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landing and taking off from KSFO are outdated or unknown flights.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)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______