Flight1 Ultimate Traffic II

[CodyValkyrie]

Howdy folks. Another beautiful video from Xavier!

<object width="560" height="340">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/15DQ7KjGd4M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></object>

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15DQ7KjGd4M

High Resolution Download:
http://www.jaggyroadfilms.com/movies/commercial/flightsimulator/ut2_video_wmv.zip (http://www.jaggyroadfilms.com/public_html/movies/commercial/flightsimulator/ut2_video_wmv.zip)

Cheers,
-Cody

[MCDesigns]

Nice vid with some great camera angles. The one bad thing that I noticed was lack of shadows from the aircraft at some of the airports.

[Javis]

Sure's a nice video indeed ! But i guess it will most probabely not stir up the fire a lot around this here premises...

IMHO, what has always been lacking in the traffic department, and sadly still is, is the announcement of the release of 'Flight1 Ultimate GA Traffic' , or better still, 'Flight1 Ultimate Warbird Traffic' , or even better still 'Flight1 Ultimate GA & Warbird Traffic'. I bet my last Euro *that* would really get the fire going around here ! :jump:

If flying modern tubeliners tickles your fancy this release will no doubt be something you'd have been waiting for but where do us warbird lovers fit in then ?..... Nothing as unrealistic as to line up in sequence between a couple 7X7's and Airbuses in your meticulously restored P-51 or P-38.... Our playgrounds are the smaller airports or militairy airfields where air displays are being held regularly. Why don't these air traffic developers still take no notice of that i wonder..... :confused:

Ok, with a lot of effort you can get some traffic going at your smaller fav airfields thru the use of Markus Brunner's 'GA Traffic' or get hold of some of the freeware or payware airfields that have AI traffic incorporated but i myself would be willing to pay serious pecunia for something like an 'Ultimate GA & Warbird Traffic' package which would able me to line up in sequence in my F-86 behind a Catalina, Spitfire, and Wildcat, waiting for a Vampire to land on the active runway... And this at any smaller airport around the world, at any day of the year, which, quite coincidently, has an air display going on... :mixedsmi:

Great to see good looking low poly tubeliners take-off and land ( i'm using WOA myself ) but what about waiting for a P-47 to have finished its air display before you can enter the runway.... And so forth and so on....

Sorry to be not that enthusiastic about 'Flight1 Ultimate TrafficII' release, Cody, as i said Xavier's video is marvelous, but it's one tubeliner all tubeliners again.... It's just like 'We GA and Warbird Lovers' don't exist... :blind:

Ok, i'll get off my soapbox now... :a1451: :d

Cheers,
Jan

[CodyValkyrie]

Javis, UT2 can handle GA, and it takes special steps to do so anyways. Out of the box it SIGNIFIGANTLY increases GA traffic. I find when flying in places around Tongass Fjords for example to have multiple aircraft moving in and out of my airports on VERY regular basis, so I find myself watching for traffic all around me. MUCH better for GA flying, no doubt.

Another nice feature is the program allows you to select aircraft you already have in your inventory, and easily with little hassle inject it into the program. For example, lets say I want to inject a B-17 and a P-51 into the miscellanious built traffic. I select them from my current inventory of traffic or products that I own (anything in my simobject folder). Once selected, that traffic will appear at random throughout the world based on basic parameters like amount of engines, etc. Using this, I was able to inject 100% WWII traffic in my simulator, all over the world. Sure, it might be stange to see a Zero taking off out of Dulles International, but I have B-17s overhead, P-51s taxiing on the tarmac, Spitties in the pattern and P-40s departing out.

Perhaps not everyone's cup of tea, but I HIGHLY endorse this product. The only niggles I have with the product are about to be patched out, and I couldn't fly in FS without it because it has heightened my experience so much.

So, does it sound like a team that made the video also likes the product? Sure it does, and it even might be a conflict of interest to some. However, I love this product. This to me is easily the best AI program out there at this time, that I am aware of or have used.

[DennyA]

There's no price break for owners of UT1, is there?

[Naismith]

There's no price break for owners of UT1, is there?

There was for a FSX tweaked version of the original UT1, but not UT2 alas.

[Mithrin]

Cool vid, flew with TAP recently, both flights delayed lol. I've been tempted to pick this up. Always good to see some real airlines instead of those fictional ones!

