I was using My Traffic and my first impression was a big wooow when I switched to UT2.Beautiful graphics, nice interface, lot of options etc...I never used MT again until last week when I was tired to wait for AI in small airports or even in big ones where the traffic was rather light.I then purchased the MT last upgrade and reinstalled it, just for the fun.Well, I must say that I am very satisfied with My Traffic.OK, the textures are not so good but airports are full of AI, even very small airfields and most of all, there is no pause, no frame hit, nothing, very smooth landings on big airports.Maybe schedules are not that accurate but who really cares? Both addons are very nice softwares.For my needs I prefer MT2010 today.Just my 2 cts :--)

I totally agree. Both are good pieces of ai traffic addons. And one can run both of them at the same time (not recommended for larger hubs).Harry

After buying UT2, I'm sending it back for a refund (digitally at least) and I am going with MTX.For those trying to decide, let me explain what the deal breaker was for me.The framerates were fine. The models great. The interface is top notch. The GA is very good as well with the new pack they released. But since SP1 they've changed the way they insert traffic and it's apparently hard coded in and won't be changing according to the guys on their forums. Basically, flights only spawn 20 minutes before departure and disappear 20 minutes after landing. What this means is that despite having real world schedules, you'll never get all the real world flights because they only show up when they are about to leave or have just landed. So forget about flying into your favorite moderately sized internationally airport after about 8 o'clock (in my case I go into KABQ and KPHX a lot). Because at this point most flights are parked for the night awaiting morning departure and they don't appear. So the result is very empty airports at night. The program itself, unless you are at an airport that does a lot of traffic at night (which is nothing but the largest couple of airports like KORD, KDFW, etc.), is pretty much useless after dark and will show no aircraft at all at medium and smaller airports with the exception of a few possible late arriving flights that will simply land and disappear.And it's not just at night. During the day half the planes that should be at the gate don't show up because their layover is more then 20 minutes. Eventually they'll spawn, but not at the same time so you are again left with airports that should have more traffic but don't.I just couldn't handle that. As great as real world flights along with the status board are, if over half of them aren't going to even show up most of the time then it kills it for me. I'm really hoping the developers reconsider this design choice b/c IMO they have the best models, framerates, and schedules (being real world). The interface is unmatched as well. It's just a shame.

After buying UT2, I'm sending it back for a refund (digitally at least) and I am going with MTX.For those trying to decide, let me explain what the deal breaker was for me.The framerates were fine. The models great. The interface is top notch. The GA is very good as well with the new pack they released. But since SP1 they've changed the way they insert traffic and it's apparently hard coded in and won't be changing according to the guys on their forums. Basically, flights only spawn 20 minutes before departure and disappear 20 minutes after landing. What this means is that despite having real world schedules, you'll never get all the real world flights because they only show up when they are about to leave or have just landed. So forget about flying into your favorite moderately sized internationally airport after about 8 o'clock (in my case I go into KABQ and KPHX a lot). Because at this point most flights are parked for the night awaiting morning departure and they don't appear. So the result is very empty airports at night. The program itself, unless you are at an airport that does a lot of traffic at night (which is nothing but the largest couple of airports like KORD, KDFW, etc.), is pretty much useless after dark and will show no aircraft at all at medium and smaller airports with the exception of a few possible late arriving flights that will simply land and disappear.And it's not just at night. During the day half the planes that should be at the gate don't show up because their layover is more then 20 minutes. Eventually they'll spawn, but not at the same time so you are again left with airports that should have more traffic but don't.I just couldn't handle that. As great as real world flights along with the status board are, if over half of them aren't going to even show up most of the time then it kills it for me. I'm really hoping the developers reconsider this design choice b/c IMO they have the best models, framerates, and schedules (being real world). The interface is unmatched as well. It's just a shame.

That has got to be one of the nicest well explained no thankyou I have ever read here. Well done and sorry it didnt work out for you. One thing you can do however would be to also use WOAI at the same time. Due to the way UT2 runs allows you to do that. The WOAI would be controled by the AI sliders in FSX. Just a thought.Jim

I have to disagree on those comments about UT2's traffic injection - there has to be a trade-off somewhere, either you get realistic routing, planes taking off and landing at correct times and so on... or you have lots of planes at the gate overnight and lower framerates as a result of having every gate filled. Personally, I'd rather have the in-flight aspect be right vs. planes parked at gates overnight. I mean, what are we ultimately using FS for here, flying or sitting on the ground at airports?UT2's aircraft models and liveries also look a ton better to me than almost any screens I've seen from MT.I've been very happy with UT2 in general despite the trade-offs mentioned.

Personally, I'd rather have the in-flight aspect be right vs. planes parked at gate over night. I mean, what are we ultimately using FS for here, flying or sitting on the ground at airports?

Funny that you should say that because I just got to that point not long ago myself. I suppose if your more into spotting then it's a problem, but I just recently decided I was going to spend more time flying and less worrying about how many AI were on the ground, although I have never been disappointed in the lack of AI on the ground. Sometimes I will completely turn off AI and just concentrate on flying and executing a perfect approach, then once I am on the ground I will turn AI back on just for the ambiance.

I have to disagree on those comments about UT2's traffic injection - there has to be a trade-off somewhere, either you get realistic routing, planes taking off and landing at correct times and so on... or you have lots of planes at the gate overnight and lower framerates as a result of having every gate filled. Personally, I'd rather have the in-flight aspect be right vs. planes parked at gates overnight. I mean, what are we ultimately using FS for here, flying or sitting on the ground at airports?UT2's aircraft models and liveries also look a ton better to me than almost any screens I've seen from MT.I've been very happy with UT2 in general despite the trade-offs mentioned.

