Best FSX addons

[MichaelTurner 5]

What type of hard drive is better a regular hard drive that runs at like 7200 RPM, or a drive that has a 512GB solid state drive+ 1 TB of additional storage at 7200 RPM?

Installing FSX on an SSD will reduce load times significantly but will have no effect on FPS. I have FSX plus all add ons on a dedicated 512GB SSD,   W7 and all other software on a 256GB SSD and all data files (photos, music) on HDDs.

[Sportsfan23 2]

sorry can't tell you any more about pro atc x because I don't own it (yet)

maybe better asking in their forum for that ...

 

and the question about ssd and normal hdd: even the slowest ssd will blow away the fastest hdd by miles.

I have a ssd and windows 8 boots in like 6sec from logo to desktop/startmenu (without the windows internal quickstart option)

 

if you can afford it get 2 ssd, 1 for windows (120gb are enough most of the times) and another one for fsx maybe (I have it on a regular hdd)

maybe 120gb if you don't have many addons or 250gb for the future and some other games/apps (but not needed)

 

That option wasn't available unfortunately. It was either 1 512 SSD or I could get the 512 SSD with a 1 TB 7200 rpm drive as well. I figure getting the bundle would be best.

Installing FSX on an SSD will reduce load times significantly but will have no effect on FPS. I have FSX plus all add ons on a dedicated 512GB SSD,   W7 and all other software on a 256GB SSD and all data files (photos, music) on HDDs.

 

So it sounds like I could just install FSX and all the add-ons to the SSD and then programs not related to FSX on the extra 1 TB hard drive? Would that work?

[Sportsfan23 2]

Ok after seeing such bad reviews of traffic 360 I am looking at what AI program to get. I have it narrowed down to Ultimate traffic 2 or My traffic pro 5.4. Anybody have thoughts on either of those?

[FloG 148]

 

 

Anybody have thoughts on either of those?

I personally had a bad experience with UT2, as it performed very badly on my old computer, and for that reason I have not tried installing it after I moved to a newer computer, and I had not had any FPS issues with MyTraffic 5.4. Some say that they mind MTX's weak AI models, but I think it's not important to have high poly models, as long as I can tell what aircraft it is and performance is right.

A downside of UT2 - even otherwise satisfied users say that - is the fictional "Daedalus" airline which is displayed whenever the realworld airline is missing for whatever reason, and it is a lot of work to replace those reapints by real world ones. But UT2 sure has the best models, probably the best user interface (if that's needed) and the planes follow real world flight plans (or at least close to real) rather than direct airport to airport plans.

The downside of MTX, leaving aside the lower quality models, is that the UI is rather bad, but you don't really need it except for activating MTX (addding the line "SimObjectPaths.x=MyTraffic" to the FSX.cfg). This is the cause of many errors, though, because many people don't read the instructions and skip that important, so FSX won't know the source for the AI models and hence won't display them. There's a lot of complaints about that issue at the AS forum. However, MTX covers pretty much any airline around the world, and even adds GA and military models.

In general I'd say UT2 is for the airliner guys who mainly fly around the US and maybe Europe, but if you tend to fly in more "exotic" areas, MTX might give you the better immersion.

Be aware, that the performance of the two programs is dependent on your personal setup, so it does not mean that UT2 will perform as bad on your computer as it did on mine, and the same of course applies for MTX!

[MichaelTurner 5]

Sportsfan23, on 30 Sept 2013 - 8:49 PM, said:

That option wasn't available unfortunately. It was either 1 512 SSD or I could get the 512 SSD with a 1 TB 7200 rpm drive as well. I figure getting the bundle would be best.

 

So it sounds like I could just install FSX and all the add-ons to the SSD and then programs not related to FSX on the extra 1 TB hard drive? Would that work?

Yes that would work fine - create a directory on the SSD and install FSX in that.

[Sportsfan23 2]

I personally had a bad experience with UT2, as it performed very badly on my old computer, and for that reason I have not tried installing it after I moved to a newer computer, and I had not had any FPS issues with MyTraffic 5.4. Some say that they mind MTX's weak AI models, but I think it's not important to have high poly models, as long as I can tell what aircraft it is and performance is right.

A downside of UT2 - even otherwise satisfied users say that - is the fictional "Daedalus" airline which is displayed whenever the realworld airline is missing for whatever reason, and it is a lot of work to replace those reapints by real world ones. But UT2 sure has the best models, probably the best user interface (if that's needed) and the planes follow real world flight plans (or at least close to real) rather than direct airport to airport plans.

The downside of MTX, leaving aside the lower quality models, is that the UI is rather bad, but you don't really need it except for activating MTX (addding the line "SimObjectPaths.x=MyTraffic" to the FSX.cfg). This is the cause of many errors, though, because many people don't read the instructions and skip that important, so FSX won't know the source for the AI models and hence won't display them. There's a lot of complaints about that issue at the AS forum. However, MTX covers pretty much any airline around the world, and even adds GA and military models.

In general I'd say UT2 is for the airliner guys who mainly fly around the US and maybe Europe, but if you tend to fly in more "exotic" areas, MTX might give you the better immersion.

Be aware, that the performance of the two programs is dependent on your personal setup, so it does not mean that UT2 will perform as bad on your computer as it did on mine, and the same of course applies for MTX!

 

I just came across another one called my traffic 2013.I have never heard of this one before until just now. Does anybody have any thoughts on that one?

 

It seems like UT2 is the choice if I go between those two but I am curious to see if I can find any information about reviews of My traffic 2013.