[Javis]

Javis, UT2 can handle GA, and it takes special steps to do so anyways. Out of the box it SIGNIFIGANTLY increases GA traffic. I find when flying in places around Tongass Fjords for example to have multiple aircraft moving in and out of my airports on VERY regular basis, so I find myself watching for traffic all around me. MUCH better for GA flying, no doubt.

Sounds good ! Like the tubeliner models, are the GA aircraft models also part of the package ?

How about sounds, any different compared to the default FS AI aircraft sounds ?

I might go for this package afterall but i have to say i do like my WOAI. The models look great and i was amazed to see how low the fps impact is even with an apron full of AI airliners. I'd say less than the default FSX AI !

How's general fps penalty with UT2, Cody ?....



Another nice feature is the program allows you to select aircraft you already have in your inventory, and easily with little hassle inject it into the program.............., but I have B-17s overhead, P-51s taxiing on the tarmac, Spitties in the pattern and P-40s departing out.Sure, but the problem here is that you simply cannot use normal models of course. Performance would drop down to a slide show. You'd have to go search for special AI versions of the models you'd want as AI. Been doing that sometime ago, to use with 'GA Traffic', but the collection i managed to scrape together wasn't something to write home about... ( so what do *you* use as AI models for your B-17's,P-51's,P-40's and Spits then, Cody ? )

On top of that, with FSX, i bet it's best to stay away from AI models that are made for FS9...

That's what i mean.... We have seen atleast two major payware AI Traffic programs for many years now. And with both these programs we can have our major airport aprons covered with 7X7's and Airbuses from top to bottom, from side to side. That's great but personally i don't care much for major airports filled up with tons of 7X7's and Airbuses... And, if i'm not mistaken, that must be the case with the majority of readers/posters here....

Why it takes so long for a payware dev to see the light, i.e. 'the gap in the market' and produce the first "Ultimate GA & Warbird Traffic " package is beyond me... No doubt it would sell like hot cakes, atleast overhere...:mixedsmi:

cheers,
Jan

[Kiwikat]

Sure, but the problem here is that you simply cannot use normal models of course. Performance would drop down to a slide show. You'd have to go search for special AI versions of the models you'd want as AI. Been doing that sometime ago, to use with 'GA Traffic', but the collection i managed to scrape together wasn't something to write home about... ( so what do *you* use as AI models for your B-17's,P-51's,P-40's and Spits then, Cody ? )

You would be surprised. The WOPII models don't hit my FPS any more than the UTII AI aircraft do. I've got the P-51's, Me-109's, etc. in my traffic. I even got the Alphasim T-6 in there. They all work very well.

[peter12213]

I can litterally only dream of such a good system as to run and make vidio's like that, its amazing!

[Javis]

You would be surprised. The WOPII models don't hit my FPS any more than the UTII AI aircraft do. I've got the P-51's, Me-109's, etc. in my traffic. I even got the Alphasim T-6 in there. They all work very well.

You mean with their original high res textures still applied as well ?... Now *that* would surprise me indeed, particularly if you'd have a lot of these normal models parked on the apron.

cheers,
Jan

[Kiwikat]

You mean with their original high res textures still applied as well ?... Now *that* would surprise me indeed, particularly if you'd have a lot of these normal models parked on the apron.

cheers,
Jan

Yep, whatever's default. I should try the B-17 sometime. That's a really good idea.

Of course these aren't the ONLY AI planes I'm using with UTII. I've got all the ones that come with it as well as some carenado planes and the Alphasim Long-EZ, not to mention all the commercial traffic with UTII.

[peter12213]

Thats what I was wondering guys, you know Jankees' thread how he always has alot of mustangs or payware aircraft around his shots is he putting those there or are they from multiplayer because I'd love to know how he does it if there AI! I have a lot of RAF bases that could do with some good payware planes as Ai as long as my frames don't go down to much!

[shackleton_boy]

So whats better guys - Ultimate Traffic2 or My Traffic 2010? Would either of these programs get patched as airlines make major changes to their networks?

[Javis]

Of course these aren't the ONLY AI planes I'm using with UTII. I've got all the ones that come with it as well as some carenado planes and the Alphasim Long-EZ, not to mention all the commercial traffic with UTII.

Could you let us know the difference between your fps when taxiing around your fav airport without any AI and with ? ( taxiing *towards* the apron, please... :) ) And what percentage of AI traffic are you using here and on what system ? ( bet it'll be more high then low end... :mixedsmi: )

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jan

[Javis]

Thats what I was wondering guys, you know Jankees' thread how he always has alot of mustangs or payware aircraft around his shots...

