it's just that FSX doesn't use it.

FSX is a very old 32 bit program, so it's not your computer's fault.

When I was first looking at traffic programs, reading reviews, forum posts and whatnot, after a couple of days googling I got the impression that, when comparing UT, MT and TrafficX, it was most people's opinion that TrafficX was the "middle option" by most criteria. i.e. One of the others would be the best looking models, the other would be the worst while TrafficX would be somewhere in between. One of the others would be the most framerate-friendly, the other would be the least, while TrafficX would be somewhere in between. etc etc etc. In the end I went for TrafficX on the basis that it seemed like the best all-round compromise, and I was quite happy with it.

 

I've upgraded to Traffic360 and so far it's looking good. I think they've improved the eyecandy somewhat, but I'm not noticing any significant drop in performance.

 

If you've got strong opinions about what's most important in a traffic package, then one of the others might fit your criteria better, but for a nice all-round balanced option I'm quite happy so far with Just Flight's offering.

 

Dr V

When I was first looking at traffic programs, reading reviews, forum posts and whatnot, after a couple of days googling I got the impression that, when comparing UT, MT and TrafficX, it was most people's opinion that TrafficX was the "middle option" by most criteria. i.e. One of the others would be the best looking models, the other would be the worst while TrafficX would be somewhere in between. One of the others would be the most framerate-friendly, the other would be the least, while TrafficX would be somewhere in between. etc etc etc. In the end I went for TrafficX on the basis that it seemed like the best all-round compromise, and I was quite happy with it.

 

I've upgraded to Traffic360 and so far it's looking good. I think they've improved the eyecandy somewhat, but I'm not noticing any significant drop in performance.

 

If you've got strong opinions about what's most important in a traffic package, then one of the others might fit your criteria better, but for a nice all-round balanced option I'm quite happy so far with Just Flight's offering.

 

Dr V

 

Thanks. that is helpful. However when you say nice eye candy but no significant hit on performance, is that traffic AI on low volume or is it realistic as in alot of traffic for a busy airport. I dont see the point of buying a traffic program if i have to keep it at 10-15% traffic volume in order to have no to little performance hit.

FSX is a very old 32 bit program, so it's not your computer's fault.

 

How then is others taking all of the advantages of these addon AI programs like Ultimate Traffic, MyTraffic 5.4 and TrafficX, when it has to be kept at such a low percentage that it just leaves such a few moving aircraft?

How then is others taking all of the advantages of these addon AI programs like Ultimate Traffic, MyTraffic 5.4 and TrafficX, when it has to be kept at such a low percentage that it just leaves such a few moving aircraft?

Maybe through more optimized scenery settings?

Also having proper tweaks in FSX.cfg can have huge impact.

Thanks. that is helpful. However when you say nice eye candy but no significant hit on performance, is that traffic AI on low volume or is it realistic as in alot of traffic for a busy airport. I dont see the point of buying a traffic program if i have to keep it at 10-15% traffic volume in order to have no to little performance hit.

 

Sorry, what I meant was that Traffic360 didn't seem any worse than TrafficX for performance hit. But to answer your question, I'm running with traffic at 40%, which is busy enough that I usually have a 2 or 3 plane queue holding short for departure at Manchester EGCC. Much higher than that and I found I was struggling to talk to ATC with all the AI chatter jamming the frequencies. I've just done a quick test: loading with 0% airline traffic at UK2000's EGCC gave me 30fps, turning traffic up to 40% that dropped to 20fps with the occasional dip down into the mid-to-high teens. Quite a big hit, I suppose, but still playable and worth it for the eye candy.

 

EDIT: While doing this test I think I've found a problem with T360. Although all the airport gates are nicely full and the airport looks busy, the actual departure rate seems slower than it should be, and slower than TrafficX was. I've had the sim running for half an hour now and only seen three departures, whereas under TrafficX I was getting three or four times that many for the same slider setting. Caveat Emptor.

 

Dr V

 

EDIT: While doing this test I think I've found a problem with T360. Although all the airport gates are nicely full and the airport looks busy, the actual departure rate seems slower than it should be, and slower than TrafficX was. I've had the sim running for half an hour now and only seen three departures, whereas under TrafficX I was getting three or four times that many for the same slider setting. Caveat Emptor.

