Best AI traffic for FSX-FPS wise.

[A3 610 0]

Hello everyone.

 

I am sure this has been asked a ton of times but since i can't find any recent posts regarding the best AI traffic fps wise i am asking you. Which one is better UT2, MTX pro 5.4, WOAI packages or something else? Always regarding fps...i have only used and consequently know MTX pro 5.4 and i am not 100% happy. So, if anyone has used all three and can give me a direction on which i should focus i would be grateful. 

 

My system:

CPU: i5-2500K OC @4.2Ghz

GPU: Nvidia 560 Ti 1GB

RAM: 16GB Kingston Genesis

Motherboard: Asus Maximus V Gene Z77

Cooler:Thermaltake Bigwater 760 Plus

PSU: 750W

Case: CoolerMaster Cosmos

 

 

Thanks in advance. Really appreciate

[FloG 148]

I have indeed used all three of them (but on my old computer, so what follows may not be reliable at all). Performance-wise, MTX and WOAI beat UT2 by far, UT2 gave me as little as 2FPS on some default low-detail low-traffic airports, whereas MTX and WOAI gave me stable 20 or more - but again, that was on my old computer, which was on the lower end of the scale. Until my reinstall I used MTX (and for some testing purposes also Traffic360), and had quite stable 15-20 FPS with rather high settings in general.

But from what I have read and learned on these forums here, the performance of the packages varies quite bit from setup to setup, so it's ahrd to tell you which is the best. However, I have some thoughts for you, since you already have MTX: WOAI is freeware, you could give it a try with no loss (except, of course, the time you spend on it) - but keep in mind that they still are FS9 format, which will cause trouble with other AI, such as boats (at least the older packages, I haven't checked whether their newest releases include fligthplans in FSX format, too). And when you purchase UT2 directly from Fligth1, you might get the benefit of their 30-day-money-back policy which is more or less equal to a demo version then (you need to pay first and can only ask for a refund afterwards, if you don't like it, though) - but don't trust me here completely, I'm not srue whether that option exists for UT2.

[A3 610 0]

I have indeed used all three of them (but on my old computer, so what follows may not be reliable at all). Performance-wise, MTX and WOAI beat UT2 by far, UT2 gave me as little as 2FPS on some default low-detail low-traffic airports, whereas MTX and WOAI gave me stable 20 or more - but again, that was on my old computer, which was on the lower end of the scale. Until my reinstall I used MTX (and for some testing purposes also Traffic360), and had quite stable 15-20 FPS with rather high settings in general.

But from what I have read and learned on these forums here, the performance of the packages varies quite bit from setup to setup, so it's ahrd to tell you which is the best. However, I have some thoughts for you, since you already have MTX: WOAI is freeware, you could give it a try with no loss (except, of course, the time you spend on it) - but keep in mind that they still are FS9 format, which will cause trouble with other AI, such as boats (at least the older packages, I haven't checked whether their newest releases include fligthplans in FSX format, too). And when you purchase UT2 directly from Fligth1, you might get the benefit of their 30-day-money-back policy which is more or less equal to a demo version then (you need to pay first and can only ask for a refund afterwards, if you don't like it, though) - but don't trust me here completely, I'm not srue whether that option exists for UT2.

 

First of all, i thank you for your time reading and replying. I completely understand your point of view and i think that before trying WOAI i will give a chance to UT2. Secondly what is the difference between Traffic 360 and UT2? Thirdly, is it true that  FSX  models perform better than those of WOAI since they are FS9 models or not? Finally, i would like to hear more opinions from users that have used this packages and can give their point of view!

 

Thanks again!

[E6BAV8R 88]

Definitely UT2.  I used WoAI prior to purchasing UT2 and I had to run at about 35% traffic settings with my system to get reasonable FPS.  I run UT2 at 100% and have huge amounts of AI all for the same hit in performance that I ran at 35% with WoAI.  I'm not sure why people say UT2 isn't under development anymore, as it is.  Just last month they released a huge new paint and schedules update.  With UT2 there is some work to be done, as airlines may be included but do not have paints for them.  You can download and add them manually, however.

 

FSX models over FS9 models makes a world of difference - performance wise. 

 

I recommend reading this thread for more information regarding programs and AI in FSX - http://forum.avsim.net/topic/419396-lets-go-ai-native/

[wanabflyer 53]

If you are talking FPS, in my experience MTX Pro 5.4 wins hands down. I switched from UT2 when on a 2600k @4.4 system and there was a vast improvement.

 

The trade off is quality of model. I have to concede that UT2 models look better. What I also noticed was that although I dropped the % traffic sliders! I got more traffic compared to the same % on UT2.

 

I understand that UT2 is no longer under development, i.e. There won't be a UT3 (unless I am mistaken), so the performance you get with UT2 is not going to improve. If it did, I would probably switch back.

 

Regards,

[FloG 148]

 

 

what is the difference between Traffic 360 and UT2?

