PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Ultimate Traffic vs MyTraffic



FearlessTower
11-05-2003, 03:28 PM
Well, I was one of those simmers who didn't feel like waiting for UT to be upgraded and went ahead and downloaded MyTraffic. Now that the UT upgrade has been released and I happened to have $30 burning a hole in my pocket I went ahead and downloaded UT for FS9. For those that are still riding the fence over which to buy, I thought I'd share my initial observations on both.

Both packages offer large amounts of AI traffic including GA and Commercial aircraft. Ultimate Traffic is based on real world schedules while MyTraffic is just a collection of AI flights not meant to represent actuall airline schedules. Basically I would have to say that the biggest difference between the two is the level of detail.....and here we get into tradeoffs! The AI aircraft models and textures that come with MyTraffic are far less detailed than the FS9 default aircraft or Ultimate Traffic planes. In a few cases they are almost FS98-like in apearance. From a distance you won't notice the difference as much, but taxiing around the terminals you will notice it. On a positive side, this means that there the AI aircraft have much less of an effect on framerates. With my AI traffic slider set to about 70 percent, I was getting better framerates than with the default FS9 traffic.

I would have to say that Ultimate Traffic is much more demanding on CPU resources, but that is a result of the much greater detail in the AI aircraft models and textures. While not quite as detailed as most flyable aircraft models, the UT aircraft look much more realistic, especially when taxiing around the terminals. The down side is that this does impact performance. With UT and my AI traffic slider at 70 percent, I get about the same framerates, possible a frame or two less in perfomance than I did with FS9 default traffic. However, I get at least twice as much AI traffic at large airports than with the default FS9 AI using the same setting.

Bottom line is that to really appreciate UT, you probably need a relatively powerful system. I would guess that if you have less than a 2 GHZ CPU, you will probably get more bang for your buck with MyTraffic. Personally, I am running a 3.2 GHZ PIV and I prefer the great level of detail that UT has to offer compared to the better performance of MyTraffic. It did take much longer to download/setup, but overall I am very pleased with Ultimate Traffic, although MyTraffic is a great product in its own right.

I won't go into the other features that UT has to offer, since I haven't had time to play with them, but wanted to put out some intial impressions to help any one out there still trying to decide. If anyone is using UT with a slowere computer and still getting good performance, feel free to correct me. Hope this helps.

Andrew

thunfield
11-05-2003, 03:38 PM
Thanks for the report!

Can you talk about the differences between the GA traffic in UT and Mytraffic? I mostly fly GA, and my understanding was that Ultimate Traffic didn't add anything in this regard, but you mention that both provide military and GA.

FearlessTower
11-05-2003, 03:47 PM
I haven't used UT enough to really comment on the level of GA traffic, but there is definitely GA traffic inlcuded in UT. Unfortunately, there is no military traffic with UT like there is in Mytraffic. I have been told that it is fairly easy add military traffic to UT though. Haven't fiddled with that aspect of it yet.

Andrew

jasho
11-05-2003, 03:52 PM
Great review! That solves my dilemma.

Subotai
11-05-2003, 03:53 PM
How do the UT planes compare to the PAI planes ? I am running MyTraffic and PAI together and I like the PAI planes because they look nicer then MT (with cost of framerate of course). Are UT about the same as PAI or are they even higher detailed ?

Coneman
11-05-2003, 04:12 PM
Thanks for the review Andrew. I would have to say that I'm running a 1.4g machine with traffic at 100% and UT doesn't have much of an impact. That's without modifiying with AFCAD. With a full airport, that's a different story :) Subotai, UT uses the same models as PAI. So if you like PAI, you should like UT.

Todd

Kerosene31
11-05-2003, 04:14 PM
>How do the UT planes compare to the PAI planes ? I am
>running MyTraffic and PAI together and I like the PAI planes
>because they look nicer then MT (with cost of framerate of
>course). Are UT about the same as PAI or are they even
>higher detailed ?

I believe that the UT planes actually are the PAI models. I think they licensed them to use in UT.

thunfield
11-05-2003, 04:23 PM
I assume that UT supports the AI percentage slider so that you can keep good frame rates? Right now I am using PAI packages at 75% .. any more than that tends to bog things down at the big airports. I'm not so concerned with filling the airports as I am with just having region-specific airlines and planes wherever I fly.

