I don't remember who said it but I am far too busy working my airplane than looking at some AI flying by. I use MTX and love it. When I fly to South America or even Africa I get the right AI planes there with MTX. I don't know how much of a fps hit UT gets, but my MTX its almost none at 50%. BTW, I did a test at KJFK at 100% and was so loaded with MTX that it was almost not flyable. At 50% it still looked like the real JFK and I had decent frames.

 

Just my opinion, love MTX

 

Bob

Thats where i have my big issue with UT2. I shouldnt have to spend my time finding, downloading then installing extra paints to "complete" the experience. Especially for a product which at the time i paid 40 dollars for. I havent seen or felt the need to do that with MyTrafficX. i was happy with UT2 until i started flying in the caribbean, then i started seeing more Daedalus "no Paint" airlines than actual paints. I know you have the option to not show Daedalus, but thats a double whammy, because you lose the traffic also, and whats realistic about that?

The best thing about all the available packages (free or payware) is that we all have individual needs and opinions. If this wasn't the case there would probably only be 2 models of planes available, 1 big and 1 small and they would probably both be silver. Even while I spend a lot of time in the VC, I also generate my own AI traffic so while I am searching through my traffic to make sure things are where they should be I also prefer to see accurately rendered aircraft.

Yes, the AI models in My Traffic X are completely inferior to even freeware models. In fact, they're butt ugly.

 

However, if you're actually enjoying the product, who cares what other people think?

Thats where i have my big issue with UT2. I shouldnt have to spend my time finding, downloading then installing extra paints to "complete" the experience. Especially for a product which at the time i paid 40 dollars for. I havent seen or felt the need to do that with MyTrafficX. i was happy with UT2 until i started flying in the caribbean, then i started seeing more Daedalus "no Paint" airlines than actual paints. I know you have the option to not show Daedalus, but thats a double whammy, because you lose the traffic also, and whats realistic about that?

 

 

And I shouldn't have to spend months configuring FSX, paying hundreds of dollars for addons, upgrading my computer, all to get a complete flying experience. But because we all want to find better things and expand the game, we do. I don't like spending hours finding models for UTX, but once I do it for the area I am flying, it stays there, and is far worth it, since I can customize it better with the latest proper and better repaints, more FPS friendly and better looking models.

However, if you're actually enjoying the product, who cares what other people think?

 

Best comment in this thread.

Best comment in this thread.

 

+1

I find it somehow addictive looking at avsim, finding new repaints, getting the latest flightplans, and assigning them. Keeping it as real as possible according to real life. Thats the thing I like about UT. Oh, and not forget the much nicer planes it has. And I do have MTX. But I can imagine for someone who doesn't care about this, and only wants a lot of planes at the airport, MTX is your choice. For me good add- on planes, sceneries and the ai- planes takes my flying experience to the max!

Just to weigh in here. I have recently uninstalled UT2 in favor of My Traffic 5.4a Pro and find it to be the better product. You get more traffic, less FPS hit, and traffic flows better. For example MTX takes much less time to get going than UT2, I have no problems flying enroute past major airports and seeing tons of traffic taking off and on final, and upon reaching my destination airport there is tons of traffic, all at just 45% with less FPS hit than UT2. With UT2 this was sometimes a problem, arriving to very quiet airports, traffic taking a long time to get going after loading. Also after accessing the menu several times UT2 would fail inject traffic. Also with ORBX, REX, add on planes, and maxed sliders etc... there's just not 10 frames left in the tank to give up to AI.

PROS of MTX

1. Native P3d support

2. More traffic and better flow... always feels busy (that's what you want!)

3. Option to use My traffic Live for real flight plans and schedules

4. No Daudelaus paints and wasted time fixing AI, or downloading alternative traffic

CONS of MTX

1. Poor user interface, how do you add missing airlines if you want to?

2. Slightly inferior models, but they look fine to me, I'm ok even using the low quality models to keep my FPS ok at major hubs with maxed sliders

I can't remember when MTX came out but I know I had a version when I still used FS9 and that was quite some years ago. I tried WOAI but after spending 2 days downloading "every" package and still finding empty airports I wasn't really happy with it. I realize people get "passionate" about some things but I see no reason why I should spend days configuring and perfecting AI instead of flying my own plane. MTX populates my airports with reasonable looking AI with minimal input from me and that's how it should be and it makes me happy. UT2 might be good or even great but I'm not going to buy it because I'm happy with MTX and that's good enough for me. I think the screenshot looks fine personally.

I tried WOAI but after spending 2 days downloading "every" package and still finding empty airports I wasn't really happy with it.

 

That's not strictly necessary is it, not unless you want to do it and not all in one sitting and not to start off?

 

If you loaded the Top 10 airlines in each of 6 continents plus 10 others of specific interest in the region you're likely to fly in [70 in total], you'd probably cover 75% of relevant flights. I reckon that would take you a couple of hours and save you €40 or so. Thereafter, you can add airlines a few at a time to your hearts content and get better looking models.

 

Since the flight-plans in WoAI are intended to be accurate and are mostly written by hobbyists [or obsessives to use another word], what you see if you crank the AI percentage up to 100% is really what you'd get, or thereabouts or as near as anyone can make it.

 

My Traffic X specifically says "flight plans are modeled after real world observations giving you a high level of realism without the boring uniformity of products that restrict themselves solely to published schedules".

 

Now as far as I'm concerned, as long as I don't see impossible aircraft at impossible places [and certainly not Pacifica et al anywhere], that's near enough but it's wrong to claim MTX is somehow more accurate when it doesn't even claim to be. Traffic X is a bit vague exactly what its level of accuracy is but UTX2 does claim to include real airline schedules and I'll believe that if they say it - then again personally I don't want to pay £29 for 100% accuracy.

 

It's each to it's own on this, but I'd summarise the advantages of WoAi as being:

 

For:

1) It's free. That being so, I can find better things to spend money on in FSX than AI.

2) In my experience, better looking models which aren't frame rate hogs.

 

Against:

1) Almost no military content. I don't fly military so it's not the end of the world but variety is the spice of life.

2) There's no mechanism [other than checking yourself] whether callsigns match up with what's in EditVoicePack for example.

I use UT2 with added WoAI schedules to get the airliner population up to realistic levels at UK airports. I fly exclusively around the British Isles, so I don't need to worry about anything that doesn't visit our green and pleasant land :smile: As for military traffic, I have added this myself over time with AIFP2. I now see plenty of C130s and Hawks, and a nice mix of Typhoons, Tornadoes, Eagles, C17s, VC10s, KC135s, E3 Sentrys, KC10 Extenders, TriStars, Tucanos, Hawker Hunters, Gloster Meteors, Grob Tutors, KingAirs, Sentinels.....and even Avro Vulcan XH558!

 

Most of the military flightplans are not based on real world schedules, but I couldn't care less. All I want is to see plenty of activity at the military airfields.

It's each to it's own on this, but I'd summarise the advantages of WoAi as being:

 

For:

1) It's free. That being so, I can find better things to spend money on in FSX than AI.

2) In my experience, better looking models which aren't frame rate hogs.

 

 

For the record, a lot of the models in UT2 are the same as those used in WoAI, eg, AIA, TFS, DJAI etc. However, the big difference in UT2 is that the models have been optimised for FSX, meaning that for example, AI don't lose their textures and / or their landing gear when viewed from a long distance.

 

Personally, I use both plus manually created flightplans which will call for, wherever possible, models included in UT2 so as not to see the issues noted above.

 

Regards

 

Gary