Ultimate Traffic II was released!

[papab]

I did not see a thread on this.....

Take a look see! Now available......

http://ut2.flight1.net/

[MudMarine]

Wonder if it let's you pick the type of AI aircraft you want......i.e. WWII not modern?

[dswo]

I want to know about the models: are they FSX-native now? Don't see anything about this on the product web site.

[Thoe6969]

I don't see anything about a break for previous users of the product either,I have the FS9 and the FSX version that I purchased and can't see dropping another 50.00.Should be at least be a discount.

[Meshman]

I don't have it, yet...:sleep:

But in looking at some of the postings, all models are FSX based and there is no discount for prior customers.

There is no traffic file to deal with, it's all based upon the program injecting the data into FSX as needed.

The product page contains a link to the user's manual; http://ut2.flight1.net/index.php/downloads.html

[hobofat]

I splurged on it as to this date I haven't used traffic outside of a couple WOAI packages. It's absolutely fantastic! Good performance, traffic everywhere, tons of variety, and lots of options for editing, and all the ai schedules are based on real-world schedules following real world flightplans. I imagine that many will be content to use freeware AI, but I can't say I'm disappointed with the money I dropped on this package. Great stuff.

[Helldiver]

I already have Ultimate Traffic for FSX. This is version 2. What difference is there? Will I be able to get a credit for already having version 1 or will it be a free upgrade? ( I hope)

[jmig]

I already have Ultimate Traffic for FSX. This is version 2. What difference is there? Will I be able to get a credit for already having version 1 or will it be a free upgrade? ( I hope)

Based on the post above, it doesn't look like you will get a brake.

I use MyTrafficX and I am satisfied with it and its performance.

[lifejogger]

I have been holding off using any AI package due to frame rate issues, but this looks promising.

[Bjoern]

I want to know about the models: are they FSX-native now? Don't see anything about this on the product web site.

Me neither, but AI Aardvark and The Fruit Stand are mentioned somewhere on the web page, which leads me to the conclusion that UT2 seems to use licensed versions of their aircraft, which in turn means that they're FS9 native models, unless they've been secretly converting their stuff.

[IanP]

I couldn't tell when I looked, but I can safely say that of the three options I've tried (FS9 freeware, MyTrafficX 5.1b and JustFlight's TrafficX) the pure FSX-native models in TrafficX have been by far the best so far. The flightplans aren't entirely realistic, the airlines are out of date, but the difference between having FS9 models (which MTX still use for many less common models) and FSX native ones is phenomenal. I'm now keeping the frame rate lock, rather than halving it, around all but the most complex airports.

[Meshman]

Me neither, but AI Aardvark and The Fruit Stand are mentioned somewhere on the web page, which leads me to the conclusion that UT2 seems to use licensed versions of their aircraft, which in turn means that they're FS9 native models, unless they've been secretly converting their stuff.

All the models have been updated and are FSX compliant.

Off to install and check it out.

[hobofat]

Me neither, but AI Aardvark and The Fruit Stand are mentioned somewhere on the web page, which leads me to the conclusion that UT2 seems to use licensed versions of their aircraft, which in turn means that they're FS9 native models, unless they've been secretly converting their stuff.

I think that is what they have been doing. At the very least, I can confirm that the prop aircraft in FSX: Accel do not have the prop issues of an FS9 native model, and performance is much better than using WOAI (which is just a collection of FS9-native models, including AI Aardvark and The Fruit Stand). I wish I had TrafficX so I could do a model and FPS comparison, but alas, I had to pick just one :)

I will admit my reason for choosing UT2 over TrafficX has less to do with features than the fact that I live in Hawaii and UT2 has Hawaiian Air, Go!, Mokulele, etc. and TrafficX does not. No Island Air though, think I'll have to put that together myself.

[Bjoern]

All the models have been updated and are FSX compliant.


I think that is what they have been doing.

Indeed.
http://ai-aardvark.com/
http://www.the-fruit-stand.com/

It should also be noted that AI aircraft developers appear to be total whackos. Might be the perfect environment for me. :icon_lol:

[Naismith]

Where is the incentive for me to get this? I bought the FS9 one when it first came out. Also bought the FSX version in 2007. Now this, and no offers to existing owners. As it happens I have replaced the early FSX one anyhow with WOAI which nowadays is just as expansive and has up to date timetables and what else ........ oh yes, its FREE.

[IanP]

The incentive is "double your frame rate because you're not using FS9 models".

That's the trade off. At least it was for me. No option - WOAI, good as it is, was uninstalled.

[gera]

All the models have been updated and are FSX compliant.

Off to install and check it out.

Hi Lance...........please check this: Is it possible to create traffic to a fictitious airfield???? This would be great for my home made fields....thanks

Great to see you, sent you a mail over in FSdeveloper....I have no answer, did you get it???:ernae:

[IanP]

You can always create traffic for a fictional airfield, Gera, with any pack. If the package doesn't come with a tool to allow you to edit and set up new routes, AI Flight Planner will happily work with their models. ;)

[hobofat]

Where is the incentive for me to get this? I bought the FS9 one when it first came out. Also bought the FSX version in 2007. Now this, and no offers to existing owners. As it happens I have replaced the early FSX one anyhow with WOAI which nowadays is just as expansive and has up to date timetables and what else ........ oh yes, its FREE.

