How much less perf impact using traffic addon versus stock FSX traffic?

[duckbilled 311]

Probably not. IMHO, it has less to do with the models and more to do with the overall AI activity in the area. The more AI you have, the more work FSX has to do to keep atc going, keep them in the air... That's why you get such a big FPS hit in places like NYC. Even though you can't see all the traffic, there is so much going on in the area that the sim slows down. Add in non-FPS friendly models and you get a lot of problems. It is all a balancing act - get as much AI that looks as good as possible with the least FPS hit. Right now, WofAI has 437 airlines. UT2 has over 900. All of the schedules for WofAI have paints assigned but only some of the ones for UT2 do. In my Ut2 install, I have about 3300 paints installed out of 3500 possible assignments and I can't answer this question for you. I think a unmodified UT2 isntall has about 1200 original repaints and hundreds more that are assigned a generic UT2 repaint. My advice is to install some WofAI and play with the sliders to see how much your system can handle. Turn off the FPS counters and go for overall experience. Try this before you invest in payware. If you want more, go for UT. After looking at WofAi paints for a while, MTX will look ridiculous to you.

[JoTayhen 6]

Hey Jeff - By chance, do you also use Multi Crew Experience? I purchased MTX 5.3b and was very satisfied with the traffic density however I was unable to use MCE for some reason. After conversation with both developers, I was forced to conclude these two pgms were not compatible on my system. I uninstalled MTX 5.3 and recovered the ability to use MCE. I would love to find a traffic pgm that works along with MCE on my system and I am considering UT2. I suspect I may be faced with the problem of using a couple of CPU hogs but that remains to be seen. Not trying to hijack this threat - just wondering if someone can comment on UT2's CPU usage and whether or not they run both UT2 and MCE? Thanks! John

[VirginAus737 0]

Probably not. IMHO, it has less to do with the models and more to do with the overall AI activity in the area. The more AI you have, the more work FSX has to do to keep atc going, keep them in the air... That's why you get such a big FPS hit in places like NYC. Even though you can't see all the traffic, there is so much going on in the area that the sim slows down. Add in non-FPS friendly models and you get a lot of problems.

Its AI activity that uses the CPU which is so important for FSX. The models are done by the GPU i think.

[Noel 4,581]

FSX default? Yeah its super hard with FSX default ATC. I want to get Radar contact but V5 is expected soon so I might wait

Hi NGX, what's the connection w/ RC w/ regard to traffic? Noel

[NGX 1]

Hi NGX, what's the connection w/ RC w/ regard to traffic? Noel

Controls it normally I think. Not sure. Never used RC. Try their forums for that

[PaulM 1]

UT2 is great. Has tons of airliners, great looking planes, and not that much of an FPS hit at all, since their planes were made using FSX SDK SP2.

Sorry mate, 85% or more of UT2 planes are AIA models from FS9, slighty modified to fsx, is NOT native fsx models.I have both, but prefer MTX, models are not as great as UT2, but i prefer native models, and with MTX i can get good amount of traffic everywhere, with UT2 i had to do some work to get, for example, some important cargo Airlines. And Mr.Burkhard gives me excellent support when i need it. Both are great products, but im more happy with MTX, is only my personal view and taste.

[Bread Hammer 1]

Not trying to hijack this threat - just wondering if someone can comment on UT2's CPU usage and whether or not they run both UT2 and MCE? Thanks! John

Just like anything else, its relative to all your other settings. I'm currently running UT2 and do get a decent hit on the fps at large hubs with 100% traffic. The models look pretty good and I like how it uses realistic flight plans. It has some cool features like being able to easily turn off traffic during approach when FSX atc brings you in on top of someone else. I also have MTX 5.3 but I'm not using it right now. I like the looks and more realistic way UT2 handles traffic better. MTX models don't look as good, but then they don't have as large of an fps impact so you can have more traffic with a little less of a hit. I also liked that it adds military planes to airforce bases which is way cool if you like to land at AFB's.

[XPX64man 130]

I have UT2 and MyTraffic5, but the one that I use and like the best is MyTraffic Lite. I just want to see lots of other realistic traffic around and MyTraffic Lite does not load up your system with other complex activity, like following flight plans of AI aircraft. It only gives you the other airliners at their correct airports with good liveries. I don't think it uses any more resources than the default FSX AI traffic.

