Traffic Global or Ultimate Traffic Live?

[TimF 3]

Background - I was for many years a commited Microsoft FS user, from FS2000 through to FSX. In FSX I had many great add-ons, including Traffic 360. In December last year, I took the plunge and moved over to P3Dv4. Since moving over (generally very impressed with P3D) I've been on the lookout for a good AI package. Although UTL caught my eye, I did not purchase. I opted instead to go for Traffic Global in early access and see how that went. One of the big selling points for me was the quality of the aircraft models. They really are first rate and have not adversely affected FPS at all. So far so good (this was in early June). Since then I've installed several updated versions of TG but have not really seen a huge difference in each update. The main issues for me are:

1. To date only 40k flight plans (yes, I know it's early access but it's hard to evaluate truly how "Global" it is if we have to benchmark everything at EGLL at 9am).
2. The nature of flight plans (point to point only).
3. Thousands of compile errors where parking cannot be found at airports (on the early access forum many people have called this out but the only answer from the dev's is that this is expected behaviour - perhaps if this was solved then there would be a lot more than 40k flight plans).
4. Distinct lack of traffic for Asia Pacific (again, I know this is early access but so much is missing - Haneda and Narita are particularly empty).

Also, this is the first time I've purchased software in "early access". As such I'm not too sure what the cadence should be for dev responses in the forum. A few people have complained about a lack of response. Sometimes it does feel pretty quiet on their forum.

I'd love to get a sense of how TG stacks up against UTL. How do the aircraft models compare? FPS? Asia Pacific coverage? Flight plans? Does UTL solve parking and gate positions for default airports? Ultimately I'm looking for an AI package that pretty much works off the shelf - TG seems to lead down a million rabbit holes of manual AFCAD alterations etc. to get anywhere near.

Thoughts please.

Tim

[ltu6800 17]

I have both and removed UTL, because the time span between updates is too long. TG has much better looking aircraft and you can adjust traffic density with FSUIPC. In Europe you will find pretty much traffic (I don't know, how dense it will be in Asia). There are still bugs (missing textures - sometimes at one side of an airplane = Germania) and some airports with no traffic at all (LGAV), but I am very happy with TG and will not return to UTL. 

Kurt

Edited October 31, 2018 by ltu6800

[lennie 48]

Ditto. TG for me!

[RamonB 449]

I also bought TG early access and try out every update. Overall I like it and will be my AI traffic program once it is finished/released.
In the meantime I'm using MyTraffic 2013 on P3D v4.

Edited October 31, 2018 by RamonB

[Nemo 1,305]

Currently I am using UTL. But I am prepared to switch to TG when it is ready.

[GSalden 4,655]

Here I have combined the TG aircraft with the FSPXAI payware aircraft and use them with PSXseeconTraffic.

[qqwertz 771]

I have both and would recommend UTL. For me, it worked out of the box and I always get nice traffic at any of my airports. I do not know how precise the flight plans are, but I am just looking for traffic the looks about right, not for precision. Frame rates are better for TG, but I think that's just a consequence of the missing traffic in the early-release version in general. If frame rates are an issue, simply lower traffic density. I personally am happy with UTL traffic between 10% at larger airports and 30% at smaller ones. Anything more looks too crowded to me anyway.

I got TG mainly because UTL does not work with VoxATC. The models are more up-to-date than in UTL and generally look better, but since it is early access there are far fewer models and liveries. What I find disappointing about TG is the lack of support, both from the developer and the TG community. The early-access forum is pretty quiet and many threads remain unanswered, even if they contain questions targeted at the developer. I was hoping that one could create and share flight plans, for instance, but there is simply no support for collaborative efforts at all. I am going to use UTL until TG is officially released.

Peter

[kowen 64]

4 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

I have both and would recommend UTL. 

I got TG mainly because UTL does not work with VoxATC.

 

I second all of this. I got TG because of VoxATC and agree the models are nice. But I use UTL more often. There is more traffic, the interface is nicer, there is support, and it is easy to use. The really nice thing about UTL is there are hotkeys to increase and decrease traffic levels so you can adjust if your frame rates are suffering. I think TG might be traffic program to beat in the future, but don't think it is there yet. 