It's definitely a tough call, but as mentioned previously for me it was a no brainer...I can't afford the FPS hit of WOAIs FS9 models, and the difference in this program (besides all the handy tools, which can also be done using freeware programs but not as easily) is that all the models are compiled for FSX, and those won't be released freeware. Plus some other handy FPS-saving features. All in all I would say you can't go wrong using WOAI, and you can't go wrong using UT2--but I'll definitely pay for MUCH better fps.

[Meshman]

Hi Lance..........

I'm sorry, do I know you? :bump:

I'm still early in what UT2 does and how it does it. Other than one flight over LAX at 100%, I have yet to start "tinkering" with it. Time is spent correcting the gawd awful state of airports within FSX... :isadizzy:

And I probably did get your PM, Gera. Did I mention time is spent correcting the gawd awful state of airports within FSX... :isadizzy: :isadizzy:

Think I should lay down now, because time is spent...

[BOOM]

I like it! I think the models are well done!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/fsx2009-05-2816-58-30-55.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/fsx2009-05-2817-47-32-71.jpg

[spotlope]

I took a short flight around Plum Island tonight to test the new AI in UT2. Stop snickering. I know Plum Island has like five operations a day, but it's just a short hop up the coast from Boston Logan. My skies were filled with all sorts of traffic into and out of Logan - GA and a ton of airliners. I have to say, I was knocked out by both the quality of the models and the extremely good frame rates I was getting with traffic cranked up to full. First impression: this is a winner.

[LPHammer]

I have to agree with Bill,

The framerates are really great, and I have my setup cranked to 100% at the moment, and I get 18 fr/sec at KSEA.
Burkhard has released a revised set of flightplans (For those of you that also uses MyTraffic 5.2) that only uses the airliners that are not used in UT2, getting the best of two worlds.

[stansdds]

I've considered replacing the default AI traffic with something else, I'm tired of nothing but yellow and white liveries and hearing Orbit this and Orbit that in my headset. I'd like to see some comparisons between freeware and payware AI traffic programs and especially how they impact frame rates. It won't do me much good to switch if I have to drop traffic levels down to nill just to keep FSX playable.

I'm currently locked at 24 fps (and smooth), but I drop down to 18 in high traffic areas like New York and Los Angeles. My AI commercial aviation is 55%, general aviation 45%.

[IanP]

Stay away from anything that has FS9 models in, if you want to keep the frame rate up. That means UT2, TrafficX or the DX10 option (which disables all the FS9 models) in MyTrafficX.

Any of the above will give you reasonable models, real world liveries and you'll actually be able to run more traffic than you can with the default models because they're built to be AI rather than flown. UT2 seems to have the most realistic flight plans, followed by TrafficX. MyTrafficX doesn't even try to do realistic routes, but aircraft will be generated appropriate to the region and country they operate around.

[RudiJG1]

I've found UT2 a bit easier on the framerate than My Traffic 5.2 (including all of the updates), which I had used for several months until earlier this week. I've got my UT2 sliders at 70% commercial and 50% general, and there's lots of traffic at the right times of day and night. Computer specs below...

Abit I35 Pro MB
E6600 Core Duo CPU (oc 3.3 GHz)
4 GB Crucial Ballistix PC2 8500
EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX (stock speeds)
Corsair 620HX PSU
1 WD Raptor X 150 GB SATA HDD
2 Seagate 320 GB SATA HDDs
SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro
Pioneer DVR-111D DVD-RW PATA
Lite-On LH-20A1S DVD-RW SATA
NEC MultiSync 90GX 19" LCD
Win 7 RC1 64-bit
Forceware 182.50 video driver

[papab]

Is anyone else having the problem I have with the User Interface?

There is a tremendous delay on every screen in the UT2 user interface to the point I had to uninstall the program and revert back to UT.I would click on the icons and maybe in 1 to 2 minutes it would go there...and maybe not

There is a posting on the UTII forum and they have some work around with a third party software running in the background to make this work...

Jeeez, I would really like to use thsis piece of software but it is completely useless at this time...

Rick

[spotlope]

That sucks, Rick. It's a great program, but that doesn't help you if you can't run it. With computers, it's always something...

[papab]

That sucks, Rick. It's a great program, but that doesn't help you if you can't run it. With computers, it's always something...


And I just got a response from the moderator on the UTII forum that it is my video card/driver combination
Jeeez!!!!!
You think?

[hobofat]

And I just got a response from the moderator on the UTII forum that it is my video card/driver combination
Jeeez!!!!!
You think?

Could you try rolling back your driver to an earlier version to test that? 185.5 is definitely supported on your video card... I recently updated to 185.5 and NVIDIA no longer overrides applications with AA, I have to set it in game, even though I have it set to override application and AA not enabled in FSX. THis is irrelevant to your problem, but 185.5 imo can be a bit screwy.

