Traffic X

Once Traffic X was installed on my system I quickly realised that the entire interface was different from Traffic 2005's interface.  This was no big deal, just a slight learning curve.  But some of the cool features that were in Traffic 2005 were now gone.  For example, with Traffic X it is not possible to SORT based on arrival airport, or flight number, or other such parameters.  This feature was invaluable in Traffic 2005 when adding or editing flight plans.  Without that feature, Traffic X makes it a little more difficult to do flight plan work.  Another lost feature in Traffic X which Traffic 2005 had is the ability to set the altitude at which the AI aircraft fly.  This results in all Traffic X GA planes flying (or should I say trying to fly) at 10,000 feet.  That would normally not be a problem, but when you have Piper Cubs TRYING to get to 10,00 feet and struggling, it can be annoying to hear the default FSX ATC continually asking then to expedite their climb to 10,000.  The differences between Traffic 2005 and Traffic X are not deal-breakers, but they do cause me a slight bit of frustration every now and then.

Unlike Chuck, I did put on the Traffic X Service Pack.  And I did this despite the many many many changes I had made to flight plans and adding my own etc.  I was happy to notice some fixed up liveries and a few other fixes here and there.  The Service Pack is good.  It did not affect any of the work I had done (Chuck, if you're reading this, you may wish to backup your stuff and then take the plunge ... I think you'll find it will be OK ... but if it doesn't work out as planned, then you can just use your backups to revert back).

I do agree with other comments that Chuck has made in that there are little niggles here and there with Traffic X.  Some missing callsigns, some incorrect wingspan values, ultralights at 20,000 feet etc.  If you know how to correct this kind of stuff, then it really isn't that much of a big deal to dive in and do the corrections.  And, to be fair, most of the callsigns are there and are correct, it is only a handful (in my experience) that are not right.  As for wingspan values, there is a kindly submitted wingspan values fix done by Jon Murchison available for download on the Traffic X support web pages.  I have downloaded this and it has fixed everything right up.  (Great work Jon and thanks.)  http://www.justflight.com/communityDownloads.asp?downloadCategoryID=45&downloadCommunityID=7

Despite the few niggles, it is possible to fix things up so that you have things fully functioning and working.  You'll probablly want to make a few flight plan tweaks to, say, remove ultralights and non-taxiing gliders and float planes ... but once you get these tweaks done, Traffic X does actually shine!  There are a few quirks here and there when working on flight plans, and some annoying issues to come to grips with, but all said and done, you are very quickly able to add and edit flight plans and make changes extremely easily.  Not to mention that you can also change things like aircraft range and wingspan values just as simply.  Add the ability to import downloaded planes in to the database and update the database with new runway and parking information if you add new scenery or a new airport/AFCAD, and you'll soon find that Traffic X is a full package that fits in nicely with your FSX and also works with other add-ons that you already have or may purchase in the future.

Chuck does mention that one needs a little patience if you want to do extensive work on flight plans.  Chuck is correct.  You do need patience.  It took me AGES to get my flight plans working the way I wanted them.  But, for me, this is part of what makes Flight Simulator a wonderful and enjoyable hobby.  Being able to make changes and modifications further enhances my fun.  Even the odd missing callsign here and there.  No big deal.  And Traffic X is fantastic in the way it provides the means and the tools to make all the edits I want.  However, despite that, and despite my having the patience, I do realise that making changes and doing edits etc may not be everybody else's idea of fun.  And, all said and done, I too would much prefer to just be FLYING instead of spending my time doing fixes and making modifications.  To be honest, right out of the box, Traffic X is just fine as is.  If you don't want to do any flight plan work, then you don't have to.

In conclusion, despite the way this "review" sounds after mentioning the niggles here and there, I still do personally think that Traffic X is great.  Yes, it is annoying that there are some things which really should be right in the first place, but, generally these can quickly be fixed if you have the know how.  And I would be reasonably certain that other packages would also have their own share of shortcomings anyway.  I cannot really comment on how Traffic X compares to WOAI except to say that Traffic X's aircraft are made to fully support FSX (Direct X 10, moving cargo doors, full baggage car and fuel car support, jetway support, animations, the works, etc) whereas WOAI's models are generally still based on earlier versions of Flight Simulator which means in many cases they may not work with all the fanciness that FSX offers (although, to be fair, I have never used WOAI and therefore I'm not really 100% certrain here).  It is a great enhancement to the realism of Flight Simulator to see AI planes with their cargo doors open being serviced by baggage cars and fuel trucks and jetways etc.  Does WOAI do that?  Traffic X is great.  It does what I want, it makes it easy for me to add/edit flight plans, it is a great addition to Flight Simulator.  It does have its quirks, and some are quite annoying, but because I know how to fix them or bypass them, I can live with them.  I don't know if other packages are better (or worse).  I use Traffic X.  It does the job for me.

Thanks for the in-depth response.

I have now got Traffic X installed on my PC. I personally don’t think it is as good as WoAI however it is allot more convenient.

The main thing I don’t like is the fact that the 767 looks nothing like a 767!

All in all it’s ok.

Thanks

Ben435