Freeway Traffic

[Guest Simpit]

Maybe there will be when the new train sim comes out...>> Your file worked fine.> Too bad we can't have a few freight trains moving along the>tracks.

[FlyingsCool 3]

Hmm. Do you think this speed is dependent on the speed of your processor? I just checked out how fast the autos on my 1.86 GHz Pentium M laptop, and it appears that with the default LWcfg.spb file, the cars are going about 46 kias. And setting that value to 50 brought them down to about 32 kias at 200 asl, 29.92.Not a rigorous test, but I'm only looking for +/- 15 mph.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Guest Speed]

My post above seemed to work for me. I slowed all the minis down to 60mph and they were all definetly slower than other traffic. I noticed they cause a little bunch up of traffic also as cars in the same lane will go as slow as the car in front. Also the various lanes going at different speeds seemed more realistic.I havent been able to test it thoroughly however as I broke a capacitor off my video card and it appears it was the FSX capacitor as its the only thing that doesnt work now.

[FlyingsCool 3]

I'll have to ask Allen, perhaps he slowed the traffic down with Ultimate Terrain/X? When I measure the speeds of autos on the freeways in Nashua, NH, they are going about 42 kias (~48 mph) as I am taxiing on the ground with them. Really too slow actually. Average traffic speed should be about 50% higher. But I imagine that's a good speed since there are probably not per road speed limits in FSX (yet), so that makes for a decent secondary road speed.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Guest makindle]

Thomas, On a seperate note... I have downloaded UTX and considering purchasing it. Is it a worthy addon? I leep seeing mixed reviews about blurries.THanx,Monte

[FlyingsCool 3]

Well, the answer to your question would depend mostly on your expectations, your hardware, and your current performance. More information on these three items would help me answer your question better.Is it a worthy addon? Absolutely. It was indespensible in FS9 in my opinion, and I believe that to still be true. FSX is much better by default than FS9 default is, and FSX stands on its own fairly well in the area of the U.S. that I do most of my flying (Northeast), but UT/X adds all the water, coastlines, and roads everywhere, puts auto traffic on way more roads, which is just amazing when you see it, and adds lots of other details as well to the point I don't want to do without it. And if you live in other areas of the country, the change in scenery for the better is very dramatic. Even in the Northeast, the increase in quality of the landclass of UT/X really helps. I've stopped using the two other landclass products I have as they don't represent the populated areas as well as UT/X. That's not a knock against them, just my opinion at the moment. I'm sure they will get better. The type of flying I do is mostly low level VFR/IFR GA flying. You didn't mention what type of flying you like to do.By itself, it is possible there will be some performance hit due to Ultimate Terrain, but, for the most part, I have found that hit to be minimal if at all. The biggest hit will be due to the increased auto traffic, which you can reduce by turning down the auto traffic slider. I'm running my auto traffic slider on the high end desktop at 35% and there is traffic everywhere!For the last few months I have been testing Ultimate Terrain/X on an E6600/nVidia 8800 GTS 640 MB/2GB system overclocked to 3.34 GHz, an AMD 2500/ATI 9800 pro/1GB overclocked to an AMD 3200, and a 1.86 GHz Pentium/ATI X300 64 MB/2GB laptop, and I have not noticed any effect on blurries of UT/X on any of the systems. Obviously, the high end desktop performs ten times better than the laptop, which is more suitable for FS9; but FSX/UTX is usable on the laptop as long as I set the sliders appropriately, and the slider setup is the same with and without UT/X. The AMD machine performs admirably. If I keep the flying traffic turned off, I can crank the scenery sliders on the AMD machine and I have not seen any blurries problem. If I want flying traffic, I'd have to compromise on some scenery sliders. I imagine your machine is somewhere in between?I believe that the people who are having blurries problems are either pushing their machines too hard, or have other issues with their setup (i.e. incorrect memory setup, or other issues). I imagine also that flying at 600 knots at 3000 ft will also increase your susceptability to blurries. But I've been flying at up to 350 knots at low level and only occasionally seen the high end desktop have trouble catching up in a pretty populated city (Boston). And that was with all sliders cranked and the autogen defaults set at 5500/3000. The issue was easily fixed by turning down a slider or two a notch.So, if you already have problems with blurries, UT/X won't make it better. But smart FSX setup should help you avoid any problems. Is the product worthy? In my opinion it is!Give me some more information on your setup, expectations, and how you like to fly, and I can give you a more informed answer that fits your needs better. Sorry for all the exclamation points, but I'm really happy with it.Thanks!Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Guest makindle]

Thanks for the info. I went ahead and purchased and as you stated, the addon has many possibilities. System is Gigabyte MB, Intel 6600 CPU, 2 Gig Memory and 8800 GTX V-Card. I really like the point lighting at night and additional traffic everywhere... textures are fantastic.Thanks Again,MK

[FlyingsCool 3]

Your welcome.I especially love recognizing landmarks as I fly (golf courses, parks, graveyards, etc.). You may want to check out the different point lighting options under UTSetup Menu, Ultimate Terrain/Change Lighting Effects Brightness. The default is 100% (4 lights/light). I happen to like the 25% option, especially when used with the optional halo.bmp that Allen provides (I assume it's in the released version). Look in the FSXFlight One SoftwareUTUsaFsxTEXTUREHALOUT directory, back up your old version of Halo.bmp in FSXTexture and try out the replacement file. Some of the testers liked it (me), others thought it was too dim.In my opinion, FSX's lights are WAY too bright. This provides a much more muted option.There is one problem in that the runway lights are rather dim when you get close to an airport, but I think that can be adjusted for the better by modifying the effects.cfg file. There are some entries in there for adjusting lighting brightness as you get closer to an object, and I want to test some various things with it.Now if somebody would just make some textures that reduce or remove altogether the glowing ground and water textures at night.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180