I would really like the users opinions on which one of the above to choose.I know it seems like an unfair question to ask - but I do want to spend my money where its best.My prime criteria are:1. traffic density adjustment - if possible2. regional traffic inclusion - for airports to reflect realistic airlines at airportsANy advice would be appreciatedKind regardsJeremy

Hi Jeremy,I have both. I started with Ultimate Traffic. It does an excellent job of filling the sim with airline traffic. The visual models are very good and the program can be updated with a current schedule every few months. The frame rate hit is minimal especially considering the quality of the AI aircraft.I bought My Traffic to get general aviation and military traffic. The program does an excellent job also. I just deleted the airline file generated by My Traffic so UT could handle all airline traffic.The visual models for AI traffic aren't quite as good as UT but, they are certainly good enough. And the skies are full of GA and military aircraft. So, I guess if I were to suggest just one of the two, I would tell you to decide if military traffic is important, go with My Traffic.If GA traffic is important, go with My Traffic. If airline schedules based on the real world and visual quality is important, go with UT.Both is best though.Hope this helps,Bill Worth

Hi BillMany thanks - just the kind of reply I was looking for. Bit of a curve ball question but its always good to have other user opinions.You have resolved some internal conflict I was having between the two versions.Again - thanks for your opinionRegardsJeremy

I am debating the same thing. I want minimal effect to the fps (<5%) at similar settings to what I use in the sim (approx < 70% traffic). If one uses My traffic, you'll still get GA traffic native to FS9, right? My main reason for a trafic addon would be to get good paints and radio calls that are like the "real thing"...

If one uses My traffic, you'll still get GA traffic native to FS9, right?That's correct.

Then, what's wrong with the native traffic? I can see having different paints/calls for Delta, Southwest and other "recognizable" airlines, but what's wrong with using native for GA? It's not like they have recognizable planes or anything...?

I started with UT, but soon came to realise that the models are cack.They can be easily swapped for better ones like Aardvark and FSP.As far as the core UT program goes. It runs fine and density is fully adjustable. You notice the difference immediately.

Yep. The models included with UT are a complete mess.AIA Aardvark is the only way to go for the best performance & eye candy.

I use UT and it was money well spent. As for the AI models, I downloaded a lot of PAI models and for GA I use the freeware GA Traffic. You can add any GA aircraft you have in your folder. Either way, adding realistic AI traffic brings the sim to life, you'll wonder how you got along without it.Dave FisherCYYZP4 2.8 GB 478P 533 MHZ CPUP4P800S Asus Motherboard768 DDRGeforce Ti 4200/128Maxtor 40 Gig ATA 133 HD x2WDC WD800 80 Gig HDhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

Like Dave, I use "Ultimate Traffic" for accurate airline traffic and Markus Brunner's excellent "GA Traffic" for my GA traffic. Best of both worlds.Jim

Hi GuysI use Traffic 2004 and it does what it says on the box. For someone like me who is simple its brilliant.I set my Traffic level at 90% and can go anywhere in the world and get a good level of national and local stuffBob