UTL offically released

[pscharff 56]

1 hour ago, tooting said:

All they have done is bought new schedule data from summer 2017 and made the gui look a bit different from ut2.  They have fixed the no traffic over water issue and the reseting of traffic when you use the menu.  Thats it.  Dont be fooled with the `live' tag line it's a gimmick.  Also be aware that the developer did a runner with ut2 narked alot of people off in the (so he won't show his face here)  and all he  has done is just rehashed ut2 with a snazzy 'live' tagline and fixed a couple of issues. He's even been absent from his own products forum again like he did with ut2. 

A quote from the product page:

Live AI Traffic Environment - The "Live" aspect of this latest version makes AI traffic evolve based on conditions set in the simulator. Users can expect random maintenance, foul weather, and other delays based on real world operations.

Moreover AI aircraft in UTLive now use SID's and STAR's.

As I know, these options were not part UT2. ;)

Patric

[Boeing or not going 578]

13 minutes ago, pscharff said:

A quote from the product page:

Live AI Traffic Environment - The "Live" aspect of this latest version makes AI traffic evolve based on conditions set in the simulator. Users can expect random maintenance, foul weather, and other delays based on real world operations.

Moreover AI aircraft in UTLive now use SID's and STAR's.

As I know, these options were not part UT2. ;)

Patric

sid stars had been in the old version. it had some big bugs though like aircraft disappearing over oceans that the Live program fixes.

I'd like to hear if UT Live has accurate schedules for all recently changed airport codes, like seqm or othh before I pay for the upgrade

[Peter Webber 339]

57 minutes ago, 777200lrf said:

sid stars had been in the old version. it had some big bugs though like aircraft disappearing over oceans that the Live program fixes.

I'd like to hear if UT Live has accurate schedules for all recently changed airport codes, like seqm or othh before I pay for the upgrade

No. In my area the airport codes are outdated. Still FAJS (Now FAOR) and FADN (Now FALE). Therefore with my updated P3D v4.1 simulator, aircraft will not spawn at these major airports. This was the exact same issue with UT2. So for me there has been no improvement. I have raised this on their forums but the response is that they have to cater for the "default" simulators which still have outdated codes and for us with up to date sims we will have to use the upcoming power pack as a "fix" (as was the case with UT2). So I can't see how this can ever be realistic. I thought this should have been the other way around. Their flight plans are therefore out of date for my area. I am still of the opinion that this product should be fully up to date "out of the box" and not to use old airport codes and flight plans to make it work. So there is nothing "Live" or "Real World" about a flight plan such as "FACT - FAJS" in "my corner" of my simulator world. Not knocking the product. At least I get limited aircraft around other airports (FACT, FAPE, etc). But UT2 gave me exactly what I have now.

[Afterburner 374]

tooting, have you read through the whole thread since you posted last time yesterday?  It concerns your avatar:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/526502-utl-offically-released/?page=5

[Boeing or not going 578]

1 hour ago, Peter Webber said:

No. In my area the airport codes are outdated. Still FAJS (Now FAOR) and FADN (Now FALE). Therefore with my updated P3D v4.1 simulator, aircraft will not spawn at these major airports. This was the exact same issue with UT2. So for me there has been no improvement. I have raised this on their forums but the response is that they have to cater for the "default" simulators which still have outdated codes and for us with up to date sims we will have to use the upcoming power pack as a "fix" (as was the case with UT2). So I can't see how this can ever be realistic. I thought this should have been the other way around. Their flight plans are therefore out of date for my area. I am still of the opinion that this product should be fully up to date "out of the box" and not to use old airport codes and flight plans to make it work. So there is nothing "Live" or "Real World" about a flight plan such as "FACT - FAJS" in "my corner" of my simulator world. Not knocking the product. At least I get limited aircraft around other airports (FACT, FAPE, etc). But UT2 gave me exactly what I have now.

The power pack should be able to change the flights so they go to the replacement airport code but that is a lot of manual work.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tooting said:

like I said a gimmick  

Boy, do I love gimmicks then.

