubs.Now, as far as your question about FSX FPS limitations. You can, in the UI turn off the FPS limitation that way you will get all the AI that is available without having AI cut to maintain the set FPS goal. If you want to see a lot of traffic try setting your daily and weekly schedules to 100%.Keep in mind that depending on where you are flying will vary the amount of AI you see in the air. I usually keep the weekly scheduled traffic set to 100% and the daily set to 10% or less since I fly airliners a lot I dont need a bunch of GA traffic. With mine set like this I can tell you that flying into places like KLAX, KDFW, KMIA and other larger hub there is a lot of traffic on the ground and in the air. Sometimes so much that its hard to even communicate with the FSX ATC because so many flights are in communication.Also remember that your traffic levels will vary depending on whether you have the display default paints box checked. In other words, if that is not checked and you have an airline that has no realworld paint assigned to it but has the default Daedalus paint instead and you have that box unchecked, you will not see that plance in FSX. UT2 displayes airline traffic based on real word schedules, so if you go to an airport in which not a lot of realworld airlines fly into daily you may not see much traffic. Which brings up the other question you had about why you would use it compared to the default traffic. Well, if you want real world airlines flying on real world schedules rather than ficticious airlines with no schedule then you would want UT2. If you just want a lot of traffic without regard to it being based on the real world, there are other traffic packages that will just generate a lot of traffic but it wont be based on what you will see in the real world.Since UT2 doesn't use conventional based bgl traffic files you will not see a lot of traffic parked at airports in the middle of the night. However, given the amount of things you can do with this type of traffic based system like toggle traffic on and off, clear your approach, increadse or decrease levels of AI, all at the touch of a key while in game, I dont see why you would want the default AI, not to mention the performance increase you wil get from using any after market AI.You can always head over to the UT forum if your having a problem with it. Here's the link if you dont have it already. http://ultimatetraffic.flight1.net/forums/ You will have to register to gain access to the product support area.Hope you get it to work the way you want. Now that I have the newer version in my opinion I wouldn't use anything else since the performance has greatly improved, plus I like the realworld traffic and flight plans. It's funny to be in the air and hear FSX ATC talking to an American Airlines flight thats enroute to KMIA and the flight number is one you have actually be on at the same time of day. Then again some people just want a bunch of traffic and doesnt matter to them if its traffic that you would actually see at that airport, so if thats what your looking for UT2 may not be for you. Remember to set you AI percentage at 100% in the UT2 UI not in the FSX traffic menu, unless your running other traffic outside of UT2 that need the FSX slider to be set.

[virtualstuff 758]

Hope you get it to work the way you want. Now that I have the newer version in my opinion I wouldn't use anything else since the performance has greatly improved, plus I like the realworld traffic and flight plans.

Couldn't have said it better :-)

[BobP 56]

Couldn't have said it better :-)

Thanks everyone for your comments. I am using SP1 and not offering a negative review of UT2. As with all Flight One products it is an excellent package. I'm lamenting the fact during a flight my client monitor shows tons of traffic (FSC), however, I will never see it. :) It just seems like a waste of computer power. Again, I don't care about real world schedules. I want traffic that I interact with visually. Either at the airport or in the air (TCAS, line of site or ATC). Thanks.Bob.. :)

[corkyo4 2]

Thanks everyone for your comments. I am using SP1 and not offering a negative review of UT2. As with all Flight One products it is an excellent package. I'm lamenting the fact during a flight my client monitor shows tons of traffic (FSC), however, I will never see it. :) It just seems like a waste of computer power. Again, I don't care about real world schedules. I want traffic that I interact with visually. Either at the airport or in the air (TCAS, line of site or ATC). Thanks.Bob.. :)

BobI use my traffic 2010, I like it. I had the demo to UT2 but couldnt get on with it due to the poor performance, admittedly i didnt have the option to turn off jetways which didnt help, but i didnt want to take the risk of buying something that might not ge any better.Anyway my traffic 2010 doesnt have the same level of detail as UT2 in terms of AI flying to flight plans (or at least i dont think it does) but for me that is not important, all i want is for AI aircraft to have real world liveries just to get that bit of extra realism, and its not like im worried about where they are flying to as i wont be following them.Performance wise i cant grumble and it is controlled by the aircraft sliders in the FSX display menu so thats also simple too. All in all it suits me just fine.Tom

[Paul J 349]

So how does MyTraffic 2010 compare with Ultimate Traffic X?

