Hello All Having recently (and finally) migrated over from FS9, I've just finished porting over my FS9 AI - a combination of manual and WOAI packages. However, I've noticed a phenomenon where the polygon count , and subsequent model quality, seems to be severely reduced when moving only slightly away from the viewpoint - see below: Also, the AI textures completely disappear and revert to grey at distance. Now, bearing in mind that I've only just got up and running with FSX, this may be normal behaviour for FS9 ported AI, However, just wondering if it is and if it isn't, is there anything that can be done to improve the situation. Any assistance much appreciated Regards Gary

I've noticed the same thing Gary, but assumed it was normal for FS A/c ported over to FSX. IAN

I haven't noticed anything that extreme in FSX. What 737 model is that?

Looks like a problem with the contact points! I use to use WOAI, which is FS9 based, (I use UT2 now) and haven't seen this issue, probably just a problem with that particular model, unless you seen it in others?

Easier to just install UT2 and enjoy :-)

Easier to just install UT2 and enjoy :-)

I would agree with that.

Yeah, or MTX. UT2 doesn't come close in diversity and amount of traffic that MTX has. UT2 does have nicer models, although for MTX 5.4 the A320 and 737 models will be updated.

You want MTX, if your just interested in filling up the airport with random flights. You want UT2 if you want a more realistic level of air traffic, as these flights are from actual real world flight schedules (At the time of there creation).

Tom, MTX doesn't have random flights per se. Not all of them are realistic, some of them being based on outdated material (After all, Renk Burkhard can't check every flight in MTX there is for its real-world existence), but a large part is actually realistic. Maybe not at the exact time, or maybe they don't fly the exact route, but you've usually got the correct planes at the correct airports. Nothing random about that. Also, keep in mind that UT2, in itsrealism, leaves out all airlines that do not submit their schedules to the UT2 developers. As such, Ryanair is completely missing from the newest UT2 schedules, for example.

Tom, MTX doesn't have random flights per se. Not all of them are realistic, some of them being based on outdated material (After all, Renk Burkhard can't check every flight in MTX there is for its real-world existence), but a large part is actually realistic. Maybe not at the exact time, or maybe they don't fly the exact route, but you've usually got the correct planes at the correct airports. Nothing random about that. Also, keep in mind that UT2, in itsrealism, leaves out all airlines that do not submit their schedules to the UT2 developers. As such, Ryanair is completely missing from the newest UT2 schedules, for example.

Not something that cannot be adressed, I had Jet Blue and Ryanair back up and running in 30 mins, after installing the new schedule. Having good models is important as realistic flightplans, so that's why MTX was not a go for me.

Yeah, Ryanair and Jetblue, but I'm also talking about the hundreds of other airlines that were never part of any UT2 schedules release. Sure, you can add them using WoAI, but I then have to ask why bother even use UT2 if you have to start using WoAI to fill the gaps. For me that sort of defeats the purpose of using UT2 all together. But indeed, if realistic flight plans are a priority for you, then MTX is not for you. MTX is for people that want to see many airlines and don't care too much about having the nicest models and realistic flight plans. Although, I do want to see somewhat realistic airlines at airports, so no Cathay Pacific at Rotterdam airport for example. MTX seems to do that quite well overall.

Hello All Many thanks for you informative replies. I'm afraid that I'm a bit of a stickler for realistic flightplans and quality repaints, hence, my initial reason for porting over my existing FS9 AI. However, I've accepted that I need fully FSX compliant AI, so for me, this leaves just UT2 as a viable option. I'll just fill in the missing schedules with those that I already have. Btw, UT2 is currently being sold on Amazon for £17.99 - a bit of a bargain. Regards

Yeah, Ryanair and Jetblue, but I'm also talking about the hundreds of other airlines that were never part of any UT2 schedules release. Sure, you can add them using WoAI, but I then have to ask why bother even use UT2 if you have to start using WoAI to fill the gaps. For me that sort of defeats the purpose of using UT2 all together. But indeed, if realistic flight plans are a priority for you, then MTX is not for you. MTX is for people that want to see many airlines and don't care too much about having the nicest models and realistic flight plans. Although, I do want to see somewhat realistic airlines at airports, so no Cathay Pacific at Rotterdam airport for example. MTX seems to do that quite well overall.

I know some that use both, and that is something I thought about doing, Using MTX to fill the gaps.

Yeah, Ryanair and Jetblue, but I'm also talking about the hundreds of other airlines that were never part of any UT2 schedules release. Sure, you can add them using WoAI, but I then have to ask why bother even use UT2 if you have to start using WoAI to fill the gaps. For me that sort of defeats the purpose of using UT2 all together. But indeed, if realistic flight plans are a priority for you, then MTX is not for you. MTX is for people that want to see many airlines and don't care too much about having the nicest models and realistic flight plans. Although, I do want to see somewhat realistic airlines at airports, so no Cathay Pacific at Rotterdam airport for example. MTX seems to do that quite well overall.

I don't know about RyanAir, but my UT2 has no problem with JetBlue, what makes you think UT2 doesn't have them?

I never thought there was a problem with Jetblue. Julian said he got Ryanair and JetBlue back in 30 minutes - that's why I referenced JetBlue also. In my reply to a previous post of yours, as you can see, I only referenced Ryanair.