For those who think My Traffic X AI models are inferior...

[Jason Howell 1]

I was slewing around Sydney, Australia trying to get some decent shots of AI when i noticed this Embraer coming in for a landing. So i zip over there to get in a good position and capture these two shots.

 

 

 

the second shot is what got my attention..note how the AI put the brakes on...ive never really noticed this in a AI plane before.

 

 

 

It made me smile

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Nice. Is this the new version of MTX or 5.4?

[Ben Cap 89]

All respect to your post and photos, I find that UT2 has much more realistic models.

[duckbilled 310]

All respect to your post and photos, I find that UT2 has much more realistic models.

 

...especially since you can easily switch out UT2 models for your favorites. Still waiting on the process for switching out models/paints in MT. I asked twice in a previous thread and all I got were a bunch of responses about good FPS.

[FlavioSSA 44]

Well, not trying to reduce the importance of your findings, but even freeware Word of Ai had the brake animations for many years now. And yes, mytraffic models are really ugly for today standards imo.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Well, not trying to reduce the importance of your findings, but even freeware Word of Ai had the brake animations for many years now. And yes, mytraffic models are really ugly for today standards imo.

And what exactly are "today's standards"? For the most part of a flight simulator session, you should be inside the virtual cockpit, not looking at other planes. AI is only there to make the experience more real, imo, not to make it pretty.

[FlavioSSA 44]

Well, the AIA and FruitStand models are mutch more accurate, just compare a AIA 737-800 with a mytrafic model to see what i´m talking about (That´s your answer about today standards). And about your other afirmation, although it´s a bit dubious about the real/pretty comparison, i fly from the VC and don´t use any traffic. I was just replying to the OP about the brake animation and that mytraffic models are endeed ugly. There are mutch better ones available (Even for free).

[Jason Howell 1]

...especially since you can easily switch out UT2 models for your favorites. Still waiting on the process for switching out models/paints in MT

 

why would you need to swap out paints when you have damn near every airline that flies in the package already?

[Jason Howell 1]

here is a list of every aircraft and airline in MyTraffic X 5.4a professional. In response to an earlier post that new version of MTX that was just released is the same as 5.4a pro, but just sold under aerosofts name. Nothing has changed to the core program. Another feature of MTX 5.4a that alot of people dont even know it has is the ability to go back in time and fly in the 1960's to today with the airlines that flew in that era. Wanna fly with pan am and TWA as your AI? you can go back to any date from today back to 1960.

 

HERE is a list of every airline/aircraft that you get with MTX 5.4a Professional. This is why i dont have to spend my time installing paints and models, i dont feel i have to because nearly every airline i could care about is in the package already. People state the models arent complex, but honestly they dont have to be, THEY ARE AI. More polys in ai planes means a bigger drag on fps because the sim has to spend more time rendering AI planes. This means you can have more AI out there than you could for say UT2 or other AI packages. I also own UT2 but i dont use it. MTX has replaced it for me.

[CraigyW 30]

I fly from VC with AI. I construct my traffic files from the flightplans created by groups like AIG etc and use AIA, The Fruit stand, DJC, UTT, HTAI and FAIB etc who produce excellent AI aircraft. They look realistic with reverse thrust, spoliers and flaps. Looking at the pics at teh top, that AI model just looks cheap and nasty in comparison.

 

Just my opinion

[Super Six-Four 5]

MTX could have every airline known to man and it wouldn't matter to me. I would cringe every time I was at an airport.

[Bobu 0]

I will say this about UT2. The FPS hit is not bad. The planes look great. And it just works. But glad others like MT.

[Fatback 84]

"it has is the ability to go back in time and fly in the 1960's to today with the airlines that flew in that era"

 

I checked the list of airlines and it dosn't have CP Air. :(

[ZachLW 37]

I can't fault either program. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, so comparing the two should be done so in an objective way. UT2 has beautiful models. MTX has wonderful airline/schedule coverage, and seems to give denser traffic. MTX covers Europe more thoroughly, also, if that's your need.

[ZKOKQ 984]

I have also noticed that no one has mentioned that you can use UT2 and MTX5.4A together. I use MTX to cover airlines, cargo and military that UT2 does not. Best of both worlds. Both have there strength and weaknesses, so both are great in my book. But this method does come at a cost, long as you don't mind purchasing both.