MT6 vs UTLive

[pegruder 65]

Hey folks, Just wondering in both AI packages current state which may be better?  I've been using MT6 in P3D v4 but I'm not sure how I like it anymore.  I have my sliders at 20% and it seems I have a ton of traffic at the gates but not many in the skies.  This is also causing me not to have a free gate at some airports.  I ran through and fixed the incompatible aircraft (that didn't have radios) so I definitely have more AC moving about but it still seems off, especially for such a low slider percentage amount.  I had UT2 working in P3D v3 and was pretty happy with it.  Good amount of traffic matched to the proper time of day.  Was wondering how UT Live stacks up now - Pros, cons ect?

[Flic1 975]

I used MT6 in P3Dv3 but did not keep it very long.  I really did not like the quality of the models and the interface, etc.  I then started doing my own custom AI with the AIFP tool and stuck with that until P3Dv4.  I have been using UTLive since it was first available for P3Dv4 and although there have been some minor annoyances with it along the way I have been happy with the latest version. The traffic is very realistic and I really like their interface.  You can set max number of AI, an FPS target, etc. There are some outdated liveries but they are easily replaceable if you have some other AI models you would like to use.  I have a ton of them from doing my own custom traffic before so I replaced out a handful of them.  They use numerous different models by default, some are better than others but overall MUCH better than MT6.  The worst looking models I have seen in UTLive are the ERJ/CRJ's but it gets the job done. One other (I consider minor) glitch is that if you access the P3D menu, it resets all of your traffic.  I tend to not need to access the menu once I have a flight loaded so it doesn't bother me too much.  As a user of both I can recommend UTLive.  It is still being worked on so I have no doubt some additional improvements will be made.

[mpw8679 428]

UT live just because the models are way better

[SKEWR 364]

Are the liveries up to date in UTL? I've been doing some initial research and it seems that Daedalus (sp?) is a big problem. How does one over come it? 

[pegruder 65]

35 minutes ago, SKEWR said:

Are the liveries up to date in UTL? I've been doing some initial research and it seems that Daedalus (sp?) is a big problem. How does one over come it? 

I remember reading that they weren't.  As much as I want to get UT Live - nearly 50 bucks for a non finished product is a steep investment.  I was hoping there'd be some early access buy in price.  I may have to deal with MT for now and hold out.

[Lenny777 299]

I've been using MT for years. I also tried Traffic 360 which you can adapt for P3Dv4. The latter has better models. But ended up going back to MT. Never noticed any problems with it in the ground or air.

[pegruder 65]

Just now, Lenny777 said:

I've been using MT for years. I also tried Traffic 360 which you can adapt for P3Dv4. The latter has better models. But ended up going back to MT. Never noticed any problems with it in the ground or air.

What traffic percentage are you running?  It just seems like JFK at prime time and 20%, all gates are mostly full but not alot of takeoffs or landings.

[AnkH 2,233]

2 hours ago, pegruder said:

I had UT2 working in P3D v3 and was pretty happy with it.  Good amount of traffic matched to the proper time of day.  Was wondering how UT Live stacks up now - Pros, cons ect?

If you own UT2, I wonder why you did not continue to use it in v4? Works perfectly...

[Lenny777 299]

25 minutes ago, pegruder said:

What traffic percentage are you running?  It just seems like JFK at prime time and 20%, all gates are mostly full but not alot of takeoffs or landings.

35 %

 

 

[Glynn 405]

Do the UT live aircraft have logo lights at night ?

In Traffic 360 there are no logo lights, in MT they are all lit up at night, if UT live aircraft have logo lights I might just buy it.

[pegruder 65]

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

If you own UT2, I wonder why you did not continue to use it in v4? Works perfectly...

Hah - good question.  I guess because I did alot of tweaking that I didnt back up ;(.  Was hoping to get something out of the box.  MT seems ok, I can deal with the models, is the lack of aircraft moving about thats an issue.  If I bump up the traffic percentage I'd never have a gate to park at lol!

[mwilk 1,106]

32 minutes ago, pegruder said:

Hah - good question.  I guess because I did alot of tweaking that I didnt back up ;(.  Was hoping to get something out of the box.  MT seems ok, I can deal with the models, is the lack of aircraft moving about thats an issue.  If I bump up the traffic percentage I'd never have a gate to park at lol!

I've had the same issue using MT6.

[duckbilled 310]

4 hours ago, pegruder said:

I remember reading that they weren't.  As much as I want to get UT Live - nearly 50 bucks for a non finished product is a steep investment.  I was hoping there'd be some early access buy in price.  I may have to deal with MT for now and hold out.

They focused on getting the UI right and painting the big stuff. After all, liveries change all the time. You can change stuff out and add new stuff easily and once the full UTL and powerpack is released, you will be able to switch out flightplans as well.

I really don't mean to be a jerk and I realize this is a common criticism of UT. Still, asking this question is like asking PMDG why they didn't paint every livery for every variant of the 737. No one ever asks that question. Not only would the UT people have to do that for the 737, but they would have to do it for every aircraft that is represented in their flightplans, and every time a livery is changed, they would have to release updates. Seems like a pretty big undertaking to me and if UTL did work like this, it would cost a lot more than $50. So maybe they do some paints but not all. Where do they start? Where does it end? What about special liveries? This is why UTL is the way it is. The good thing it is a blank canvas and you can make it what you want but if you don't want to modify it, the product is quite usable as it is.

[pegruder 65]

9 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

They focused on getting the UI right and painting the big stuff. After all, liveries change all the time. You can change stuff out and add new stuff easily and once the full UTL and powerpack is released, you will be able to switch out flightplans as well.

I really don't mean to be a jerk and I realize this is a common criticism of UT. Still, asking this question is like asking PMDG why they didn't paint every livery for every variant of the 737. No one ever asks that question. Not only would the UT people have to do that for the 737, but they would have to do it for every aircraft that is represented in their flightplans, and every time a livery is changed, they would have to release updates. Seems like a pretty big undertaking to me and if UTL did work like this, it would cost a lot more than $50. So maybe they do some paints but not all. Where do they start? Where does it end? What about special liveries? This is why UTL is the way it is. The good thing it is a blank canvas and you can make it what you want but if you don't want to modify it, the product is quite usable as it is.

Certainly understandable with liveries and all changing all the time.  I think the main stuff I missed with UT2 was cargo aircraft.  I ended up manually adding a few in UT2 but never backed anything up.  I guess my only issue with UTL is that it mainly seems like its UT2 with a new UI and a new installer.  Maybe I'm mistaken and missing some other features on UTL.

[mwilk 1,106]

4 minutes ago, pegruder said:

I think the main stuff I missed with UT2 was cargo aircraft.

Is FedEx still MIA when it comes to AI? I know World of AI pulled their FedEx package.