Ultimate Traffic 2007 For FS2004 And FSX

rtificial Intelligence (AI) traffic has been around for a long while in FS, starting with aircraft 'tracks' that must have appeared in FS5, if memory serves me right, though it wasn't until FS2002 arrived that simmers had enough disposable horsepower on hand to run a significant amount of AI planes. The release of FS2004 triggered a kind of mini-golden age of AI, because by then, most simmers were bored with the default airlines and a good proportion of them had systems which were powerful enough to run airports full of AI planes. Several developers responded by producing commercial AI packages, which had to be good, because they were in direct competition with a very active freeware scene.

Payware AI addons can be divided into two groups, depending on whether they are based on real world airline timetables or not. The packages which aren't based on timetables simulate real world operations by ensuring that the correct airlines fly from each airport, using real-world flight plans, or as near as makes no difference, flights being generated automatically. This group includes Burkhard Renk's MyTraffic X and Just Flight's Traffic X (not yet released at the time of writing); the timetable-based group including AirNav Systems FS Live Traffic and Flight1's Ultimate Traffic.

Needless to say, which package is best depends on who is giving the advice! The champions of non-timetable based packages tell us that timetable-based AI addons are a waste of time, because the vagaries of FS weather and the AI traffic engine introduce delays and changes that don't mirror what happens in the real world - but then they would say that. These developers also maintain, with a fair degree of justification, that the average user isn't concerned whether the AI traffic he sees is based on real-world schedules or not, as long as it looks realistic; which is why non-timetable based products concentrate on ensuring that the correct airlines operate from the correct airports at approximately the correct flight frequency. The timetable-based product developers take the opposite view, assuming that what users want AI traffic that operates as close to real-world schedules as Flight Simulator will allow. From this debate arises the question of whether a simmer, presented with copies of Flight Simulator running timetable-based and non-timetable-based AI could tell the difference between them - my own opinion being that it is hard to say.

And now, give a big hand to our friends lies, damned lies and statistics, because apart from the timetable/no timetable division, the other way AI traffic products seek to differentiate themselves is by the number of flights, number of airports planes operate from, number of aircraft models, number of liveries and the number of AFD files provided in the addon. AFD files are absolutely key to the smooth operation of an AI traffic package, given that they supply the airport facility data which is used to control user and AI aircraft at airports and even to assign parking slots. The long and the short of it is that for an AI product to provide realistic-looking traffic behavior, be it timetable-based or not, it must provide plenty of extra AFD files, or many flights won't get to first base because Flight Simulator's AI engine can't arrive sixty flights at an airport which Microsoft's AFD file says only has space to park thirty.

The number of flights included with each package would be a no-brainer for comparison purposes, were it not the case that non timetable-based packages generate recurring flights, whereas timetable-based packages generally do not, making it possible for publishers of the former type of product to claim that they provide more flights than the latter, simply by totting up all the recurrent flight plans. Where a timetable-based AI package has to include all British Airways flights from Gatwick over an average week, all a non-timetable based addon needs to do is to spawn a mix of BA liveried flights to representative destinations and then keep repeating them ad nauseam in order to fill an airport with activity. This works because the average simmer doesn't sit with an airline timetable checking arrivals and departures in and out, the important criterion as far as atmosphere goes being the level of activity. Just to add a final nail to the coffin of using the number of flights as a package comparator, users have total control over them via the sliders and the moment you start winding the AI traffic level down in Flight Simulator, you begin to reduce the number of flights. So if you already have to do this to get acceptable frame rates on your system, there ain't much point going for an AI package which claims the highest level of activity, because running the traffic at 100% will slow your system to an absolute crawl.

Next, we have the number of aircraft models and liveries - this is material, in my opinion. The default AI traffic is unconvincing because it uses a handful of fantasy liveries painted on a small number of different planes so that the same combinations are in your face all the time, whereas by comparison, MyTraffic X offers 140 planes/3500 liveries, Traffic 2005 60/500 and Ultimate Traffic 40/700. Even these figures can be misleading, because some developers count a livery several times if it appears on more than one type plane. To add spice to the mix, MyTraffic and Traffic 2005 offer helicopter AI and MyTraffic has military AI as well. Given that many of the packages offer the ability to add new planes and liveries after the initial install via update applets and user site links, acquisitive users can expand the basic AI hangar considerably, but if you aren't fussy, the number of different planes needed to make AI look realistic is smaller than you think, particularly when you consider that most people can't tell the difference between most Boeing 737 variants at a distance, despite their making up the backbone of the real world commercial fleet.

