Hi,I currently use Ulimate Traffic and am a little dissapointed in the lack of AI traffic at some airfields. I know I can add more airlines but I was wondering if My Traffic 2006 adds more by default, as it seems to place random flights rather than real world schedules into FS. At least thats how I read the info from the site.Can anyone that has used both, give me any feedback on which in their opinion is the best.ThanksDrayton

If you want eye candy modeling and realistic schedules, go for UT. GA and military traffic as well as more realistic a/c placement (for small(er) airports), then it's MyTraffic. Many who fly only the big iron tend to like UT, IMHO. I tend toward GA low and slow, so it's MyTraffic for me. Opinions vary. Doing a search of the forums will show you why...

I just can't get over how awful those models look. UT at least gets somewhat of a pass, if only because of it's age.I really can't see any excuse for it, and glowing reviews from Avsim certainly don't help to improve the situation. Seriously, why, years after UT, are we still seeing garbage models like this, and why are people not demanding more be done before parting with $50US ?

Just a reply to say that, I guess I was a bit harsh on the reviewer in my above post.It is stated in the review's conclusion that there are model/texture problems. For that I apologize.I do wish one of these traffic add-on's would take the time to do it right, and I admit to being a bit frustrated by seeing another example of that not happening.Again, my apologies.

My recommendation is to go for Ultimate Traffic and add in some Ultimate GA packages for spice. http://www.ultimatega.com/The thought that anyone with can give My Traffic a positive review is totally beyond me. All you have to do is look at the screenshots in the reviews and on their homepage. It looks like they were made by a small child out of Play-Doh. Plus you've got to PAY for the stuff, it isn't even worth stealing.Do yourself a favor and avoid My Traffic until they get serious about providing quality models and paints.I highly recommend visiting both http://www.ai-aardvark.com/ and http://www.evolveai.com/ so you can see what good models look like. You'll agree that the My Traffic models are below par.When you consider that the Aardvark and Evolve models are freeware the differences become painfully clear.

No apologies needed, Brian. You are 100% correct. Amazing that people will still pay money for models that are much, much worse in both looks and frame rate than the freeware currently available. I simply cannot fathom the logic behind the current review of MyTraffic 2006. None of the planes in the screenshots look remotely like the real thing...

Defintely an area of FS that is still far better served by freeware......if you're willing to do the work.I use UT as a base, filling in with other plans where necessary, and have replaced all but a few of the F1(PAI) models. Took some time to get there, but IMHO, it could have taken twice as long, and still been worth it. Aardvark, Evolve, Henry, Dee, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Fosler, Denis Schranz, Philip Tan, Ben Clark, Brian Wheatley, and on and on, all artists, and the true motivation behind the work done by these folks shows in the end result.The same could maybe be said about MyTraffic.With WorldOfAI bringing high quality packages to the novice user, without all of the headaches of manual installation, I just can't see a reason to support these kinds of products anymore.Even without WofAI, the utilites available, ACA2005, etc, make managing traffic so much easier than ever before. I remember before all of this, back in the old days :-badteeth , hand-editing plans to get the Mike Stone 757 flying, back then, it certainly was monotonous, but things have improved immensely. Having said that, it sure would be nice to see an all in one product come to market that didn't require all of that, wouldn't it ? I don't know why it bugs me so much, it's not as though I'll be buying the product, and if someone else is happy with it, why should I care ?I don't know, but I do.

I agree. AI has been so frustrating and time consuming to do it right as mentioned. For me, even UT falls short. Why does UT have hundreds of AI planes and flight plans with no textures? And then they task the paying customer to fill in the blanks when there are literally hundreds of them. To me that

Aside from the fact that the best AI is built by hand, why would you want to pay $50 for UT when you can get exactly the same bad looking AI by d/l ProjectAI.

Stay with UT FOR SURE! I used the MyTraffic 2004 product and after looking at screenshots of the 2006 version, I can't help but be somewhat disappointed. Sure, the military traffic and GA traffic is great, but that's about it. UT has so much more to offer, via it's immersive interface which you really can't get through MyTraffic (on the version I had). While there is more traffic in MyTraffic, it's just weird seeing things like Southwest Airlines at Chicago O'Hare, to me, that's not "As Real As It Gets." Plus, if it's more GA traffic you're looking for, I know there is a great product in the AVSIM file library that adds random GA traffic at all airports so hopefully that will help.Eric

As Eric mentions, the freeware program to randomly (and cleverly) generate GA traffic for all airports is:Markus Brunner: GA-Traffic.( ga-traffic_setup.zip in the AVSIM library. May 1, 2004).This is a mature program that works pretty much as expected. Pretty much payware quality. (There is a help forum here at AVSIM as well. But not much used as the program has been out for a while.)Many thanks to Markus for his wonderful contribution!Hope this helps,Mike

Hi Brian,I agree with you 100%, packages like that should be avoided until they are brought up to todays standards. If they are unable/unwilling to come up to todays standards, then lower the price to $9.95.I am also at a loss behind the current review of MyTraffic 2006. My Traffic 2006 looks like it belongs with FS98.

I haven't had a problem with UT at all, as far as lack of airplanes go - even at remote airports. Make sure you have good AFCADs installed. The ones that come with UT are not so great. Since all the UT planes have assigned parking codes in their .cfg file, they might not show up at default airports, epecially if there are no parking spaces. And make sure your AI is set at %100. And UT's default GA traffic is pretty good too. I always see at least 3-5 GAs flying around any small field. Of course i'd like to have 20-40 GAs, but that'll also kill my framerate. :)and i agree about the over-all quality. UT's default planes look terrible, except for the Dash-8. I've replaced all of the planes w/ AIA, EAI, etc. Not only does it look better, but now i have zero framerate impact.-fz

Once you have set up all your AI traffic with UT (swapping default for repaints, aardvark etc) Is there a way to back them all up so if you have to reinstall the sim you don't have to go through the painstaking task of reinstalling them all again?Paul.

Stephen Hawking telling me a flight has now landed is not my idea of "immersive". It's a cheap trick. The flightplans are inaccurate and the airports are half empty. You can do a LOT better than Ultimate Traffic.