|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > February 2006 > Tons of aircafts?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Hi all.
Have just installed UT, set it up, opened FS2004 just to find that at
Malpensa airport, around midday, there are like 7-8 aircrafts parked: all
but 2 were Alitalia, the rest 1 BA and 1 Cathay. Absolutely not realistic.
Since a couple of days ago, I had both UT and PAI installed and had busy
airports. Then had to format the harddrive and decided to install UT alone,
remebering that UT docs claim that I'd have had "tons of aircrafts" ...
Any clue?
| |
| Beech45Whiskey 2006-02-27, 7:37 pm |
| Quai <ali@talia.com> wrote:
quote:
> Then had to format the harddrive and decided to install UT alone,
> remebering that UT docs claim that I'd have had "tons of aircrafts" ...
You need to install AFCAD files for these airports to significantly
increase the number of parking spaces. For a utility like UT to be fully
realized, AFCAD file replacements for the airports are a necessity.
MS delivered the flight sim with a bare minimum number of AI and user
parking spaces (gates and FBO ramp parking). When the sim initializes a
flight, AI aircraft scheduled to depart the airport within a certain
timeframe and those calculated to be at the gates are placed in airline
order until all parking spaces are taken. When the spots are completely
taken, no more AI aircraft are placed.
Search your favorite freeware sim site (Avsim.com or Flightsim.com) for an
AFCAD replacement for your airport in question. You should find one, if
not many, out there.
Install the AFCAD file (very easy to do) as per the instructions, then
start a flight at that airport. You should notice a big difference.
--
Peter
| |
|
|
"Quai" <ali@talia.com> wrote in message
news:3fGMf.7549$ou2.753@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
quote:
> Hi all.
> Have just installed UT, set it up, opened FS2004 just to find that at
> Malpensa airport, around midday, there are like 7-8 aircrafts parked: all
> but 2 were Alitalia, the rest 1 BA and 1 Cathay. Absolutely not realistic.
> Since a couple of days ago, I had both UT and PAI installed and had busy
> airports. Then had to format the harddrive and decided to install UT
> alone, remebering that UT docs claim that I'd have had "tons of aircrafts"
> ...
>
> Any clue?
>
I also purchased UT and was underwhelmed. After installing a lot of afcads
it still wasnt that busy at my favoured airports, but with PAI and World Of
AI its very busy.
http://www.world-of-ai.com/
http://projectai.com/
You can also try California Classic for lots of 50's/60's/70's era vintage
AI planes.
http://www.calclassic.com/
Dan
| |
|
|
"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@ZZgmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1a0sps9f489yg$.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
quote:
> You need to install AFCAD files for these airports to significantly
> increase the number of parking spaces. For a utility like UT to be fully
> realized, AFCAD file replacements for the airports are a necessity.
>
That may surely help, but with PAI i had busy airports everywhere and not
just those on which an AFCAD was installed. Furthermore, i set up UT
according to docs, including AFCAD, thus I expect to have realistic AI in
any airport and not just those where I decide to depart/arrive.
If this is the performance to be expected from UT, let me say that it sucks
badly
| |
|
|
"Dan" <dan.king3NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:HfIMf.59772$Rw6.11630@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
quote:
> I also purchased UT and was underwhelmed. After installing a lot of
> afcads it still wasnt that busy at my favoured airports, but with PAI and
> World Of AI its very busy.
>
> http://www.world-of-ai.com/
> http://projectai.com/
>
> You can also try California Classic for lots of 50's/60's/70's era vintage
> AI planes.
>
> http://www.calclassic.com/
>
> Dan
>
I do believe I'll go back to PAI: free and working fine. Will also look at
your suggestions, thanks!
| |
| Beech45Whiskey 2006-02-27, 7:37 pm |
| Quai <ali@talia.com> wrote:
quote:
> If this is the performance to be expected from UT, let me say that it sucks
> badly
Fair enough. However, my next question would be did you run the Traffic
Tools compile for all the airlines of your country? Are you sure the
compile completed successfully?