I first reviewed Ultimate Traffic as an FS2002 product, revisiting it again when it was upgraded to work with FS2004 - now we have an FSX version available boxed from the Pilot Shop. Flight1 give the minimum hardware requirements as 1.6 Ghz processor with 1 Gb of RAM and a 256 Mb video card, the preferred operating systems being Windows XP or Vista. While you would probably get away with this setup in FS2004, FSX will require a lot more power, at least a 3.0 Ghz processor or a dual core, unless you plan to do clean boots and carry out a scorched-earth policy on the system tray. I reviewed the addon in FSX SP2 using a 2.66 Core2Duo with 4 Gb of RAM and a 768 Mb GeForce 8800GTX running Windows Vista.

Installation is easy and when the Ultimate Traffic app is started for the first time, it updates the AI aircraft dynamics and various data files before you can hit the compile button in order to generate the flights - be prepared for this to take a while. Once that is done, even with an ordinary install, Flight1 advise hitting the update button, going online and downloading every paint scheme you find, because if you don't do this, some airports will end up with only half the traffic they should have, as a result of various liveries having failed to make it into the base package. This process also takes a good while and you aren't finished when it is done, because you still need to 'compile' the traffic database, a vital process because this generates all the flights. There are several options to deliberate over before going ahead with the compilation, chief among them being whether you want to include aircraft that have not been painted with an airline livery; whether you want GA planes included - note the package does not include helicopter or military traffic - and finally, which airlines and which regions you wish to compile, as Ultimate Traffic offers a choice of including any/all airlines and any/all regions. According to the manual, if you check the option to include planes that haven't been painted with an airline livery, they should be assigned a default livery, the percentage affected being shown in the traffic compile options window, but during the review, I noticed one or two cases where no livery was assigned at all and aircraft appeared with all over gray textures. The advantage of checking this option is that Ultimate Traffic will provide a plane for every flight plan it has in the database and it can make a big difference out in the boonies, as this is where you stand the highest chance of UT failing to find a plane with a suitable livery and having to do a substitute.

There is no doubt that the installation is complex and lengthy compared to other AI traffic products, but there is a good reason for it, because it makes it relatively simple for ordinary users to add planes, flights and airlines after the initial installation is done. After that, there is no particular reason to run the Ultimate Traffic (UT) app ever again unless you want to update your traffic or access some of the many utilities and options it offers. Expert users might care to note note that if they have installed any AI packages prior to Ultimate Traffic, they will need to move any existing traffic*.bgl files to backup folder as otherwise there is a risk of ending up with duplicate traffic at some airports. In addition to a short printed manual, a 40 page pdf can be found in the Ultimate Traffic program group under the Flight1 banner on the start menu, which also includes links to an updater app, a 'parking codes' editor and the palm spotter voice checker in the FS2004 version, but not for FSX.

The UT main app has always trampled gladly on just about every Windows interface convention you can imagine, but does so in style and forms a consistent interface to the powerful tools that lie behind its brushed metal facade. Flight1's design savvy shines out of all the applets and although most users will not see them that often, it is one of the things that makes the package good to use. After you have finished any schedule compiling that needs to be done, the options found on the UT main screen allow you to display route maps by operator/airport/aircraft; show a status board by airport/airline, print pdf timetables for airlines/airports, update UT's liveries and AFD files, and to access a 'utilities' page. Dealing with each in turn, the route map allows you to select a carrier/operator combination and, after hitting the 'generate' button, show all its routes, with further options to filter by airport and even by type of airplane; and although the size of the UT app limits the display area, full zoom and pan facilities are available. This is one area where the package could be improved, although the main UT dialog is by no means small, it could be larger for comfort's sake and would be great to have an interface sized for the large flat panels that are common these days. Once you have selected an airline on this screen, it is possible to look into their operations in more detail by clicking the timetable button and generating a pdf showing all the airline's flight departures and arrivals. Clicking 'status board' instead of timetable allows you to search for an airport by name or ICAO code and then takes you to a facsimile of an airport status board, which you can filter by arrivals, departures and airlines.