I guess he uses this Recorder program. How many aircraft you want depends on how many times you'd be willing to hit the Record/Stop button... :)

Cheers,
Jan

[jmig]

So whats better guys - Ultimate Traffic2 or My Traffic 2010? Would either of these programs get patched as airlines make major changes to their networks?

I use MyTrafficX 5b. It has airliner, GS and military traffic. I read on the MyTraffic site that My Traffic 2010 is the Aerosoft version of the program. Yes, they did update the airlines with the latest upgrade and will continue to do so in the future.

[Kiwikat]

Could you let us know the difference between your fps when taxiing around your fav airport without any AI and with ? ( taxiing *towards* the apron, please... :) ) And what percentage of AI traffic are you using here and on what system ? ( bet it'll be more high then low end... :mixedsmi: )

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jan

There's a noticeable difference between having UT2 on and off. When it is off, my FPS are locked at 36. When it is on, It usually stays above 30 while on the ground (in the VC). Percentages vary depending what kind of plane I am flying. If I am flying a commercial jet, I'll raise the commercial traffic higher. The same holds true for GA. If I'm using something that is easy on FPS, sometimes I'll crank both higher (like a Carenado plane for instance).

Specs are Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz, 8 GB DDR2 1066 MHz, GTX280 1 GB GDDR3 @ stock speeds. It isn't an i7, but it does what I want it to... :running:

[Bjoern]

Nice vid with some great camera angles. The one bad thing that I noticed was lack of shadows from the aircraft at some of the airports.

That's because not all of the models included there are native. I think only those originally made by AIA, TFS, EVAI and DJC were converted to FSX standards.

And "portover" AI models don't mix well with shadows and scenery ever since SP2.



IMHO, what has always been lacking in the traffic department, and sadly still is, is the announcement of the release of 'Flight1 Ultimate GA Traffic' , or better still, 'Flight1 Ultimate Warbird Traffic' , or even better still 'Flight1 Ultimate GA & Warbird Traffic'. I bet my last Euro *that* would really get the fire going around here ! :jump:

Markus Brunner's "GA Traffic" will help.

Add any aircraft you want and it autogenerates flightplans for it. You can also specify some parameters and limitations for the genrration, so that rare aircraft aren't seen everywhere all the time.
But beware: Generating a flightplan for ~30 GA aircraft will take a while and produce a 200Mb+ traffic.bgl file.

Note to self: Hunt down more GA aircraft and generate new flightplans with GA Traffic. Mine are about two years old now.


Oh, and around here I feel that we commercial pilots don't exist. :p

[guzler]

I have looked into several packages, and was / am a huge fan of WOAI. I went with UT2 because the models / textures are WOAI quality whislt being true FSX models to improve frame rates. The other packages on the market don't seem to come close on texture / model quality to UT2 (having looked at screen shots in FSX and been a user of traffic, mytraffic in fs9). I now use a mixture of UT2 and WOAI and it all works very nicely. I can hugely recommend it if you like WOAI.

[shackleton_boy]

ok cool - but it still doesnt clear up which one is better :running:

[Javis]

Specs are Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz, 8 GB DDR2 1066 MHz, GTX280 1 GB GDDR3 @ stock speeds

Ahh..... now you're talking...

I have never seen anything like 30 fps taxiing around a medium size airport with a bunch of AI models on the apron. 15/20 if i'm lucky... ( Core2 Duo E6700 2.66 GHz, 4GB DDR2 667MHz,GF 8800GTX ). That's fine with me actually. It's better than it used to be with only default AI. ( now using only WOAI )

I can imagine with a machine like yours you have some spare room to try normal models as AI. I've seen my fps go down to 4 when i once tried that... :isadizzy: ( thru 'GA Traffic' using the option to lower the texture res ) Don't think i had any A2A models amongst it hough.

Anyway thanks for the info, Kiwi. :cool:

cheers,
Jan

[Javis]

Markus Brunner's "GA Traffic" will help.