 

I also saw the hardware guide but I have not come across a installation guide? Is there one on this site or do I just need to search the internet for that and I will find some? I mean aside from installing FSX like what order I should install all the add-ons?

[FloG 148]

 

 

I just came across another one called my traffic 2013.I have never heard of this one before until just now. Does anybody have any thoughts on that one?

Definitely a no-go. MT2013 is nothing than a downgraded version of MTX5.4a (so two version behind at the moment, 5.4 is at c currently), published by Aerosoft. Hence you get a less complete package and pay not only the developer himself directly, but also the publisher - which IMO is nonsense if the addon is available directly from the developer too, and the price of 2013 is less than 2€ lower than the price of 5.4.

Besides - and I find that very interesting - simmarket, who sell both 5.4 and 2013 - explicitly recommend not to buy MTX2013 but rather MTX5.4:

 

simMarket recomends the more comprehensive version  MyTRAFFIC X PROFESSIONAL 5.4 A

 

Btw, there is a nice comparison table on the simmarket page of MyTraffic Pro 5.4c:http://secure.simmarket.com/mytraffic-x-professional-5.4-b.phtml (You'll have to scroll don on that page a bit)

[Guest]

 

 

would have to own My Traffic X Professional and Just Flight Traffic 360 to give you an accurate response about the differences.

 

I have like so many products for different reason I'm probably not the best to provide a list ... but I have used Traffic X and Traffic 360 ... I prefer Traffic 360 but it's user interface and documentation are not great ... you have to right click some list boxes to perform some key operations in Traffic 360 ... not very intuitive at all.  However, Traffic 360 flight plans for AI and the AI aircraft themselves are good and work in DX10.

 

Rob

[Sportsfan23 2]

Ok so it sounds like My traffic pro 5.4 C is the way to go. Is it worth also getting the My traffic live program? I guess it's like 20 bucks and a 6 month subscription.

[FloG 148]

 

 

Is it worth also getting the My traffic live program?

I don't have it, but I'd say it depends on how much you know about the arilines' real world schedules, and on how much realism you want. I am happy with what MTX gives me out of the box, that's up-to-date enough for me.

Also, since you're only getting into this hobby, you might want to take it slow, and don't spend too much money at the beginning - especially with such quite "advanced" (in terms of - maybe even unnecessary - realism) programs.

[airernie 263]

Ok after seeing such bad reviews of traffic 360 I am looking at what AI program to get. I have it narrowed down to Ultimate traffic 2 or My traffic pro 5.4. Anybody have thoughts on either of those?

 

There a several long, and sometimes very long threads on Avsim discussing which is better.. Both have their fans and experiences will vary.

 

Some people have great success with UT2, while others don't .  Some people have great success with MyTraffic Pro and others don't.

 

The best suggestion that I have seen is to try UT2 first because Flight1 has a 30-day return.  If you don't like it, then you can return it and purchase MyTraffic Pro, which doesn't have a 30-day return.

 

BTW, I have both and elected to stay with UT2 because on my system I found that I could display more traffic with less FPS hit.  Also, it's easy to replace the FSX default GA aircraft with 3rd party AI.

 

MyTraffic Pro's strength is that it has more liveries than UT2 and is updated more frequently.  Other than flight plans, UT2 hasn't had any update liveries in years.

 

Ernie

[Sportsfan23 2]

I don't have it, but I'd say it depends on how much you know about the arilines' real world schedules, and on how much realism you want. I am happy with what MTX gives me out of the box, that's up-to-date enough for me.

Also, since you're only getting into this hobby, you might want to take it slow, and don't spend too much money at the beginning - especially with such quite "advanced" (in terms of - maybe even unnecessary - realism) programs.

 

I do have a bit of experience with FS9 but I didn't have many add-on programs at all when I used that. I guess in my mind I figured these add-ons are an essential part of the game to make it look the best and provide I guess a better sense of realism than it would if I didn't add any of the programs.

 

So I guess I didn't really look at it from a beginners standpoint more from a update the game as much as possible from when it was released and try like a brand new version or something.

[Sportsfan23 2]

After watching a few more videos it seems like people use both Active Sky 2012 and Rex textures together. Since I am still fairly new would it just be easier for me to use the Rex program for both weather and textures? Or is it pretty simple to use both active sky and the rex program together?

[FloG 148]

 

 

I do have a bit of experience with FS9

Ah, I see. I'm sorry, but still IMO it's better to keep things simple at first. If you get loads of addons at the beginning, you will eventually face the problem that you have so many you don't even remember you have them, and there's probably not enough time to use all of the addons at the same time anyway. I get into this situation every now and then, too, when  buy more than two airports at the same time, just because they're on sale. I think "Oh great, what an opportunity, and then never have the time to actually fly to those places.That is why I suggested to take it slow - and even if you have had experience already, I doubt that this 6 months subscription will add any more realism.

 

As for the REX vs. AS problem: I have both and use REX for textures only and AS occasionally for weather. It's actually pretty simple to use them both as the only thing where they might interfere is the textures part, neither would inject weather to FSX without you ordering the program to do so, and the only reason I don't use AS more often is because I'm lazy. It would mean preparing stuff way better fro airliner flying than with teh default "Fair Weather", and if I fly GA, I don't usually want the challenge of real world weather, as I usually fly VFR just for fun, not for any training purposes.

[Sportsfan23 2]

 

 

As for the REX vs. AS problem: I have both and use REX for textures only and AS occasionally for weather.

 

Ok so I would be setting one of the programs up for airliner flying which do you think would give me the best results? It sounds like the textures from Rex are better than AS so does the Rex weather engine do a good enough job or is AS better in that regard which is why I would need both?