Clicking 'update' requires an active Internet connection and lets UT search for new aircraft repaints and AFCAD files, although there were none of the latter available for FSX. The catch is that some of the updated files you will find using this process will have been created by freeware authors, which means that the only guarantee you have of their quality is the certification process Flight1 provides. This normally works OK, the one catch being that authors rarely identify their AFDs well enough to allow you work out exactly which third party scenery they are meant to go with, or how the new file for a default airport is supposed to improve on the one that Flight Simulator provides for it. This last case can be a particular problem because the updates tend to concentrate on the larger and more popular airports, with the result that there were four alternatives for Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) last time I did the review, with no easy way of choosing between them other than to download them and try them. I guess the main thing is that there is a choice, and if you don't like a file, you can always download another to replace it.

In a similar way, the aircraft repaint updater checks if duplicates will be created, leaving you with the choice of overwriting the existing livery, creating a copy, or hitting cancel and moving on to the next plane; it is worth noting that updating is liable to trigger 'assignments database' errors if you download a repaint for an airline which does not exist in the UT database. Although there is a 'preview' button for repaints on the dialog, I have yet to come across an occasion when it has been active, presumably because repainters don't normally bother to include them and the certifiers don't ask for them.

Clicking the 'utilities' button on the UT applet takes you to another list of options. First is an 'aircraft assignments' editor, which lets you assign not only the FS aircraft model that will be flown when the schedule calls for it, but also to add multiple liveries against a single plane type - a good example of why you need this being the British Airways 'World Tails' theme. Next applet in the list is an aircraft parking code editor, which means that if you manage to import an AI Parnall Pixie using the assignments editor, you can make sure Flight Simulator doesn't try taxiing it into the spaces where the big iron plays. Then you get an 'airport assignment' editor, which lets you change the ICAO codes around - dangerous in the wrong hands, as you can theoretically assign KLAX to Chicken, Alaska, but it no doubt has its uses. Below that is a tail number designator, which can be used to create sophisticated rules for assigning tail numbers to AI planes; probably a minority interest, but virtual plane spotters will love it. Next is a cut-down version of Text-o-Matic, which lets you create your own repaints based on templates that Flight1 have made freely available - this really is a simple process and having read the manual, even I think I could create new liveries using this app. Then there is a flight plan import utility, which allows you to create and import completely new airline schedules into UT so that its planes operate seamlessly with the other AI traffic, but although Flight1 provide some examples to work on, to have any realistic chance of using this feature, you will require a working knowledge of Traffic Tools and I would recommend a thorough read through the UT manual before you get started, because it is a complex, multi-stage process, although UT renders it about as painless as it gets, which is still painful. The remaining options can be summarised quickly: a package wizard which lets you upload and share aircraft paints; and a button which generates a useful list of all the repaints currently held within your UT database. One facility UT lacks is a quick way of generating traffic at your favorite local airport, other than sweating over the flight plan import utility, which is not for the faint of heart - Traffic 2005 has a neat tool which creates random flight plans to neighboring airports, but such a thing would be out of place in an addon that has nailed its colors to the mast of real-world schedules. Another improvement would be a taxi speed editor to help prevent go-arounds.

As usual, I sat myself at the threshold of London Gatwick (EGKK), which is the perfect airport at which to assess AI packages, because it has two runways, one of which hasn't been in operation for a long, long while, is reasonably busy and isn't so well known that AI traffic developers are inclined to give it special attention. But before getting onto how the traffic behaves, perhaps I had better make a comment about the AI planes themselves, which were designed by Project AI and beyond the obvious and necessary limitation of having fewer polygons and simplified liveries than the flyable planes, look good. With UT installed in FSX, I saw a lot more planes painted in the default Flight One livery than I can recall seeing when I reviewed UT for FS002 or FS2004 - why this should be so, I cannot say. Even with the relatively low level of AI that UT installs in FSX, frame rates dropped into single figures taxiing around the stands at the default EGKK in the FSX A320 - if all the gates had been occupied, FSX would have ground to a halt. The A320 is the white plane you can see in the shots and the traffic volume is the amount you would see in a default FSX Acceleration instation with Ultimate Traffic 2007 installed and updated as recommended in the manual.

