Strange,I have never seen this problem. I know quite a number of people who have PAI installed and have no such problems. In fact, I used a number of the auto install packages myself a couple of weeks ago and have had no problems either. Can't understand why you would have aircraft cruising at 140 knots with flaps down....You could try UT, but I'm not sure if the config files supplied with that would be any different from the ones on PAI as UT uses the PAI models anyway.There are updated FDE's for the PAI aircraft available on the PAI site as well. They are also easy to install with the newer versions of the auto installer (2.5+) Simply download and point the installer to the location and you're done. It does multiple installs at the same time too which really helps. I may be wrong but I think UT uses the same 'installer' method for updating the FDE's but it does it from within the UT program itself. Either way you are forced to download updates and then install.If you want to try PAI again, let me know if I can help in any way.Glenn

Correct, as do the PAI models. (Same thing)

For me there are two big differences between PAI and UT:The big one is simply time and simplicity. The UT install is basically foolproof. Not that the newer PAI installers are that complicated anymore either, but they still take a bit more time and are easier to mess up. The next is the schedules and amount of traffic. Both PAI and UT will put nice amounts of traffic in the US and Eurpean airports. However I find that UT does a better job in other parts of the world. A good specific example is the Caribbean and South America. I found PAI to be rather sparce in certain areas. PAI is nice and free, but with UT I just don't have to worry about where I fly or what package I need to install. I just know that there should be some sort of local traffic there. Lets not forget all the additional tools too. UT can print nice airport and airline schedules as well.

Heather, I give UT a 9/10, not just for the program, but the service is prompt too.I looked PAI over carefully, and first downloaded and used every schedule and plane available. It is a great project. But certainly for my area (CYYJ/CYWH/CYVR) PAI didn't have a fraction of the airline schedules of UT. A no brainer. PAI's automation is a big help, too, but it's not as simple as a single install.If you want your more obscure local airlines to work though, the schedules will be there, but the accurate repaints won't (generic repaints are substituted (you can turn that off)), and won't be available from PAI. Since you're a repainter, you can fill in the gaps yourself, no pun intended.I hear a plane high overhead late at night, and using MS Traffic Explorer check the local skies to possibly identify it. Jon

Ultimate traffic is unbelievable. I love it. Along side the PMDG 737NG, this is the one add on I cant sim without. It has made a world of difference. I do wish it had military and GA flights, but that will come soon enough!

The airplane models themselves in UT are horrible. Planes look like they are out of FS 98. Stick with Project AI

Sound advice there BoDean..... Though I must admit, that as we're all agreed that UT and PAI use the same models, then to stick with the PAI models would still result in 'horrible' planes.....LOL!!! Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of a cheap-shot there...I've been using PAI for thte last year or so and am very happy with it, and there are frequent updates and new airlines added monthly...all free. I had considerred UT myself, but apart from a couple of 'gadgets & gimmicks', it isn't really going to be much of an improvement over what I already have, so I haven't changed. PAI is excellent, and of course, free. Your initial download will be heavy, but installation is a breeze, as has been mentioned before, and your airports look wonderful with all those real-world aircraft, and no fakes, doing their own thing... :)

Same models?The planes in my UT (which was updated a week ago) look a lot worse than my PAI planes do.Not the same models on my system

Mytraffic 2004 is not to forget either. You get much more GA and military traffic than just those boeings flying around :). Plus you get more airplanes and more airports with traffic :)UT uses real world schedules Mytraffic just make sure the right airlines is trafficing the right airports so if real world schedules are important I would go with UT :) Though that don

does UT come with FedEx and UPS? something not offered with the easy PAI packages. I know you can customize it, but why bother when you can pay for it and have everything done automatically.Those two carriers will make my final decision with UT

Yes, it has schedules and aircraft for both FedEx and UPS. And DHL and Bax Global.Jon

cool! thanks. totally getting it now. :)

Some discussion on the performance hit from using dense AI traffic may be appropriate. What does the existence of all those AI entities on a complex airport scenery like SimFlyers do to frame rates, especially with a complex panel? I find that the resulting slide show is often less than wonderful.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Agreed, Bob. At KSEA my frame rates are cut in half from 24 to 11. Over Manhatten, frame rates drop from 17 to 6 when using UT. Still smooth though, no stutters on my tuned machine, which is what is most important to me.I presume that the same density of traffic (over Manhatten: nearly 400 aircraft active) would have the same effect with PAI.This is on my older machine (1.7GHz, 768 Mb RAM, Ti4200/128Mb video card), with V9.1 patched in.Impact in lower traffic areas is minimal.Jon

6 fps smooth ;)Anyway the performance hit is guargantuan at areas up to 300 % performance hit with AI traffic at 100 % in heavy populated skies isn