![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Simply put, which one is better and which one should I get?
Thanks!! Trace Lewis |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 I found that 40% of the flights actually landing and taking off from KSFO are outdated or unknown flights.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)/ \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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)/ \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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)/ \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
FS Traffic 2004 | Tlewis95 | Simulators | 3 | April 2nd 04 11:50 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Riddle me this, pilots | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | August 30th 03 04:02 AM |