I have a question concerning Ultimate Traffic and AFCAD's.As it stands for FS2004, Ultimate traffic is currently using Default parking for the airports. Since the number of flight plans is usually much higher than the number of parking spaces, the airports look half empty, but there is a nice general ebb and flow in the traffic of ALL the airports.I just got done adding approx 40 to 50 AFCAD's in the US and Canada.Immediately, the traffic in all the AFCAD enabled airports is nearly doubled or tripled. Which is good. But now all this traffic that appears at the AFCAD airports kills my frame rate...Which is bad.Now if I dial back traffic slider, I can get the AFCAD airports back to a "managable" level, but aren't I also REALLY killing traffic in the default non-afcad airports. I mean 50% is 50%. If a NON-AFCAD airport looked 60% full at 100%, wouldn't 50% traffic empty that airport even MORE?If that is the case, then why not forget the AFCAD's and run all the airports at their default designs. At least in that manner, I am not forced back to lower traffic to make my busy areas usuable, only to find the outlying areas, vast wastelands, traffic wise.Someone please correct me if I have a huge misunderstanding how it all works here.Thanks

AFCADs create more parking spots for AI. Thus, there are more flights to and from that airport. Some people can handle the ammount of traffic on their computers, some put up with bad frames, and some don't. There are also other people who don't have UT and run AFCADS to fill more parking spaces (using PAI) but not all of them. I'm not sure what your question is exactly, but I hope this helps.:-jumpyCheck out my work: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?Search...Weik&CatID=Roothttp://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg------------------Kenneth WeikTWVA395 / [email protected]

The question is this.If my computer (and many can't) handle a fully functioning airport like KORD or KLAX with an accurate AFCAD, when I lower the traffic percentage, don't I also lower the amount of traffic at airports surrounding KORD or KLAX? And if that is the case, Why wouldn't I want to stick to the defaults, and allow the surrounding airports to also have more traffic. It would be nice to assign a 75 or 50 percent traffic setting to the really big and busy AFCAD airports, and leave the surrounding areas at a different density. Does that make sense?

Okay. You do lower the ammount of traffic at all airports by changing the traffic %. So if you wanted a lot of traffic, but not tons, at KORD, it would make sense to keep the default AFCAD settings. But if you wanted to keep it at 100% and you wanted more traffic at one airport. Then just get that specific AFCAD. Hope this helps.:-jumpyCheck out my work: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?Search...Weik&CatID=Roothttp://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg------------------Kenneth WeikTWVA395 / [email protected]

Will,As other posters have said, your assumptions are correct. MS clearly has attempted to curtail realism in some aspects to keep average product functionality at an acceptable level across multiple platforms. "As real as it gets" means "As real" as they can make it and keep it usable for a range of PCs, from bleeding edge to old clunkers. Dave Vega

hmmm, I think I know what you mean. I installed UT a weeks or so ago, when it first came out, and was running traffic at 100%. Then I put some Afcads in tonight and had to reduce the traffic density to 50% or so to get acceptable frame rates. Kind of back to where I started. If what you're trying to say is, "why bother?", you may have a point. Lot's more fiddling and twinking to do though, hehe...billg

Will,You are correct in your thinking. Everyone has their own personal goal of realism vs performance, and for me, running UT with the default AFCAD's seems pretty good. With traffic set at 100%, there is enough traffic to keep things interesting, and the type of traffic (ie; many NWA in Detroit and Mini, many AA in Dallas, etc...)adds to the realism for me. I doubt that I will update the AFCADS, because what you said about traffic levels did go through my mind when I first bought UT. For me, the default AFCAD's along with UT provides just the right amount of added realism, along with acceptable performance.Tim13