With Ultimate Traffic installed and 100% AI traffic set, planes used both runways and no queues built up, although I did see the go-arounds caused by recently landed planes being slow to clear the pavement. In general, planes landed on 08R and took off from 08L, but the level of activity appeared to be very low. Given that the real Gatwick is used by 70 different airlines and is the sixth busiest international airport and the second busiest in the UK, I generated a departures timetable to see what was going on and found that the relatively low activity was explained by missing flights or planes. Before I finish with this particular airport, this is the third time of reminding AI traffic package developers that Gatwick's 08L/26R isn't in use and hasn't been for many years, which is another problem with UT's AFD files. This could be fixed by importing one of the AFCAD files we have on FlightSim.Com for Gatwick and installing it - I searched for a Flight1 approved substitute using the UT updater and failed to turn up anything - in fact, I failed to find any new AFD files at all.

Next, I went to Seattle, another twin runway airport, to watch what happened there. This time there was more activity, but still much less than there would be at the real airport - despite this, when the AI first started arriving, the planes came in a bunch and I witnessed several go-arounds. By contrast, in the FS2004 version, UT caused queuing at Seattle. By now, I had the firm impression that I was seeing a good deal less traffic in FSX than I was in FS2004 with UT installed..

After Seattle, I took myself to Dallas Fort Worth (KDFW) and London Heathrow (EGLL), good places to see large airports in action, as these two are among the busiest in the world. Both looked fine, bar the occasional go-around. At a busy airport, even one with multiple runways, near realistic traffic levels make go-arounds a fact of life in FS2004 because the AI traffic engine doesn't clear planes off the pavement at anything like a realistic speed. Heathrow lands or despatches a plane every sixty seconds at peak times, a performance that can't be replicated in Flight Simulator because of the snail-like progress planes make off the pavement after they have landed. This means that even if all the stands are active in an FS2004 AFD file, some will be empty when they should be full, purely and simply because the planes that should be there were 'bumped' by the AI engine and never got to land. With UT installed in FSX however, there was relatively little queuing, because once again, the number of planes wasn't high enough to cause it, even with the AI traffic slider set to 100%.

Verdict? In the FS2004 version Ultimate Traffic is an well designed, neatly presented and cohesive package which will be attractive to simmers keen to see more realistic AI traffic. The only real drawback is the need to download extra AI planes with the updater after the package is first installed in order to populate the airports fully - if this process identified which planes were compulsory and which were optional downloads, it would make life a great deal easier for the user, as the third-party liveries generate a lot of error messages during the installation process. In the FSX version, well... I hate to say this, but Ultimate Traffic offers fewer features than it did when we reviewed it for FS2004, it leaves the airports looking kind of empty, it generates more default paints than I would like and go-arounds seem to be more frequent. Given that the whole point of installing an AI package is so that you can experience realistic levels of traffic and don't have to see fictional airline liveries and that some of the tools available in the previous version have been left out, UT actually offers somewhat less in FSX than it did for FS2004.

I have been a staunch supporter of Ultimate Traffic over the years - once upon a time, it was a truly radical product that faced very little competition. I accept that Microsoft have reduced the overall level of AI traffic quite considerably in a desperate attempt to save frame rates in FSX, so the lowish level of AI that UT brings to this version of Flight Simulator can be excused, at least partially. My overwhelming impression is that until more powerful hardware becomes available to run it, FSX needs more AI like it needs a hole in the head. But that aside, I can't help feeling that UT's competitors have caught up and overtaken it and Ultimate Traffic, although it works well enough, is in danger of being pushed into the second rank.

Andrew Herd
andy@flightsim.com

Learn More Here

[ Back | Home | Main Menu | Logout | Help ]

Copyright © 2008 by FlightSim.Com. All Rights Reserved.