The difference between Traffic 360 and UT2 is, in a nutshell, that Traffic 360 is much more like MTX, but not as comprehensive when it comes to airline coverage and other features. This means that AI flights are actuall only direct routes between two airports, instead of following more or less real-world routes from waypoint to waypoint. However, Traffic 360 still features more airlines and paint-schemes than UT2 does by default (as far as I am aware). Traffic 360 is published by JustFlight, whereas UT2 is by Flight1, so it's a completely different product.

 

 

is it true that SDK FSX models perform better than those of WOAI since they are FS9 models or not?

Let's say it this way: FSX native models are likely to perform better than FS9 models, since they were optimized for the newer sim's capacities, and most likely also developed keeping FSX's abilities and limits into account. Also, they may have been modelled later hence they might have a better performance-to-detail ratio. But from my own experience and from what I've read, WOAI is usually not that taxing - again, this may be true for you, but it may just as well not be true.

 

 

i would like to hear more opinions from users that have used this packages and can give their point of view!

That is actually a very god thought. In case not too many will reply here, I will give you a list of similar threads, which compare the available options. Be warned, though, that most of us tend to be biased and tend to defend our preferred product, even if it is proven not to be the best one in some regard.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/425857-ultimate-traffic-2-question/ - mainly about UT2, might be interesting for you

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/421614-which-traffic-program-best-for-ga-flying/ - concerning the options and quality of GA models, mainly if you're a GA flyer

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/421738-best-fsx-addons/?p=2805882 - I'm a bit lazy here, but in that post I have given a few further links about AI programs, which you might find interesting to read, and where you might get some more opinions and insight about the pros and cons of each solution.

[Sportsfan23 2]

I used UT2 for a couple days but when I realized just how out of date as far as airlines and liveries go and not really being able to figure out how to change the paint schemes and all of that I went back to Mytraffic 5.4 and have seen not only an improvement in FPS but I see more AI traffic and all the planes have the proper liveries. 

 

The appeal of UT2 to me was AI flying these "real world" routes but I actually ended up seeing more traffic in my flights with Mytraffic than UT2. Now maybe that was just because where I was flying but there is plenty of AI traffic that I am seeing while flying.

 

Now if Mytraffic could somehow get the AI to fly the routes like in UT2 then I think it might be the best traffic program by far!! 

[JSkorna 137]

What route do the Mytraffic planes fly then? All AI plans are GPS Direct To, so if the departures and destinations are the same, then the routes will be the same as well.

[Sportsfan23 2]

What route do the Mytraffic planes fly then? All AI plans are GPS Direct To, so if the departures and destinations are the same, then the routes will be the same as well.

 

I thought I read that AI flight plans in my traffic are just one big circle. The only AI program to have different routing was UT2?  

[bjratchf 80]

The traffic in UT2 follows a specific flight plan over waypoints- you'll notice traffic flying towards VORs enroute before turning, as well as on Pacific and North Atlantic tracks, even though the flightpaths are set in stone (when in real life the tracks change every day). 

[A3 610 0]

OK!

 

Thanks a lot everyone for your opinions as now i am starting to have a better understanding regarding which AI traffic is best for me. I will also make sure to read all the additional posts linked here.

 

Thanks again and have a good day.

 

Regards!

[mazelda 124]

From my point of view I use UT2 at 100% Which gives me loads of traffic but it does take a bit of a hit with fps at large airports.

The only thing you have to remember with UT2 is the timetables are a little out of date now and they have a fair number of default paint schemes that require you to find and install them yourself .

Now with that in mind,have you thought about just doing it yourself as there are a couple of free programs that can allow you to create your own schedules and ai aircraft (aifp and ttools) I personally just use UT2 now for the flight plans and have installed ai models that replace the UT2 ones where possible but to get started I'd go with UT2 as they have loads of aircraft and a good amount of variety and easy to update to the better models and schemes as you get used to the program

[catchman 13]

Just keep in mind that UT2 has issues at any airport that changed its callsign letters or opened in the last few years. Because of this you won't see traffic at the new Quito or Bangkok airports and the letter change at Johannesburg (FAJS-FAOR), for example, mean you won't see any traffic.

 

Also keep in mind that as of now UT2 will not be made compatible with P3Dv2 whereas MyTraffic Professional already is compatible for a discount. I used UT2 with WOAI updates for about five years but just switched to MyTraffic for those and other reasons

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[FloG 148]

What route do the Mytraffic planes fly then? All AI plans are GPS Direct To, so if the departures and destinations are the same, then the routes will be the same as well.

To my knowledge, this is true for all addons, except UT2, which seems to be able to have AI follow a route consisting of waypoints. I have no idea where I have read this the first time, but I have seen this posted quite some times, I even posted thsi myself, and since I have not yet seen any corrections of this statement I suppose it is true.

EDIT: Found something on the UT2 Website:

 

Flight Plan Assignments - Each airline flight in Ultimate Traffic 2 uses a flight plan to navigate from the departure airport to its destination airport. These flight plans can also be customized. Assign any FSX style flight plan to a flight using this feature.

So perhaps those waypoint navigation is not a deafult UT2 feature, but it sure is possible to edit the fligthplans so that the planes use this kind of navigation.

[JSkorna 137]

Thanks for the heads up!