Traffic 2004 vs Ultimate Traffic

[Tlewis95]

Simply put, which one is better and which one should I get?

Thanks!!

Trace Lewis

[nathantw]

I use UT and though it's great for spotting planes on the same route as
you're flying, but it's really just an airport simulator. If you're sitting
on the ground watching planes take off and land then it's fantastic. If
you're actually using FS9, though, it's not really all that necessary to
have the most updated timetables. I found that 40% of the flights actually
landing and taking off from KSFO are outdated or unknown flights. I bought
the Spring/Summer timetable too. So, basically most of the planes landing or
taking off aren't really doing that in real life. Then again, who really
cares since we're not taking those flights to actually go anywhere?

If I could do it again I think I'd buy My Trafffic 2004, especially since it
has military and general aviation.

"MajorUrsa" > wrote in message
et...
> Tlewis95 wrote:
> > Simply put, which one is better and which one should I get?
>
> UT uses real, recent flightplans. T2004 doesn't. This has both
> advantages and disadvantages.
> If you only want the 'effect' of a lot of other planes landing and
> taking of around you take T2004. If you want to have the feeling that
> what you see is about the same as the actual situation at that point in
> time at that specific airfield, take UT. The disadvantage of the latter
> is that FS9 is not able to handel all the traffic that is going on atthe
> larger international airfields with 60 or more movements per hour. You
> get traffic-jams both on the taxiways and in the air, 2 or more planes
> trying to land at the same moment! This is fun to watch except that it
> means you won't ever get clearance to depart because it's so busy and
> everybody talsk so slowly :-).
> I use UT myself and have no access to T2004. It appears that T2004 has
> found a compromise that will work, but what the effect on realism is I
> don't know.
>
> Ursa..
>
>
> --
> ==================================
> Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
> ___________/====================================\_______*-*______

[MajorUrsa]

nathantw wrote:
> I use UT and though it's great for spotting planes on the same route as
> you're flying, but it's really just an airport simulator. If you're sitting
> on the ground watching planes take off and land then it's fantastic. If
> you're actually using FS9, though, it's not really all that necessary to
> have the most updated timetables. I found that 40% of the flights actually
> landing and taking off from KSFO are outdated or unknown flights. I bought
> the Spring/Summer timetable too. So, basically most of the planes landing or
> taking off aren't really doing that in real life. Then again, who really
> cares since we're not taking those flights to actually go anywhere?

Yes I agree mostly. Have to say though that timetables seem very close
sometimes (mostly flying middle Europe zone).
>
> If I could do it again I think I'd buy My Trafffic 2004, especially since it
> has military and general aviation.

UT has some GA settings too. Didn't know T2004 did Mil.
Anyway for GA I use another called GaTraffic or something; free download
at the usual places. Very interesting concept.

Ursa..

--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

I use both products.
I use MyTraffic to generate General aviation, cargo and military traffic,
and Ultimate Traffic for Commercial aviation.
Both products allow you to compile flights for specific types of aviation.
............Joisey

"MajorUrsa" > wrote in message
et...
> Tlewis95 wrote:
> > Simply put, which one is better and which one should I get?
>
> UT uses real, recent flightplans. T2004 doesn't. This has both
> advantages and disadvantages.
> If you only want the 'effect' of a lot of other planes landing and
> taking of around you take T2004. If you want to have the feeling that
> what you see is about the same as the actual situation at that point in
> time at that specific airfield, take UT. The disadvantage of the latter
> is that FS9 is not able to handel all the traffic that is going on atthe
> larger international airfields with 60 or more movements per hour. You
> get traffic-jams both on the taxiways and in the air, 2 or more planes
> trying to land at the same moment! This is fun to watch except that it
> means you won't ever get clearance to depart because it's so busy and
> everybody talsk so slowly :-).
> I use UT myself and have no access to T2004. It appears that T2004 has
> found a compromise that will work, but what the effect on realism is I
> don't know.
>
> Ursa..
>
>
> --
> ==================================
> Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
> ___________/====================================\_______*-*______