[Paul J 349]

Sorry mate, 85% or more of UT2 planes are AIA models from FS9, slighty modified to fsx, is NOT native fsx models.I have both, but prefer MTX, models are not as great as UT2, but i prefer native models, and with MTX i can get good amount of traffic everywhere, with UT2 i had to do some work to get, for example, some important cargo Airlines. And Mr.Burkhard gives me excellent support when i need it. Both are great products, but im more happy with MTX, is only my personal view and taste.

At last! Thank you, Paul M! I had a miserable time with UT2 and its empty airports - and 'popping in twenty minutes before the flight' crap. I love MTX - Burkhardt's service is awesome - and now I hear someone else saying UT2 doesn't use native FSX traffic.. Wow! This is a huge no-no for a lot of people, but it's the first time I've heard it with reference to UT2. I fly the Maddog - which is also an import from FS9, and it gets knocked to hell and beyond all the time because "it's not native FSX".I also like military aircraft scattered around, and I like to see lots of GA - particularly around the OrbX PNW - on the smaller airports. MTX does this, too - and very well.

[Guest]

At last! Thank you, Paul M! and I like to see lots of GA - particularly around the OrbX PNW - on the smaller airports. MTX does this, too - and very well.

At last! Thank you, Paul J! ;) That was what I wanted to hear for quite some time: I usually hear people talking about AI on large airports, but I want the small ones to be lively too. Luckily the addon Orbx airports are quite lively, but not the 'standard' ones. Do you see airports on EVERY airport or are they mainly flying in the sky...? I'd specially like to see more on the ground...

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Sorry mate, 85% or more of UT2 planes are AIA models from FS9, slighty modified to fsx, is NOT native fsx models.I have both, but prefer MTX, models are not as great as UT2, but i prefer native models, and with MTX i can get good amount of traffic everywhere, with UT2 i had to do some work to get, for example, some important cargo Airlines. And Mr.Burkhard gives me excellent support when i need it. Both are great products, but im more happy with MTX, is only my personal view and taste.