Can UT automatically add additional GA traffic, or does it just support the existing GA and manual edits?

DK8290
11-05-2003, 04:39 PM
One question that some uses may wonder (those users who like smaller airstrips than city ones) is whether UT adds general traffic at many small or even single airstrips. Using MyTraffic2004 I rarely go to large city airports but I like how a lot of smaller airports (or even single strips with a building or two) will sometimes have a plane or two trafficing at these spots.

I don't care too much for exact real-world traffic patterns so the only thing that would interest me in UT is more general aviation traffic at smaller places .It all depends on what the person wants

Kerosene31
11-05-2003, 04:53 PM
>I assume that UT supports the AI percentage slider so that
>you can keep good frame rates? Right now I am using PAI
>packages at 75% .. any more than that tends to bog things
>down at the big airports. I'm not so concerned with filling
>the airports as I am with just having region-specific
>airlines and planes wherever I fly.
>

Yes, this does work (and is recommended). 75% is actually the exact number I am using as well.

Coneman
11-05-2003, 05:18 PM
I know that UT doesn't change the GA traffic, so you have the option of leaving it as is, or not using it at all. Not sure about My Traffic.

Actually I need to add that you have the option of selecting which default GA aircraft you want to use.

Todd

madmatt7
11-05-2003, 05:23 PM
Thanks for the review. I figured that UT had better looking planes - that's why I was holding out. Off to flight1 we go. - Matt D.

rlk
11-05-2003, 06:56 PM
Just wondering what differences between downloading/installing all/part of the PAI airline packages and purchasing UT are? Beside any utils that come with UT, e.g., TCAS, Palmspotter, etc.

Does UT have more types of planes and airlines that PAI?

Thanks!

Coneman
11-05-2003, 07:32 PM
I hate to keep jumping in here, but think I can answer that. I believe UT has way more airlines than PAI has right now. UT has WORLDWIDE traffic. Besides that, the time you would save from having to install each PAI package is worth the price alone IMHO. I'm not one for spending much over $20 for add-ons, but with all that you get it was well worth it.

Todd

draky
11-05-2003, 09:18 PM
Thanks for this unbiased report - sums up well the main difference of the detail level and frame rate hit. Seems if you want lotsa traffic and are not bothered too much about detail My Traffic is the one to go for.

I use My Traffic and must say the frame rate hit is hardly noticable and I get plenty of company on my flights (however I have a pretty high spec rig). Yes the lack of detail in models close up is annoying but I prefer to trade this off with mumbers and frame rates after all FS9 has to be flyable at the end of the day.

If on the other hand you want detailed AI and have the power to run UT sounds that would be the way to go.

A last point for thsoe who prefer to do general aviation flying My Traffic does have a file available on their web site that modifies the "flights" so you get a higher degree of AI at thsoe out of the way airports that fill with smaller (less detailed!) aircraft.

Great report - very useful for those still in limbo land.

Dave

draky
11-05-2003, 09:23 PM
>One question that some uses may wonder (those users who like
>smaller airstrips than city ones) is whether UT adds general
>traffic at many small or even single airstrips. Using
>MyTraffic2004 I rarely go to large city airports but I like
>how a lot of smaller airports (or even single strips with a
>building or two) will sometimes have a plane or two
>trafficing at these spots.
>
>I don't care too much for exact real-world traffic patterns
>so the only thing that would interest me in UT is more
>general aviation traffic at smaller places .It all depends
>on what the person wants


Have you modified My Traffic with the download available at their web site to increase GA traffic? - sounds like it would be just up your street. I have and it sure makes those out-of-the-way airports busier.

Dave

thunfield
11-05-2003, 09:32 PM
I'd like to see some screenshots of some of the Mytraffic GA planes. There are some on the site but usually from pretty far away, and the level of detail (or lack thereof) is pretty hard to determine. From what I can tell, they do seeem to look pretty FS98'ish, and I think I would rather have a little bit more detail despite a performance hit.

MAybe someone needs to come out with a definitive GA AI add-on.

DK8290
11-05-2003, 11:58 PM
"Have you modified My Traffic with the download available at their web site to increase GA traffic?"


I haven't been at their site in a while so that sounds good ....I'll check it out, thanks :-)