Yip, way ahead of you here, Bjoern.. :mixedsmi:

Ok, with a lot of effort you can get some traffic going at your smaller fav airfields thru the use of Markus Brunner's 'GA Traffic'



Oh, and around here I feel that we commercial pilots don't exist. :p

Yep, head on over to Avsim or Fs.com, mate.. :d

( posts about Lotus' magical L-39 at Fs.com : 0... Here at SOH : only 1124 and just 63,274 views ... :sheep: )

cheers,
Jan

[Javis]

I now use a mixture of UT2 and WOAI and it all works very nicely. I can hugely recommend it if you like WOAI.

Do you mind me asking why you keep running WOAI next to UT2, Guzler ?....

Cheers,
Jan

[IanP]

I use TrafficX. I've tried two versions of MyTrafficX and, personally, won't touch it with a bargepole again. Although it creates massive amounts more traffic than any other product, includes more airlines, more types and has absolutely superb support, it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality at all.

I don't know how UT2 works - I don't have it and haven't tried it - but as an example using WOAI and MTX, using WOAI you will see the correct aircraft at the correct airports, using the correct routes. But that means that if you don't have traffic installed for, say, Mogadishu, you will see no traffic at all there. MTX on the other hand will look at where Mogadishu is, look what traffic would be used in that country and region then assigns flights randomly using those airlines and their aircraft.

It's personal preference, ultimately.

I did consider getting copies of all three major commercial packs, plus possibly WOAI, setting a series of specific tests and doing a direct comparison between them. Would anyone be interested in seeing that? If so, I'll contact developers and beg Nick to take some screenshots for it.

[jmig]

Oh, and around here I feel that we commercial pilots don't exist. :p

Ohhhhhh boy oh boy, this is too good to pass up. :icon_lol:

Let's see.....you program a computer with the flight. You take off...the computer takes over and flies you to your programed destination with out you doing anything other than sipping coffee and complaining about the new flight schedule.

You arrive at destination, the autopilot flies the approach and you take over 30 secs before the end to land.

And you call yourself a PILOT? *insert fake snicker here*

In my day.... I had to get to the right altitude and heading before turning on the autopilot. :jump:

Here's to the debriefing...:ernae:

[Javis]

Let's see.....you program a computer with the flight. You take off...the computer takes over and flies you to your programed destination with out you doing anything other than sipping coffee and complaining about the new flight schedule.

Excactly, and judging by what the 3 major payware AI Traffic producers are concentrating on THAT's exactly what they think the majority of the flightsim community is really into.... :blind:

I say again, if Flight1 would've made that 'Ultimate GA & Warbird Traffic 1 ' instead of Ultimate Traffic 2, the number of sales might've pretty much surprised them...

cheers,
Jan

[guzler]

Do you mind me asking why you keep running WOAI next to UT2, Guzler ?....

Cheers,
Jan

Yes, UT2 doesn't include some cargo flight plans, so I have selected stuff that isn't covered. Also, I have some classic airline liveries in there that I play around with, so rather edit the WOAI flightplans to get these so that UT2 is untouched.

Cheers

[IanP]

I'm surprised anyone is even having this discussion any more... The sheer number of sales of airliner add-ons compared to everything else, the sheer difference in sales and download numbers between modern commercial airports and any other type and the sheer number of downloads of airliner liveries compared to everything else answers it.

Yes, there are more people more interested in flying airliners than anything else. It's easily proven with a simple visit to a download library.

This is a Combat centre. We prefer something else, but that doesn't make us the majority. ;)

[jmig]

I'm surprised anyone is even having this discussion any more... The sheer number of sales of airliner add-ons compared to everything else, the sheer difference in sales and download numbers between modern commercial airports and any other type and the sheer number of downloads of airliner liveries compared to everything else answers it.

Yes, there are more people more interested in flying airliners than anything else. It's easily proven with a simple visit to a download library.

This is a Combat centre. We prefer something else, but that doesn't make us the majority. ;)

I see that on MyCockpit.org It is a site for cockpit builders. 95% of the cockpits are airliner. Besides myself, I think there are two other people who post there who have or who are building a fighter cockpit.

[IanP]

It's a pity, really, because so many areas of aviation are totally ignored by those that are just interested in airliners because that's what they know.

However, both TrafficX and MyTrafficX (again, don't know about UT2) have "time machine" modes to put you back to DC-9/B707 days and both also have limited amounts of modern military AI.

Edited to add: Yes, Jan, there's definitely a gap in the market for "true" classic AI (as in 1920s to 1950s)... Anyone feel like trying to fill it? ;)

[guzler]

I don't fly that many airliners, UT2 populates the skies realistically in my opinion no matter what you prefer to fly in. I don't see warbirds or military stuff flying over my house that much !

