I always see such a large difference in performance when turning AI traffic off or down in intensity. I have UT (FS9). Has anyone experimented with replacing the models that come with UT with some that are not that hard on computer performance, but maybe still look somewhat OK? I think the only time yiu actually see the AI traffic is at airports, otherwise it's a dot in the sky or a contrail.I'd be interested if anyone had been able to make UT a little more frame-rate friendly, while retaining the AI traffic volume.Thanks, Bruce.

You don't say what you are using at present and I'm not familiar with UT.Aardvark seem to be everyone's top pick http://www.ai-aardvark.com/ARNZ do an Airbus A320 which Aardvark doesn't http://arnz.myhost.co.nz/and of course there is Project AI - but does UT use PAI anyway? http://www.projectai.com/

UT uses PAI airplanes far as I know, so for the performance and look go for FSPainter, Aardvark, ARNZ, well pretty much anything but PAI really :DFor 737NGs look for both the models by Mr. Urakawa as well as the upcoming ones from Aardvark.Smaller regionals such as Bae146's are also available in the library here, but the author's name escapes me at the moment.

I'm in the ongoing process of replacing most of the PAI models in UT, and have noticed a couple of fps gains. For me the biggest advantage to switch is looks. Aardvark, FSPainter and others are simply wonderful models. So it's a double bonus. Look for all the stuff by CDAI (ERJ145, DC10, B1900D, CRJ200 & 700), Martinez (Bae 146, F70 & 100, Do228, F28), and Craig Ritchie's new JS41 and Metros. Also you'll get better repaints. Most can be found here at Avsim. I'm keeping the UT ATR, Dash 8, S340 and F50 since they were originally FSPainter and are really not bad.Todd

Yes I agree. AIA and FSP are the way to go. I have just completed swapping nearly every AIA and FSP model into Ultimate traffic and then CDAI etc for the regionals. Airports look truly amazing but you gotta have good afcads. This whole process took 6 months! but it is very addictive!Currently also using MRAI flightplans to create separate airline traffic files, and slowly trying to back away from dependence on the "UT backbone".

Thanks guys, some great responses!Regarding changing UT planes to AIA/FSP, I assume just ctreate an aircraft.cfg for each replacement model with the necessary fields to make them recognizable by aircraft.txt?Thanks, Bruce.

Hey Bruce, I've replaced most of my UT planes with FSP and AIA planes via UT's amazing Utilities program. It allows you to swap UT planes for any AI plane of your choice. The program even compiles everything for you!The only hassle is collectiong all you replacement models, but it's SO worth it for appearances alone! Best RegardsBoone,[email protected]"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle. It's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

Hi Boone,Thanks for the tip, sounds easier than changing and editing many .cfg files!Bruce.

I exchange them manually, though while I'm at it I resize the textures from 1024x1024 to 512x512. This has a notable increase on framerates and since you only really see AI aircraft form a distance, minimal visual impact.

Basically, yes, sounds as if once you have done that, UT will allow you to associate aircraft with flight plans in an simple way.However, take my advice, get organised with a system for coding before you plough in too deep.I use title=AI BA 744 within the .cfg file, using the IATA codes for British Airways and a 747-400 (as an example).What I'd suggest is using "AI" or whatever 2 letters you like to identify the new set of aircraft you are putting into your AI set up.That way, you have a running record or progress and when you have finished (i.e. in about 2010 probably) you can delete all .cfg records which DON'T start with AI (or whatever)and their associated texture files in the safe and certain knowledge they aren't being used by your flight plans. This will save you MB's of file space by removing unncessary duplicates.I don't know whether UT imposes its own coding structure and how that would fit into the above, but I strongly suggest you think about it before putting in hours of work!Make sure that the ui_manufacturer and ui_type statements are consistent and meaningful e.g. use "Aardvark" not "Boeing" and don't mix "744" with "747-400" or "Boeing 747". Don't just call it a "747" otherwise you won't subsequently be able to distinguish a 742 from a 743 from a 744.The point of all this is that there are various tools that can read your aircraft files and give you a short-cut into housekeeping processes. If you keep the descriptions consistent and meaningful, all like aircraft will group together and you'll be able to find your way right to the directory you need when problems arise.