[Mace 1,902]

I use UTL.  It works out of the box.  

Fedex -- that reminds me -- you can add liveries and plans to UTL, it's just not the most straightforward process.

If TG matures, I may jump to it.  TG would have to have an easier method to add plans and liveries than UTL.  That would be a major consideration for me.  Otherwise, UTL is good enough for the 2018 version of me.  10 years ago, I would have never said that.  I had hundreds of custom traffic bgl's in my sim.

[Dave_YVR 968]

 Right now UTL is the superior product by far. TG doesn't bring anything new to the table except the models which honestly are mediocre but still not as good as most of what comes with UTL (they look like they've been dipped in gloss and even worse at night). TG fleets are also very incomplete compared to UTL (there are too many to list but as an example, UAL 737's are all non-winglet -800's, Alaska 737's are all non-winglet -900's). UTL also has a vastly more complete and well done set of schedules that also fly actual airways and routes vs TG's direct airport to airport and also the biggest glaring issue of each aircraft only does 1 return flight a day and then sits dormant (think of how many extra aircraft this wastes to complete even a regular daily operation). There just way more glaring issues with TG compared to UTL at this point.

Just an example. TG at VHHH

 

UTL at VHHH

At the terminal or any other airport it's only the same. Performance is also not any better with the lesser models. Then if you want to update your traffic or swap out models and liveries, sure you can with both (UTL is easier imo) but with TG you are still stuck with those brutal schedules.

[IanHarrison 521]

When I enquired from Flight 1, I was told that UTL is no longer supported and would not be developed further. TG was the only AI which would have any progress.

Ian Harrison

[Drumcode 1,892]

3 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

When I enquired from Flight 1, I was told that UTL is no longer supported and would not be developed further. TG was the only AI which would have any progress.

Ian Harrison

When was that? Was on their official forums or through an e-mail?

[Psybear 23]

Long, long time user of MyTraffic so was looking for updated AI program do to Burkhard's unfortunate heath issues resulting in no development.
Bought into the so called "Early Access" with TrafficGlobal in late July. Now, to me, early access means a post beta or semi-post beta level of readiness with engagement with the developer.  Mind you, this was initially offered in June. It  is now the beginning of November. So obviously this is a disappointingly slow process with the forum seemingly engaged by two guys (not from Just Flight) doing their best to answer questions given the minimal responses from the developer.

That being said, I see great potential in the program. I think the models are terrific as is their sound. Scheduling aside, the vast amount of problems appears to be with users of Win7 so the development might be hampered with backwards compatibility to that OS. 

What does exist of GT works very well on my system. It just seems there is a lack of focus in bringing the program to fruition.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Psybear
Typo

[dal330200 216]

I've used UTLive since day one of P3D simming, and I will continue to do so, along with PSXseecon traffic.  I don't care much about schedule accuracy, and I can easily modify models and assignments as necessary to make things as realistic as possible.  I'll often leave UTLive on at the gate before taxi and after landing, but run PSXseecon the rest of the time.  I've also installed BVAI aircraft and replaced a lot of outdated liveries in UTLive, and I can't be happier.  My big hope for AI in P3D is that some utility will emerge in the future that will allow us to manage traffic flows in and out of airports, as well as how aircraft vacate runways.  Other than that, I primarily use it for the eye candy, but there are times when the immersion factor goes through the roof as I fly with real traffic on approaches. 

Cheers,

 

[Luis_KMIA 242]

I own UTL.  The PowerPack is indefinitely delayed because the developer is understandably dealing with serious family health priorities.  But I've dedicated many hours to updating liveries and models, mostly relying on FSPXAI and FAIB airplanes, which are fantastic.  It's been a labor of love, and I'm happy with the results.  That said, I'm open-minded and would not mind trying out other options.

Here is a video I made, showing mainly Southwest Airlines FAIB 737NG and FSPX 737MAX models as replacements of the AIA models that came with UTL.

Cheers!