Paul, Sorry mate back at you, but I respectfully disagree with your statment that UT2 planes are 85% FS9 models as the facts dont agree with your conclusion. I just ran an analyizer to verify this and it turns out that out of the 101 models that UT2 uses, 100 are "MDLXMDLH" with the "x" indicating an FSX model and one was "MDL8MDLH" where as the "8" indcate its an FS2004/2002 model. This is the description per Phil Taylor formerly of ACES. "To determine if a model was built with the FSX SDK, use a file viewer or hex editor to look at the file. Near the beginning of the file, you should see the characters "MDLXMDLH" if it's an FSX model. An FS2002/2004 model will show "MDL8MDLH" or something else." Here's a screen shot of the scan as proof.Also the log file if your interested to see ti which ones are FSX models and which one was a FS2004/2002 model. You will also notice there are only 8 AIA models which is way less than the 85% you quoted the other fellow.MDLX .mdl files: \100\model\F100.MDL \141\model\Avro70-quality.MDL \142\model\Avro85-quality.MDL \143\model\Avro100-quality.MDL \310\model\A313.MDL \318\model\A318.MDL \319\model\A319.MDL \320\model\A320.MDL \321\model\A321.MDL \332\model\A332.MDL \333\model\A333.MDL \342\model\A342.MDL \343\model\A343.MDL \345\model\A345.MDL \346\model\A346.MDL \380\model\A380.MDL \717\model\b717.MDL \721\model\b727_100.MDL \722\model\b727_200.MDL \733\model\b733.MDL \734\model\b734.MDL \735\model\b735.MDL \736\model\b736.MDL \738\model\b738.MDL \739\model\b739.MDL \73G\model\b737.MDL \73H\model\b738w.MDL \73J\model\b739er.MDL \73K\model\b735w.MDL \73L\model\b733w.MDL \73S\model\b732.MDL \73W\model\b737w.MDL \741\model\aia_747_200_pw.mdl \742\model\aia_747_200_pw.mdl \743\model\aia_747_300_pw.mdl \744\model\aia_747_400_ge.mdl \74D\model\aia_747_300_pw.mdl \74E\model\aia_747_400_ge.mdl \74X\model\aia_747_200f_pw.mdl \74Y\model\aia_747_400f_ge.mdl \752\model\b752.MDL \753\model\b753.MDL \75W\model\b752w.MDL \762\model\aia_767_200_ge.MDL \763\model\aia_767_300_ge.MDL \764\model\aia_767_400_ge.mdl \772\model\B772.MDL \773\model\B773.MDL \AB6\model\A306.mdl \AN4\model\An24-quality.MDL \AN6\model\An26-quality.MDL \ANF\model\An12-quality.MDL \AT4\model\ATR42-quality.MDL \AT5\model\ATR45-quality.MDL \AT7\model\ATR72-quality.MDL \BEH\model\B1900D-quality.MDL \BES\model\B1900C-quality.MDL \CR2\model\CRJ200.MDL \CR7\model\CRJ700.MDL \CR9\model\CRJ900.MDL \D1C\model\DC10-quality.MDL \D1F\model\DC10F-quality.MDL \D8F\model\DC8-73.MDL \D93\model\DC9_30.MDL \D95\model\DC9_50.MDL \DH1\model\Q100.MDL \DH2\model\Q200.MDL \DH3\model\Q300.MDL \DH4\model\Q400.MDL \E70\model\EMB170.MDL \E75\model\EMB175.MDL \E90\model\EMB190.MDL \E95\model\EMB195.MDL \EM2\model\EMB120.MDL \ER3\model\E135-quality.MDL \ER4\model\E145-quality.MDL \ERD\model\E140-quality.MDL \F24\model\Fokker284-quality.MDL \F70\model\F70.MDL \IL6\model\Il62-quality.MDL \IL7\model\Il76C-quality.MDL \IL9\model\Il96-quality.MDL \ILW\model\Il86-quality.MDL \J31\model\J31.MDL \J41\model\J41.MDL \M11\model\MD11-quality.MDL \M1F\model\MD11F-quality.MDL \M80\model\MD8X.MDL \M87\model\MD87.MDL \M90\model\MD90.MDL \S20\model\S2000.mdl \SF3\model\SF340.mdl \SWM\model\Metroliner.MDL \TU3\model\Tu134-quality.MDL \TU5\model\Tu154-quality.MDL \X04\model\Legacy600-quality.MDL \X05\model\Challenger604.MDL \X06\model\Global_Express.MDL \YK2\model\Yak42-quality.MDL \YK4\model\Yak40.MDLAnd the one FS2004/2002 model which happens to be an AIA model.MDL8 .mdl files, compiled with SDK8: \T20\model\aia_tu_204_ps90.mdlAs to the original question from Noel, you should be able to run much higer levels of AI without the same FPS hit as running stock AI due to the fact that the a/c used by FSX as AI aren't really designed to be FPS cost saving as AI specific models are. Plus the fact that using after market AI gives you the opportunity to have them not call the jetways like the default FSX AI do and that in itself will save you a lot of performance. When stock FSX AI start all calling for the jetways to move you'll notice a huge FPS hit, were as after market ones that dont do that shouldn't cause much of a dip in FPS.As for which package, the only two I have ever used were WAOI and had about 350 packages installed at one point. I switched to UT2 since the models are good looking and more efficient that WOAI and they a/c actually fly a flight plan unlike .bgl based AI which fly from point A to point B. Plus I like the UT2 hot key which let you clear an approach if your getting over taken or are comming up on someone as well as a hot key to completely clear the traffic if your FPS is getting hit too hard at a larger hub.Either way you go, using after market or freeware AI with lower poly counts should let you run higher levels of AI wihout the FPS of stock FSX AI.

[jwenham 1]

At last! Thank you, Paul J! ;) That was what I wanted to hear for quite some time: I usually hear people talking about AI on large airports, but I want the small ones to be lively too. Luckily the addon Orbx airports are quite lively, but not the 'standard' ones. Do you see airports on EVERY airport or are they mainly flying in the sky...? I'd specially like to see more on the ground...