Look in {FS2004 main folder}\scenery\world\scenery\ folder. There should
be at least one file named traffic*.bgl, where the asterisk (*) could be
anything. Do you have those files? How big are they?
--
Peter
| |
|
|
"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@ZZgmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ckbqfseru2un$.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
quote:
> Quai <ali@talia.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. However, my next question would be did you run the Traffic
> Tools compile for all the airlines of your country? Are you sure the
> compile completed successfully?
I run Traffic Tools including all the airlines available in any part of the
world.
quote:
>
> Look in {FS2004 main folder}\scenery\world\scenery\ folder. There should
> be at least one file named traffic*.bgl, where the asterisk (*) could be
> anything. Do you have those files? How big are they?
>
> --
> Peter
Got a traffic*.blg file of 48 Mb
| |
| Beech45Whiskey 2006-02-27, 7:37 pm |
| Quai <ali@talia.com> wrote:
quote:
> Got a traffic*.blg file of 48 Mb
Yep, looks like you have a compiled file out there. Perhaps the airline
schedules for your part of the world are poorly done in UT after all.
When I first installed UT, I relied on the UT-delivered schedules and my
complaint was not of AI volume, for that was very plentiful (at least at
the US-based airports to which I flew). Rather, my complaint was that the
schedules were not efficient. In other words, AI aircraft sat at the gates
for some days up to a week at a time awaiting their single departure. This
resulted in lower traffic (airlines that had scheduled departures were not
placed since there was no gate at which to place them) and disappearing
aircraft after landing (no gate at which to park, so POOF!).
Along came a group called MostRealisticAI who provided incredibly accurate
AI schedules that were optimized to never leave an aircraft at a gate for
too long a period. MRAI would rather omit an odd flight than allow the
aircraft to sit for too long.
Despite much support, both emotionally and monetarily (I donated US $25 to
their cause), MRAI closed up their website last year.  Schedules
compiled using MRAI's once secret program can be found on Avsim.com. In
fact, the schedule compile program can also be found there. My
recommendation would be to seek out these schedules and replace UT's with
them. If you do not see a lot of airline traffic, then something else is
the problem.
--
Peter
| |
|
|
"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@ZZgmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1anbkijissu73$.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
quote:
> Despite much support, both emotionally and monetarily (I donated US $25 to
> their cause), MRAI closed up their website last year. Schedules
> compiled using MRAI's once secret program can be found on Avsim.com. In
> fact, the schedule compile program can also be found there. My
> recommendation would be to seek out these schedules and replace UT's with
> them. If you do not see a lot of airline traffic, then something else is
> the problem.
>
> --
> Peter
Thanks for your suggestion. As said, I had busy airports with UT + PAI (now
I believe it was for PAI only...), thus I dont think there's any problem
with my FS general setup. Ill go back to PAI right now and will look for the
diference (which will be huge, I suspect).
As I understand from yours and mine experience, freeware products can be
much better than payware. At least this is true as far as PAI vs UT is
concerned.
| |
| Beech45Whiskey 2006-02-27, 7:37 pm |
| Quai <ali@talia.com> wrote:
quote:
> As I understand from yours and mine experience, freeware products can be
> much better than payware. At least this is true as far as PAI vs UT is
> concerned.
My impression of UT is that it fills the niche for those who want a drastic
improvement over default AI traffic, but do not have the time to apply all
of the tedious, individual freeware modifications (PAI schedules, aircraft,
AFCADS, repaints, etc) themselves.
--
Peter
| |
| John Bell 2006-02-27, 11:32 pm |
|
"Quai" <ali@talia.com> wrote in message
news:4EIMf.7823$ou2.4347@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
quote:
>
> "Dan" <dan.king3NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:HfIMf.59772$Rw6.11630@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> I do believe I'll go back to PAI: free and working fine. Will also look at
> your suggestions, thanks!
>The CalClassic setup is real fun.
John
| |
|
| |
|
|