I also use MAIW to put some miltary activity in the UK where I mainly fly, so I'm happy.

That said, if someone would bring out classic AI, I would jump at buying that, but whether it would be a profitable venture for someone would be doubtful I guess.

[Javis]

I did consider getting copies of all three major commercial packs, plus possibly WOAI, setting a series of specific tests and doing a direct comparison between them. Would anyone be interested in seeing that? If so, I'll contact developers and beg Nick to take some screenshots for it.

Terr-affic idea, Ian ! :)

F.i. judging by screenshots i think i see quite a difference in the quality of models provided by the various payware AI traffic packages...

Would also be nice to see a comparison between the use of GA and militairy AI traffic ( i suppose, with any of these packs, i'd better count on a horse and cart filled with Brussels sprouts to unload at a specific airport rather than a B-17 to ask for taxi clearance, right?..... :blind: )

Anyway, i for one will be looking forward to such an up to date comparision report, Ian. And yes, please incorporate WOAI as well if not too much trouble.

Thanks on forehand, mate !

Cheers,
Jan

[shackleton_boy]

Well i am busy downloading UT2 now - 1.4gig at 85kb/sec(african broadband at us$130 a month capped at 3 gigs data) 4 more hours to go....

[Bjoern]

Yip, way ahead of you here, Bjoern.. :mixedsmi:

Whooops, should learn to read stuff more thoroughly.

GA Traffic isn't that complicated. The only major drawback is the amount of time it takes to generate the flightplans.



Yep, head on over to Avsim or Fs.com, mate.. :d

Nah, I don't feel like getting flamed for not knowing how to autoland an aircraft.

Then again, I somehow like being in the minority around here...makes discussions a bit more challenging.



Ohhhhhh boy oh boy, this is too good to pass up. :icon_lol:

Let's see.....you program a computer with the flight. You take off...the computer takes over and flies you to your programed destination with out you doing anything other than sipping coffee and complaining about the new flight schedule.

You arrive at destination, the autopilot flies the approach and you take over 30 secs before the end to land.

And you call yourself a PILOT? *insert fake snicker here*

In my day.... I had to get to the right altitude and heading before turning on the autopilot. :jump:

Here's to the debriefing...:ernae:
Well played, but at least I can get from A to B in a reasonable amount of time in a (halfway) modern jet than with a combination of wood, pistons and possibly canvas....and getting from A to B as fast as possible is what air travel and Flight Simulator is all about for me.
Today Frankfurt, tomorrow New York, Tuesday Tokyo, Wednesday Sydney, Thursday Dubai, Friday Hamburg. Jetset, baby! http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o183/t3h_3vil/Smileys/smoker.gif

[shackleton_boy]

50mins to go! yayness! looks like flight1 restricted the server to 84kb/sec....

[RCAF_Gunner]

I've been thinking about getting a traffic add-on too and this thread has been helpful. I'm leaning towards TrafficX because it adds military traffic as well civilian traffic but I have a couple of questions:

- with Ultimate Traffic II or TrafficX, if I'm using add-on scenery like Victoria+ that updates the airport, will those traffic add-ons still generate traffic at the third party airports or just the stock airports?

- are all the aircraft added by Ultimate Traffic II and TrafficX FSX models or are some still the older MDL8 files?

- is there much of a visual quality difference between the models added by Ultimate Traffic II and TrafficX FSX? Both their web sites seem to have nice looking screenshots.

Thanks,
Rick

[CodyValkyrie]

I've been thinking about getting a traffic add-on too and this thread has been helpful. I'm leaning towards TrafficX because it adds military traffic as well civilian traffic but I have a couple of questions:

- with Ultimate Traffic II or TrafficX, if I'm using add-on scenery like Victoria+ that updates the airport, will those traffic add-ons still generate traffic at the third party airports or just the stock airports?
Short answer for UT2, yes.

Long answer for UT2, YYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS.


- are all the aircraft added by Ultimate Traffic II and TrafficX FSX models or are some still the older MDL8 files?I cannot answer this, as I myself do not know. I just make videos :D


- is there much of a visual quality difference between the models added by Ultimate Traffic II and TrafficX FSX? Both their web sites seem to have nice looking screenshots.