If using UT2 and you are not seeing alot of traffic the reason is that there probably isn't alot of traffic at that airport. In the UT2 UI you can look and see how much traffic will be at any given airport. Some airports may see only 1 or 2 flights in a hour and some others like KATL can see 150+ flights in the same hour. If the OP main drive with a AI package is to simply see alot of traffic at all airports than UT2 would not suit his needs very well. If he wants real world schedules/routes then UT2 is the way to go and all the settings you can make with it makes it even better IMHO. The very important other issue also is with the AFCAD being used. IF the airport AFCAD does nor have enough parking spots assigned to it then even if the airport should have 200 flights active you will only see the traffic based on parking. One good example is at CYVR as with the default AFCAD it only has 1 heavy parking sopt. After installing a better AFCAD there are several just like in real life. With the new AFCAD for there the amount of traffic is increased greatly. Jim

[PaulM 1]

Paul, Sorry mate back at you, but I respectfully disagree with your statment that UT2 planes are 85% FS9 models as the facts dont agree with your conclusion. I just ran an analyizer to verify this and it turns out that out of the 101 models that UT2 uses, 100 are "MDLXMDLH" with the "x" indicating an FSX model and one was "MDL8MDLH" where as the "8" indcate its an FS2004/2002 model. This is the description per Phil Taylor formerly of ACES. "To determine if a model was built with the FSX SDK, use a file viewer or hex editor to look at the file. Near the beginning of the file, you should see the characters "MDLXMDLH" if it's an FSX model. An FS2002/2004 model will show "MDL8MDLH" or something else." Here's a screen shot of the scan as proof. Also the log file if your interested to see ti which ones are FSX models and which one was a FS2004/2002 model. You will also notice there are only 8 AIA models which is way less than the 85% you quoted the other fellow. MDLX .mdl files: \100\model\F100.MDL\141\model\Avro70-quality.MDL\142\model\Avro85-quality.MDL\143\model\Avro100-quality.MDL\310\model\A313.MDL\318\model\A318.MDL\319\model\A319.MDL\320\model\A320.MDL\321\model\A321.MDL\332\model\A332.MDL\333\model\A333.MDL\342\model\A342.MDL\343\model\A343.MDL\345\model\A345.MDL\346\model\A346.MDL\380\model\A380.MDL\717\model\b717.MDL\721\model\b727_100.MDL\722\model\b727_200.MDL\733\model\b733.MDL\734\model\b734.MDL\735\model\b735.MDL\736\model\b736.MDL\738\model\b738.MDL\739\model\b739.MDL\73G\model\b737.MDL\73H\model\b738w.MDL\73J\model\b739er.MDL\73K\model\b735w.MDL\73L\model\b733w.MDL\73S\model\b732.MDL\73W\model\b737w.MDL\741\model\aia_747_200_pw.mdl\742\model\aia_747_200_pw.mdl\743\model\aia_747_300_pw.mdl\744\model\aia_747_400_ge.mdl\74D\model\aia_747_300_pw.mdl\74E\model\aia_747_400_ge.mdl\74X\model\aia_747_200f_pw.mdl\74Y\model\aia_747_400f_ge.mdl\752\model\b752.MDL\753\model\b753.MDL\75W\model\b752w.MDL\762\model\aia_767_200_ge.MDL\763\model\aia_767_300_ge.MDL\764\model\aia_767_400_ge.mdl\772\model\B772.MDL\773\model\B773.MDL\AB6\model\A306.mdl\AN4\model\An24-quality.MDL\AN6\model\An26-quality.MDL\ANF\model\An12-quality.MDL\AT4\model\ATR42-quality.MDL\AT5\model\ATR45-quality.MDL\AT7\model\ATR72-quality.MDL\BEH\model\B1900D-quality.MDL\BES\model\B1900C-quality.MDL\CR2\model\CRJ200.MDL\CR7\model\CRJ700.MDL\CR9\model\CRJ900.MDL\D1C\model\DC10-quality.MDL\D1F\model\DC10F-quality.MDL\D8F\model\DC8-73.MDL\D93\model\DC9_30.MDL\D95\model\DC9_50.MDL\DH1\model\Q100.MDL\DH2\model\Q200.MDL\DH3\model\Q300.MDL\DH4\model\Q400.MDL\E70\model\EMB170.MDL\E75\model\EMB175.MDL\E90\model\EMB190.MDL\E95\model\EMB195.MDL\EM2\model\EMB120.MDL\ER3\model\E135-quality.MDL\ER4\model\E145-quality.MDL\ERD\model\E140-quality.MDL\F24\model\Fokker284-quality.MDL\F70\model\F70.MDL\IL6\model\Il62-quality.MDL\IL7\model\Il76C-quality.MDL\IL9\model\Il96-quality.MDL\ILW\model\Il86-quality.MDL\J31\model\J31.MDL\J41\model\J41.MDL\M11\model\MD11-quality.MDL\M1F\model\MD11F-quality.MDL\M80\model\MD8X.MDL\M87\model\MD87.MDL\M90\model\MD90.MDL\S20\model\S2000.mdl\SF3\model\SF340.mdl\SWM\model\Metroliner.MDL\TU3\model\Tu134-quality.MDL\TU5\model\Tu154-quality.MDL\X04\model\Legacy600-quality.MDL\X05\model\Challenger604.MDL\X06\model\Global_Express.MDL\YK2\model\Yak42-quality.MDL\YK4\model\Yak40.MDL And the one FS2004/2002 model which happens to be an AIA model. MDL8 .mdl files, compiled with SDK8: \T20\model\aia_tu_204_ps90.mdl As to the original question from Noel, you should be able to run much higer levels of AI without the same FPS hit as running stock AI due to the fact that the a/c used by FSX as AI aren't really designed to be FPS cost saving as AI specific models are. Plus the fact that using after market AI gives you the opportunity to have them not call the jetways like the default FSX AI do and that in itself will save you a lot of performance. When stock FSX AI start all calling for the jetways to move you'll notice a huge FPS hit, were as after market ones that dont do that shouldn't cause much of a dip in FPS. As for which package, the only two I have ever used were WAOI and had about 350 packages installed at one point. I switched to UT2 since the models are good looking and more efficient that WOAI and they a/c actually fly a flight plan unlike .bgl based AI which fly from point A to point B. Plus I like the UT2 hot key which let you clear an approach if your getting over taken or are comming up on someone as well as a hot key to completely clear the traffic if your FPS is getting hit too hard at a larger hub. Either way you go, using after market or freeware AI with lower poly counts should let you run higher levels of AI wihout the FPS of stock FSX AI.