[Dave_YVR 968]

5 hours ago, Peter Webber said:

No. In my area the airport codes are outdated. Still FAJS (Now FAOR) and FADN (Now FALE). Therefore with my updated P3D v4.1 simulator, aircraft will not spawn at these major airports. This was the exact same issue with UT2. So for me there has been no improvement. I have raised this on their forums but the response is that they have to cater for the "default" simulators which still have outdated codes and for us with up to date sims we will have to use the upcoming power pack as a "fix" (as was the case with UT2). So I can't see how this can ever be realistic. I thought this should have been the other way around. Their flight plans are therefore out of date for my area. I am still of the opinion that this product should be fully up to date "out of the box" and not to use old airport codes and flight plans to make it work. So there is nothing "Live" or "Real World" about a flight plan such as "FACT - FAJS" in "my corner" of my simulator world. Not knocking the product. At least I get limited aircraft around other airports (FACT, FAPE, etc). But UT2 gave me exactly what I have now.

 The thing is with this is that most users still have just the default airports and this is what UTL is catering to. For the more advanced sim user the powerpack is being worked on and will become available at some point in the near future (people often forget that the UT2 powerpack didn't come with the original product, it was 3-6 months or more after release). 

[Mitch24 194]

4 hours ago, Afterburner said:

tooting, have you read through the whole thread since you posted last time yesterday?  It concerns your avatar:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/526502-utl-offically-released/?page=5

Seriously? If it distracts your reading, then simply "scroll down", its not even that annoying, Focus on something else 

[Egbert Drenth 250]

42 minutes ago, Mitch24 said:

Seriously? If it distracts your reading, then simply "scroll down", its not even that annoying, Focus on something else 

Actually it is, at least some of us do think so.
But hey... to each his own. Luckily I have found a simply and very convenient setting in this board:

Problem solved: 

 

[Nighthwk 566]

1 minute ago, Egbert Drenth said:

Actually it is, at least some of us do think so.
But hey... to each his own. Luckily I have found a simply and very convenient setting in this board:

Problem solved: 

 

Let’s get back on topic before this gets locked

[carlito777 712]

I‘m really on the fence with this one. I currently own MT6, but I don‘t like the ugly models and the extremely long loading time. However, performance is key for me and performance reports on UT Live are very inconsistent. Some say performance is better, others say it‘s worse. Has anyone actually done a reliable performance comparison?

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Performance is entirely related to whether one takes advantage of a traffic limiter. UTL has one built in. With AIG, MyT 6 etc. one has to use either FSUIPC or another traffic limiter app.

[Dave_YVR 968]

30 minutes ago, carlito777 said:

 the extremely long loading time. However, performance is key for me and performance reports on UT Live are very inconsistent. Some say performance is better, others say it‘s worse. Has anyone actually done a reliable performance comparison?

 I'm not saying your are complaining here in any way Carlo, but more pointing out that it's rather funny that there are many complaints about missing or a lack of liveries in UTL yet on the flip side the longer load times of MyT 5/6. You simply can't have it both ways, the load times are directly linked to how many liveries you have. 

 It's the same with performance, while UTL models do perform mildly better and also look far better than MyTraffic, it all comes down to how many ai you have in your bubble of traffic. I also often hear of how much better people seem to think the performance is using PSXseecon live traffic, that's 100% simply because there is so much less traffic in the area compared to when using BGL traffic from a custom setup or injected through UTL. 

[Afterburner 374]

While it is true that UTL offers a function that limits your traffic to sustain a defined target FPS set in the configurator, to me, it comes down to the relationship between the number of AI planes and frame rate. With MT5, I have more FPS per plane, and I can use external tools (such as FSUIPC) to limit AI traffic. I am not saying that UTL is a bad product - it has great potential in my opinion. However, the decision to continue using MT5 is just my personal preference.

[Nyxx 6,993]

I used MT and had limited traffic to 100, I see I can do just the same within UTL.

That would be a good test at say EGLL with distance at 25 miles sitting at a gate