Flight1 Ultimate Traffic II

[jmig]

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

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

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.

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....

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?..... )

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.

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.

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!

[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

- 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

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.

[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

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.