Thanks,
RickSince I use UT2 exclusively, I cannot also answer this question. UT2 takes care of all of my flying needs, and the models looks quite good to me, plus I can easily import aircraft for my particular flying needs from my simobjects folder.

[RCAF_Gunner]

Short answer for UT2, yes.

Long answer for UT2, YYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS.

I cannot answer this, as I myself do not know. I just make videos :D

Since I use UT2 exclusively, I cannot also answer this question. UT2 takes care of all of my flying needs, and the models looks quite good to me, plus I can easily import aircraft for my particular flying needs from my simobjects folder.

Thanks Cody. UT2 looks extremely nice in the video. I'm still curious about Traffic X's behavior though.

[IanP]

To the best of my knowledge, both UT2 and TrafficX use pure FSX native models. MyTraffic still did not, the last time I saw it (although it does have a "DX10" option which disables the FS9 compiled models).

MyTrafficX and TrafficX offer military models, UT2 does not.

All of them should be able to compile for any airport on the "lists". None of them should care whether you have replaced a default AI-enabled airport with a replacement AI-enabled airport. However as far as I am aware, none of them will detect and automatically use a third party airport that doesn't appear in the default (e.g. a fictional airfield or one of my WW2 RAF airfields - except Halfpenny Green). You can definitely add airports to both TrafficX and MyTraffic - I strongly suspect you will be able to add them to UT2 as well (indeed I'd be amazed if you couldn't)

This is why I wanted to do a direct comparison of all of them, so people can see exactly what each does and doesn't offer - however only one person commented on the idea, so evidently it isn't that popular as ideas go. ;)

[NoNewMessages]

This is why I wanted to do a direct comparison of all of them, so people can see exactly what each does and doesn't offer - however only one person commented on the idea, so evidently it isn't that popular as ideas go. ;)

I think it would be a great service to the community as a whole, if a full blown comparison was done. With lots of pictures!

I have UT2, but it's not installed since my latest FSX reinstall. Maybe after the next update I might reinstall it, but IMHO the hype of the product hasn't met reality.

Like some other posters, I look for GA activity, not the tubes. When I had UT2 installed I grew weary of the same 7 or 8 variants of GA AI. I have the FSX version of GA-Traffic and tons of AI models and paints (from FS9), but one big difference deters me from using it. When Markus converted the program to FSX compatibility he did not include the ability to recognize addon airport files. While FSX has "generally" more parking at smaller fields, it still is limited in size and scope. Plus the default parking spots are way too big for GA traffic, so the results can be unpredictable.

But enough of my babble, I say go for it on the comprehensive review. I'm all for cutting through the hype and getting down to the truth.

[Bjoern]

To the best of my knowledge, both UT2 and TrafficX use pure FSX native models.

UT2 uses mostly native models.

But that's okay as long as the most common aircraft are native.

[IanP]

MyTraffic had a phenomenal array of GA traffic the last time I tried it, but the majority, I believe, was still FS9 models back then. I don't have the latest version or the previous one.

TrafficX, unfortunately, absolutely insists on putting the default DHC2 on floats everywhere, which means primarily land-based airports. Watching an aircraft taxi around with half the floats underwater? Less than impressive unfortunately.

[RCAF_Gunner]

Thanks for the additional info guys. It is all very helpful.

Ian, I misread your earlier post and thought you were going to go ahead with the product-to-product review rather then looking for feedback to see if the community wanted you to do it. Sorry about that; I would definitely like to see a comparison like that.

Thanks,
Rick

[RCAF_Gunner]

I see JustFlight just released TrafficX Plus Packs for more civil and military aircraft. It also looks like you can run them stand alone if you don't have/want TrafficX.

[IanP]

They did that previously for Traffic on FS9. I used a couple and did a review of them for simFlight. I don't have the link to hand and it was before simFlight reorganised, but if I come across it, I'll post a link. The idea of the packages looks pretty identical to their predecessors.

[DennyA]

I own TrafficX, but with my new FS install I was going to switch to Ultimate Traffic 2, as it looks like it might have some performance and quality benefits.

But now seeing the TrafficX PlusPaks, I'm suddenly torn. It'd be cool to run across more military traffic. (Though with a bit of a UK bent!) And that'd be cheaper than getting UT2.

I'd LOVE to see a comparison. I'm mostly interested in performance comparisons, realism of traffic levels, DX10 compatibility, and performance.