Having every gate filled if the real schedules call for them is realistic. Who said you had to choose? In fact, before SP1, UT2 itself didn't choose. You got real world schedules and every flight was represented whether idle at a gate or in the air at 30,000 feet. And yeah, planes on the ground is important to me as I see planes at the gates during departure and arrival a lot more then I ever seen them in the sky (for obvious reasons). It's a complete letdown to fly into a decent sized international airport at 9 o'clock PM local and see a single plane at the 30 gates. I realize traffic programs have a bit of a cult following (whether it's UT or MTX), but I don't think anything I said was unreasonable and it's all completely true. Hopefully, sometime in the future UT2 changes paths and allows the user to select spawn time limits for aircraft so people can choose to have the full package or better FPS.

Funny that you should say that because I just got to that point not long ago myself. I suppose if your more into spotting then it's a problem, but I just recently decided I was going to spend more time flying and less worrying about how many AI were on the ground, although I have never been disappointed in the lack of AI on the ground. Sometimes I will completely turn off AI and just concentrate on flying and executing a perfect approach, then once I am on the ground I will turn AI back on just for the ambiance.

You have it backwards IMO.It's not about spotting. In fact, if it was about spotting I'd be ok with sitting on the end of a runway waiting for arriving and departing flights to see them, which UT2 does fine in it's current form. Instead I want the immersion around me in full as I complete ground ops and I don't want to have to wait for certain time points to have it appear. Just my opinion.

You have it backwards IMO.It's not about spotting. In fact, if it was about spotting I'd be ok with sitting on the end of a runway waiting for arriving and departing flights to see them, which UT2 does fine in it's current form. Instead I want the immersion around me in full as I complete ground ops and I don't want to have to wait for certain time points to have it appear. Just my opinion.

I agree!! I have both, and I moved back to WOAI (I also use MAIW). The only thing that UT2 does better than WOAI, is that it's complete (more or less - as you can still add to it) out of the box with a nice GUI. The injection problem I think I could deal with, but it's not ideal, it's the AI flightplans that's the real problem for me. While it's more realistic, for traffic to fly this way, as I stated above FS does not handle the separation issues it presents well. As for performance, I run at 100% traffic, and see little performance difference between the 2, maybe 1 or 2 fps at most, and that's subjective.

I'd still be using WOAI if not for the complete lack of US regional carriers.For a while there they had American Eagle and United Express, but even that's gone.

Just my 2 penny's worth...I've never tried My Traffic so I can't comment on that but I do have Ultimate Traffic 2 and am very happy with it. I have the AI traffic set at 50% which equates to more traffic than default FSX set at 100% yet it also gives me a big boost in the frame rate over the default AI. Even at 50% airports are always busy and at night time you will see the nav lights from literally dosens on planes across the sky - Ultimate Traffic really does bring the FSX world to life.You get more traffic AND better frame rates. It's a win win situation.

I am seeing some aircraft popping up at the gates, does ut2 have the same notorious fsx jinx which needed 200kts and @ in ttools FPs?

Using MTX 5.2 and performance models, I get nailed around the 50-75 mile bubble mark and go down to about 2-3 fps for approx. 5-8 seconds, my settings are low, 25% & 15%. Whenever I read that MTX never causes stutters I always scratch my head and wonder if my copy came from another planet. In addition, many MTX models and skins are definately very, very poor and obviously FS9 ports, very sloppy. The most annoying FSX problem I have.

I use MT 5.2 Pro and use the quality models and find the performance pretty good. I can't say that I hit a performance slowdown like Deke wrote about. At busy airports like KSEA or KLAX, I usually get frame rates in the mid teens to low twenties with AI density settings at 40% airline and 5% GA on my i7-920@4Ghz with a GTX 285. Less busy airports like KMCI or KONT, I get fps around 30-35.The paint jobs will never match the nice ones from WOAI, but for a quick and easy to use package like MT, the paint jobs do the job.

Using MTX 5.2 and performance models, I get nailed around the 50-75 mile bubble mark and go down to about 2-3 fps for approx. 5-8 seconds, my settings are low, 25% & 15%. Whenever I read that MTX never causes stutters I always scratch my head and wonder if my copy came from another planet. In addition, many MTX models and skins are definately very, very poor and obviously FS9 ports, very sloppy. The most annoying FSX problem I have.

Sounds like you still have jetways enables.Make sure you select low/high resolution models with "less animation."As for the models. That's valid about how some look, but they are not FS9 ports. He built those models from the ground up for use with SP2. The lack of detail on them is to help FPS. Really, in my experience with UT2, they aren't that much better either and have a lot of low quality models. It seems WOAI is the only way to go for really good looking models (and that's mainly with the stuff 2 years and newer on their site). For example, the detail on a Southwest 737 from WOAI vs. UT2 or MTX is night and day. It's a trade off you make though for performance.

I am seeing some aircraft popping up at the gates, does ut2 have the same notorious fsx jinx which needed 200kts and @ in ttools FPs?

That's just the way UT2 is. They use a 20 minute before takeoff spawn rule. So you can be sitting on the ground and have a plane appear or disappear next to you. It bothers some people, others it doesn't.

Thanks everyone.I've had low resolution models and less animation selected from day 1. As for the models being sp2 models or not, I have no proof either way so I should retract my statement. I've ordered MTX 5.3 Pro and I'll wait and see if there is a difference, if not I'll continue to download and revert back to WOAI and MAIW but would miss all of the action that MTX provides at the smaller airports.tt51d, if you read this again which program do you use to convert the bgl's. Bonchie, go plane-spotting and search for the F-18 and give me your opinion, and thanks for your advice.