Well, i dont know exactly how many % are FS9 MDL, but after lots of years in FS9, i can of course see if a plane is AIA or TFS, and they are 100% identical, if i remember correctly, for example, there are only one model of 777-200 available with RR engines, there are not GE or PW (i cant remember if was RR or PW). and they are definitively The Fruit Stand Planes. I repeat i have MTX for months now, i cant remember correctly somethings. But, i dont know what was done with the models, but im 100% sure they are Models from FS9, and from Various authors. Even my old FS9 repaints was 100% compatible with UT2. Screens from the Flight 1 website: I dont want to criticize UT2, i put my money on it, and its great, but no one can tell me that these images does not contain any AIA or TFS planes. sorry.

[duckbilled 311]

Well, i dont know exactly how many % are FS9 MDL, but after lots of years in FS9, i can of course see if a plane is AIA or TFS, and they are 100% identical, if i remember correctly, for example, there are only one model of 777-200 available with RR engines, there are not GE or PW (i cant remember if was RR or PW). and they are definitively The Fruit Stand Planes. I repeat i have MTX for months now, i cant remember correctly somethings. But, i dont know what was done with the models, but im 100% sure they are Models from FS9, and from Various authors. Even my old FS9 repaints was 100% compatible with UT2.

They are TFS and AIA models AND they are FSX native versions of those models. Just like a ton of other aircraft out there (Project Airbus, Quality Wings 757, POSKY 737's...), they were converted to FSX from FS9 and optomized.

[PaulM 1]

they were converted to FSX from FS9 and optomized.

Ahhh ok, so they are converted from fs9 and optimized to fsx using FSX standards, thankyou for this, this was my question, im sure they are FS9 models, but dont know exactly what was done with those models. Thanks, for the aclaration, no more questions from my side.