Hey everyone. I'm thinking of buying a traffic addon, and I've started looking a bit on the current offers. As far as I can discern, there are 3 payware traffic addons that people seem to use.
Complete or update your AI Traffic for FSX and FS9 at no cost, with another website: Click over a continent, a country.
![Fsx Fsx](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125448262/166194703.jpg)
But many posts around the web are based on older versions. At this current date I see the following: - My Traffic 2013 - I see it's number 10 on Pilot Shop's best sellers - Traffic 360 - Ultimate Traffic 2 - not yet clear to me how many editions are there, and why A few months ago I played aroud a little with WOAI, but I see it's being shut down, plus I didn't like the fact that everytime I was starting a FSX session, the AI planes were landing at my airport before they were reaching the runway. I seem to remember that was an issue with WOAI for the planes that were loaded in flight. Anyway, I really have not much of a clue on which of the 3 payware addons I should buy. All I'm interested in is to have a good diversity of airline paints populate the airports, to have an accurate distribution of the airlines around the world (for example no Alaska Airlines on an Estern Europe airport), low demands on the computer resources, ease of install and use (not much of unnecessary sliders a newbie like me won't know how and why to use anyway), and no weird situations as the one I described with the WOAI.
I don't know what other features more experienced FSX users would look for in choosing a traffic product. If there are other features you took into consideration when buying a traffic addon, please share. Therefore, to finish up, is there any addon you might recommend from the ones above over the other 2? What sets them apart, and what did the 3 companies came up with, in order to have their products different from the other 2 and get their product bought?
The MY 2013 is a reduced version of My Traffic X (MTX). I would not get the version I would get the current version of MTX and that is MTX 5.4b Pro. The author really supports his product and provides updates on a regular basis. MTX at Simmarket Support Forum The best program depends on what you want out of it. I would look at what each has to offer and then decide. All have their advantages.
I can highly recommend MTX 5.4b Pro!+1 This is an outstanding program if you like to 'tinker' with your AI to get things just right for you. I have MyTraffic X 5.4b, and it is one of the best and most comprehensive traffic-addons with customizable visial quality to optimize performance. If you don't need all the extra functions, another version that you could go for is MyTraffic X Lite, which is almost half the price (18.50 Euro instead of 35). It has a reduced number of airplanes and airliners and no customizable texture quality, but it is very easy to install.
![Best Ai Traffic Software Fsx Steam Best Ai Traffic Software Fsx Steam](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125448262/234648441.jpg)
Should you want to upgrade to the 'big version', you can obtain it for 14 Euros. So in conclusion, you pay less for MTX Lite + Upgrade to MTX 5.4 b than if you were to buy the latter directly.
Not only is it less expensive, but you get both versions, and if the lite suits you, you have saved money. Tell me more about the FPS rate hit with MyTraffic. I get a solid 30 FPS until I get around the big airports whereI have lot's of AI, WOAI anything and everything some of my own then it will drop to 15-20. Below 15 as we know isn't much fun. I like at least 20. MyFS9 runs all at 40 FPS hardly ever any hits ever.
I would like to get closer with FSX. I know it's tough but I love all the real airlines and military. Windows 7 64/bit AMD FX-6300 Processor with a Radeon 0 ghz VGA, few teaks like JobScheduler AffinityMask=14 Not bad, very well with FS9 Also, I gather most if not all my installed FSX AI would need to be uninstalled? I can report about my experiences with the impact of MyTrafficX on FPS.
My system specs are AMD Athlon II X2 3.2 GHz overclocked to 3.63 Ghz, NVidia GT430, 3GB ram and Windows 7 32 bit, which doesn't make for a powerful machine at all compared to the new generation PC's. I have tweaked my fsx.cfg in most recommended parameters (Bufferpools, Fiber Frame, etc.). The scenery sliders are maxed out except of water (2.x high), deactivated ground scenery and autogen density set to 'very dense'.
I have also deactivated bloom, aircraft shadows and 'aircraft cast shadows on its own'. As far as traffic, let me start with a setting of 25% IFR, 35% GA, ground vehicles set to 'high', car, ship and boat density set to 40%. I run on a resolution of 1280x1024 and have no airport add-ons installed. I have figured out that by far the worst frame killer in FSX in combination with MTX are the moving jetways and ground services on big airports.
The frame rate hit is especially large at the beginning, where I get frame rates as low as 7 fps in default KJFK and KATL from spot plane view. After waiting for a while, the fps settle in to a range between 12-13. I know this is low fps, but considering my settings and my system, I can't complain. MTX 5.4b offers the option to deactivate exit points on all of their aircraft, which deactivates ground services and jetways. If I do that, the fps nearly double and don't suffer from a massive hit at the beginning. You won't see vehicles and jetways serving airplanes on the ground, but that feature seems to be very fps expensive. If I use the low quality AI textures (not the most visually appealing, but still good enough), deactivate the exit points, set water to 2.x min, reduce GA traffic to 0% while leaving IFR at 20% (which produces still lots of airplanes) and reduce ground vehicle density to medium, I get over 20 fps even on the dense airports.
GA traffic seems to cause a particular fps hit compared to IFR traffic. So if you have MTX and you want to maximize your fps, make sure to deactivate exit points on the aircraft, and set GA traffic slider low if you fly from/to big airports. As I said, jetways and ground services are a nice feature to look at, but the fps impact is extreme.