[corkyo4 2]

So how does MyTraffic 2010 compare with Ultimate Traffic X?

Well............................I cant really comment much on that as i havent had a go with UT2 full version. In terms of graphics they appeared to be very similar. Performance wise i noticed a bigger drop with UT2 BUT the demo doesnt have full functionality to change options so it may have been possible to reduce some settings.What i do know is, My Traffic 2010 has the option to load lower quality textures in and the option to load textures without animations to increase performance. Not tried doing this, but i cant see that it would be that noticeable visually, unless of course you like to follow AI closely.My traffic didnt have a demo, so i took the plunge blindly on a whim, but im happy.Tom

[Andydigital 93]

So how does MyTraffic 2010 compare with Ultimate Traffic X?

I have MyTrafficX 5.2b which is a step up from MyTrafficX 2010 and it is supported directly by the developer Burkhard Renk rather than by Aerosoft, I also have UT2 with SP1. I put the service pack on to UT2 over the weekend and gave it some extensive testing, in the end I removed the whole thing yet again. MTX 5.2b can display twice as much traffic as UT2 does at 100% and it still has a higher frame rate.The thing that made me remove UT2 more than anything else was when I tested UT2 at the new UK2000 Manchester Xtreme airport and even with the traffic sliders set at 100% and with the FPS setting in UT2 set to 'off' I only had 15 aircraft on the ground at the most, and maybe 1 or 2 aircraft approaching the airport about 45 miles out according to Super Traffic Board. Yes the frame rates were good but so they should be, 15 aircraft is absolutely nothing for Manchester.With the FSX airliner slider set to 64% when using MyTrafficX 5.2b I have about 50 aircraft on the ground and about 5 to 10 aircraft approaching the field within 5 minutes of loading the sim up and the frame rates are still generally higher than they were with UT2 at 100% and it only had 17 aircraft nearby. It seems to me they didn't optimise the models anywhere near as much as they made out in the forum, it looks like most of the gains from the original release have been made by tweaking the reality bubble and how many aircraft are nearby at any moment in time.

[Pete Dowson 558]

... when I tested UT2 at the new UK2000 Manchester Xtreme airport and even with the traffic sliders set at 100% and with the FPS setting in UT2 set to 'off' I only had 15 aircraft on the ground at the most, and maybe 1 or 2 aircraft approaching the airport about 45 miles out according to Super Traffic Board. Yes the frame rates were good but so they should be, 15 aircraft is absolutely nothing for Manchester.

Strange. I'm getting Manchester too full, if anything -- difficult to see a spare gate most of the time! Realistically Manchester is VERY busy morning and evening, but relatively sparse during the middle hours of the day. Perhaps you caught it at a slack period (not forgetting UT2 is using real world schedules, albeit out of date ones at present)?OR it might be your settings. You might have the frame rate limit in UT2 set too high. You want to set it at around the minimum you can tolerate. Mine is at 15. I normally get more than 30 fps almost everywhere, but recently I've started to limit FSX (via the external Frame Rate Limiter) to 20 because I can always achieve that at UK2000's Heathrow with a full complement of UT2 traffic plus AES beavering away. This gives me a smoother experience. (That's where FSX is such a different animal than FS9 -- 20 fps was pretty horrible in FS9, but very flyable in FSX).As for the aircraft optimisation, I've not done any comparisons on that, but it was said (by Burkhard himself as well as others) that a lot of the UT2 models were from Burkhard in any case, so they are the same as those in MTX.RegardsPete

[Guest j0nx]

I give up on ut2. It is just a flawed product filled with promises that never come. Its GA implementation is broke and they are now marketing it pretty much as a heavies only product. Couple that with the shimmering models and the traffic restarting when you go into the menu and it's just a pain. I'm going back to trafficx. The original ut was the bomb. Flying into flightscenery portland with ut installed was a thing of beauty. This one...not so much.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Strange. I'm getting Manchester too full, if anything -- difficult to see a spare gate most of the time! Realistically Manchester is VERY busy morning and evening, but relatively sparse during the middle hours of the day. Perhaps you caught it at a slack period (not forgetting UT2 is using real world schedules, albeit out of date ones at present)?OR it might be your settings. You might have the frame rate limit in UT2 set too high. You want to set it at around the minimum you can tolerate. Mine is at 15. I normally get more than 30 fps almost everywhere, but recently I've started to limit FSX (via the external Frame Rate Limiter) to 20 because I can always achieve that at UK2000's Heathrow with a full complement of UT2 traffic plus AES beavering away. This gives me a smoother experience. (That's where FSX is such a different animal than FS9 -- 20 fps was pretty horrible in FS9, but very flyable in FSX).As for the aircraft optimisation, I've not done any comparisons on that, but it was said (by Burkhard himself as well as others) that a lot of the UT2 models were from Burkhard in any case, so they are the same as those in MTX.RegardsPete