[papab]

Could you try rolling back your driver to an earlier version to test that? 185.5 is definitely supported on your video card... I recently updated to 185.5 and NVIDIA no longer overrides applications with AA, I have to set it in game, even though I have it set to override application and AA not enabled in FSX. THis is irrelevant to your problem, but 185.5 imo can be a bit screwy.

Thanks for the suggestion
Went back to 182.82 and the same problem....
Hopefully Flight1 will come through with a fix

[CrisGer]

are the flight plans all FSX? i want to use the great payware scenery for Vancouver but it requires that you only have FSX AI, any FS9 style Afcads and all the AI disappears.....

i was using WOAI but some of them were FS9 format and so that was a worry.

[spotlope]

They say theirs is 100% FSX-native, but they go a step farther: the plans aren't in BGL format at all; they're injected into the sim by an external module. So yes, no problems with the format.

[Naismith]

are the flight plans all FSX? i want to use the great payware scenery for Vancouver but it requires that you only have FSX AI, any FS9 style Afcads and all the AI disappears.....

i was using WOAI but some of them were FS9 format and so that was a worry.

Re Van+ - no it doesn't. You can have either FS9 or FSX AI but you cannot mix them.

[Kiwikat]

This is my first real traffic program for any sim. I am enjoying it a lot. I'm on Vista 64 and have had no problems. My only criticism is that many of the flight plans are really high. 12000 feet for a cessna 172, 47000 feet for an unnamed bombardier, 39000 feet for an ERJ. Just a bit higher than they normally operate.

It really does add to the experience and environment. If anyone's still running stock traffic, this is most definitely a significant improvement and shouldn't disappoint you.


BTW Boom, how did you get that much traffic at o hare (I think that's O hare?)? I have my commercial traffic set to 75% and it still looks pretty sparse. Do I need to bump it up to 100%?

[gera]

I'm sorry, do I know you? :bump:

I'm still early in what UT2 does and how it does it. Other than one flight over LAX at 100%, I have yet to start "tinkering" with it. Time is spent correcting the gawd awful state of airports within FSX... :isadizzy:

And I probably did get your PM, Gera. Did I mention time is spent correcting the gawd awful state of airports within FSX... :isadizzy: :isadizzy:

Think I should lay down now, because time is spent...

You bet you know me!!!!...am Solid in FSdeveloper but I do sign as Gera!!!!! I´ll check and see if you answered me....need your address as I pointed out. I have had a bunch of T-Shirts printed and you need one...so try to remember who I am and make some more great "Runway Signs and lettering" am using yours regularly!!!!!....see ya.
:pop4::pop4::pop4::pop4::guinness:

[hobofat]

BTW Boom, how did you get that much traffic at o hare (I think that's O hare?)? I have my commercial traffic set to 75% and it still looks pretty sparse. Do I need to bump it up to 100%?

I guess O'Hare is probably pretty busy most of the time, but in general check your time of day as well, it can make a big difference with what's on the ground and what's coming in and out. I fly mostly in the UK but noon-ish at Birmingham EGBB is sparse on the ground (maybe 4-5 planes) but in the morning every parking spot is taken.

[IanP]

The scenery you are using will make a lot of difference too - I'm just finishing up a review of UK2000's EGBB Xtreme and, with traffic at 75% using TrafficX (about 1130GMT), from where my helo is right now I can see in excess of 40 aircraft on the ground. The airport isn't full, but not far off.

If I disable UK2000 EGBB and go back to the default, I'll get considerably fewer because there simply aren't that many parking spots on the default airport. The same will apply to any vaguely realistic scenery compared to the default.

[Kiwikat]

The scenery you are using will make a lot of difference too - I'm just finishing up a review of UK2000's EGBB Xtreme and, with traffic at 75% using TrafficX (about 1130GMT), from where my helo is right now I can see in excess of 40 aircraft on the ground. The airport isn't full, but not far off.

If I disable UK2000 EGBB and go back to the default, I'll get considerably fewer because there simply aren't that many parking spots on the default airport. The same will apply to any vaguely realistic scenery compared to the default.

Good point.

I should look for some updated afcads or whatever they are calling them in fsx for some of the airports I fly to often.

[gera]

You can always create traffic for a fictional airfield, Gera, with any pack. If the package doesn't come with a tool to allow you to edit and set up new routes, AI Flight Planner will happily work with their models. ;)

I know....but I hate AI FP....Ugh!!!!!!!:gameoff:

[hobofat]

I know....but I hate AI FP....Ugh!!!!!!!:gameoff:

S'ok, UT2 has a tool for creating ai flightplans. I have yet to use it so can't comment on how it compares to AIFP.

[IanP]

What would be nice, which I believe TrafficX at least partically does and it sounds like UT2 does as well, is a tool where you can add airports and use the FSX SDK functionality to generate random flights to them.

I wonder how hard that would be to code as an adjunct to AIFP or similar? Just a random flight generator between airports and using aircraft you select - a GUI front-end to the SDK AI compiler in effect.