 

Dr V

 

Well I guess there should be some expected performance hit, but that is quite substantial. Although its not flying. Ive had AI traffic from default at up to 50% before and waiting in line to takeoff took forever. Nothing landing and planes would just sit there. So you have no choice except to bypass them and takeoff before you burn all your fuel up. Very unrealistic. Perhaps its a bug in FSX ATC. Very annoying.

I've had a response on the Just Flight forum about my low volume of departures with Traffic 360. They're saying that because T360 is using real-world schedules, whereas Tx didn't, I'm just seeing a reflection of the real-life traffic volume.

 

I'm not sure I buy it. But I've turned up the traffic slider to 100% and have had a few departures in the last half hour, which looks close to the volume of traffic that FlightAware is reporting in the same period. The mix of carriers seems to be a little off, with T360 giving me a constant stream of British Airways (about 80% of the departures I'm hearing are Speedbirds) compared to the varied mix FlightAware shows.

 

It just goes to show you what another poster said - not all 100% traffics are equal. It sounds like TrafficX at 50% was ridiculously over-busy compared to what T360 is reporting as "real" at 100%.

The comment about traffic levels is probably correct, Burkhard Renk the developer of MyTrafficX has always said that traffic slider levels from 30 to 50% in FSX represent close to reality traffic volumes. If you move the slider higher than that with MTX you will then start to see fictional schedules added on top of the real schedules. These fictional scheds are included to fill up the airports so almost every stand is occupied, this was done because some customers incorrectly think every stand would be full in reality when this simply isn't the case most of the year, it keeps those customers happy though.

I've had a response on the Just Flight forum about my low volume of departures with Traffic 360. They're saying that because T360 is using real-world schedules, whereas Tx didn't, I'm just seeing a reflection of the real-life traffic volume.

 

I'm not sure I buy it. But I've turned up the traffic slider to 100% and have had a few departures in the last half hour, which looks close to the volume of traffic that FlightAware is reporting in the same period. The mix of carriers seems to be a little off, with T360 giving me a constant stream of British Airways (about 80% of the departures I'm hearing are Speedbirds) compared to the varied mix FlightAware shows.

 

It just goes to show you what another poster said - not all 100% traffics are equal. It sounds like TrafficX at 50% was ridiculously over-busy compared to what T360 is reporting as "real" at 100%.

 

Thanks for the feedback. Real world traffic is speculative I think. Airlines juggle their schedule often. And depending what airport your at, traffic volume would vary if it is indeed real world. When I worked at YVR the barrage of traffic was between 8-11 for a ton of arrivals from Asia, then they would all leave 11-14:00.

Between 2-4 it was relatively quiet. Then it picked up again for the early evening. So perhaps its your airport? How many airports have you compared?

All in all it does seem like a somewhat decent package. I was just considering to add more realism to my simulation. Being at an airport with empty AI traffic or very stupid movement aircraft is annoying.

 

BTW that is another pet peeve of mine with airport traffic. They are plain stupid. Like really stupid. Ground vehicles constantly cutting you off, and other aircraft seem to go anywhere they please again cutting you off. Is the traffic movement somewhat intelligible in T360?

The Intelligence behind all the Traffic packages is controlled by the same dll in FSX and that will never change, they will always be limited in intelligence. Smart AFCAD layout of the Taxiways by third parties can help alleviate the stupidity of the AI though.

Anyone else had a chance to try out 360? Just curious to see how it compares. Im presently running UT2 and its okay but some of the models and variety of aircraft in 360 look good on the website.

 

Other views out there yet...?

 

Thanks,

 

Alex Malek

Anyone else had a chance to try out 360? Just curious to see how it compares. Im presently running UT2 and its okay but some of the models and variety of aircraft in 360 look good on the website.

 

Other views out there yet...?

 

Thanks,

 

Alex Malek

 

I have Traffic 360, I really like the improvements. One problem I do have is certain planes flying with their passenger doors and cargo doors open, hope a hot fix comes out soon (video below).

 

http://youtu.be/jOmCOhQp5tA

Wondering if 360 changes the bgl at an airport. I know with MyTraffic, it altered the bgl's on many airports rendering ORBX SAK looking very bad indeed with canyons and craters around the runways.  Does it work with DirectX 10 (asked above already) and how does the GA traffic look, say at an airport like PAKT. (I run the Misty Moorings site, so this is important to us).  Thank you.

 

Doug