I wonder if the people who are seeing a lack of traffic could be due to some a/c either being assigned to the default paint and have the defaults turned off, or are missing paints completely? I did notice that in the UT2 SP1 when I was combing thru the default and no paints list, I did see a number of European carriers that had no paints assigned to them or the default. Once I assigned the majority of the ones missing I haven't seen a lack of traffic anywhere, except lower amount at small regiional fields.I have noticed a major improvement in performance also since they went to the newer models. Seems like I can now comfortably run 100% airline without having much performance impact.

I give up on ut2. It is just a flawed product filled with promises that never come. Its GA implementation is broke and they are now marketing it pretty much as a heavies only product. Couple that with the shimmering models and the traffic restarting when you go into the menu and it's just a pain. I'm going back to trafficx. The original ut was the bomb. Flying into flightscenery portland with ut installed was a thing of beauty. This one...not so much.

Sorry to see you not like it. I know you and I have had a problem with Aerosoft scenery flickering and shimmering. I had to mip all my UT2 textures also. It was not too much of a pain, but took me about an hour of my life that I will never get back. Can't say as though I have had any problem with the GA though, seems to be working well on mine. It's a funny thing with flight sim addons, how they can work wonderfully well on one guys machine, and make the next guy want to throw his computer off the roof. Glad you have another AI package to fill the skies.

[Andydigital 93]

OR it might be your settings. You might have the frame rate limit in UT2 set too high.

I did mention that I had that setting set to off, so it has nothing to do with that.

Perhaps you caught it at a slack period

I find it hard to believe that Manchester ever has any less than 30 aircraft on the ground at any one time, I can see the tower out of my living room window and it very rarely gets that quiet in the daytime.Pete please correct me if I'm wrong but don't you run UT2 and MyTrafficX simultaneously anyway? it's no surprise you have too much traffic then, I could easily fill Manchester with just MTX if I wanted, but I'd rather see how UT2 impacts frame rates with 80% of the airfield populated.

[Pete Dowson 558]

I did mention that I had that setting set to off, so it has nothing to do with that.

Can you switch it off? I never noticed that -- or do you mean just reduced to a minimum of 0 fps?

Pete please correct me if I'm wrong but don't you run UT2 and MyTrafficX simultaneously anyway?

Only with the MTX option selected to provide only those carriers not provided by UT2. And looking around I see that 90% of the traffic at EGCC (and EGLL for that matter) is UT2. You can easily find out how much is MTX by going into the menus and coming back out, whilst having an overall view of the airfield. All the UT2 aircraft disappear and return whilst MTX ones of course stay put.So, sorry, your lack of aircraft at EGCC remains a mystery to me.Overall I prefer UT2 because I then see more airborne traffic on the airways I am using. I don't like the direct routings flown by normal AI. I'm not really so fussy about real world schedules.RegardsPete

[Andydigital 93]

Can you switch it off? I never noticed that -- or do you mean just reduced to a minimum of 0 fps?

Hi Pete,I don't have it installed now so I cant double check but I'm 99% certain that the slider you use to adjust the target frame rate in UT2 goes to the 'off' position if you pull it all the way to the left.No need to apologise Pete, its not your problem, you have enough to contend with keeping everyone happy with FSUIPC, (and an excellent job your are doing too) but thanks for trying though. You can tell which traffic comes from which package by looking at the tail numbers, MTX uses a dash in the numbers, G-MONR for example and UT2 doesn't i.e. GMONR.I too am not concerned about the realistic schedules, it was the proper flight planned routes that prompted me to buy UT2 in the first place, I just cant live with the poor frame rate and lack of traffic. Hopefully when I upgrade to an i7 at 4Ghz the frame rate will be high enough for me to use both packages again.P.s. it was nice to put a voice to the face the other week when you did the podcast Pete, it was great to hear a little about the everyday life of the genius that is Pete Dowson.