Poor quality software

  • Having purchased Traffic Global at quite some cost, frankly I was expecting rather better performance than I a seeing. Here are a couple of examples of how bad this software is at times:-

    1. At Southampton a Flybe was on the runway about to take off and a second landed at the same time, no go around, just passing through an aircraft already on the runway.

    2. At Bristol a Ryanair air reverses at an acute angle out of stand 23, reverses across the runway crashing through a landing plane and continues reversing out across the countryside is now heading for Blagdon lake across the fields!.

    These issues don't crop up after hours of running either, they are within minutes of starting the simulator.

    Clearly this software has bugs still and needs some attention. The World Traffic 3 latest trial software still in development runs a lot better than this. Software that runs this badly 6 months after release is really quite poor.

    I am sticking with the product, I think it has a lot of potential and could be excellent, the 3D sound is really good apart from the occasional glitch with what sounds very much like a turbo prop sound superimposed over the jets sound and I love the automatic generation of flights but understandably seeing aircraft colliding on runways or reversing across fields indefinitely is not supposed to happen and spoils realism.

    I have submitted a support ticket highlighting the issues I am experiencing.

  • JF Staff


    Not sure your description of 'poor quality' chimes with many of the reviews we've seen and feedback received.

    Are you using the default Southampton airport or a third party scenery.

  • I am using Pilot Plus but to be honest regarding the issues I have mentioned, it is extremely unlikely that aircraft colliding is any way the fault of the airport. An aircraft landing whilst another is taking off must be due to the operation of the Traffic Global software flight scheduling system and the way in which it handles spacing between aircraft. And the reversing of an aircraft out of a stand at Bristol, totally ignoring taxiways defined in Wed and simply reversing indefinitely across the landscape and out towards the Mendip hills is again, I would suggest, a glitch with the software.

    As mentioned it has a lot of potential but its not there yet and something as basic as two aircraft on one runway at the same time or a plane reversing across the A38 and out towards a lake should not be happening.

  • Well after a few days of using Traffic Global I am afraid I will be switching back to WT3. There are just too many things I don't like with the way TG works which include:-

    Unrealistic taxi speed when leaving the runway. They race off like scolded cats.
    Inappropriate use by larger jets of small taxiways designated for smaller aircraft in wed.
    No way to control the push-back direction or distance resulting in the odd aircraft colliding with others or reversing through the airport boundary fence.
    Inadequate separation of aircraft and no effective go around system.
    Unrealistic 180 degree flip of some aircraft when leaving a ramp.
    New ATC system doesn't seem to work despite configuring the end key appropriately.
    Unrealistic 250 knt speed reached almost immediately after takeoff.

    The advantage TG has over WT3 is ease of installation, 3D sound and automatic flights on start up but actual aircraft operation wise its a way behind I am afraid. Sorry but I am looking for something that looks realistic and TG doesn't meet that remit at the moment.

  • JF Staff


    Not sure any of this criticism is entirely fair, given the huge popularity of the program and the amount of positive feedback we've received. However, to address the points you make as best we can:

    The speed profiles were updated for the last release. Make sure the version you have is fully up-to-date.
    The pseudo-ATC works just fine if you tune the radio to the airport's frequency
    Go-arounds are very much in place, and low-grade taxiways will only ever be used by large jets if there is absolutely no other way of reaching the destination. Bear in mind it also depends on the airport specifying them as 'smaller', not just visually but in the taxi network definition.
    The problem with the speed when leaving the runway is fixed, and Jim has spent the last couple of weeks further modifying the pushback system. That's to go out to beta testers today.

    We have never pitched our Traffic franchise (it's nearly twenty years old) as something that would create all the world's air traffic in a flight sim to mirror FlightRadar24. Unfortunately, the AI traffic engine in X-Plane (or lack of it) places unique challenges on anyone trying to provide a realistic and busy traffic experience around the simulated world. We think we have done a pretty good job of achieving that goal and the majority of users seem to agree. I am sorry if TG doesn't fulfil your requirements, but rest assured we are trying our best to please all of the people all of the time and that's always going to result in a compromise somewhere along the line.

  • I note that you have refunded the amount I paid for this software this afternoon for which I thank you. But I did not ask you to do that and did not expect it. I have been in contact with the developer in Forums-xplane.org where I specifically said I would be sticking with the program whilst Jim Keir works on sorting out the issues, some of which he has openly acknowledged exist. This refund has come out of the blue and is both surprising and unnecessary.

    Jim is a great communicator and clearly works hard to answer peoples questions as well as accepting criticism of product behaviour as beneficial in terms of improving product quality. For that reason primarily I don't want to lose access to use the software as such even if I do not use for a while whilst the issues are addressed and tested by the beta team.

    I will re-purchase the software when the next update is released.

  • JF Staff

    "I note that you have refunded the amount I paid for this software this afternoon for which I thank you. But I did not ask you to do that and did not expect it."

    Not sure what that is all about. The refund would have been provided by our support team. I will see what made them think a refund was necessary under the circumstances.

  • @cbcdesign - Classifying the software as poor quality is, imo, a bit harsh. While it has some issues the developers appear to be working to solve the issues and have updated the package numerous times. I, for one, appreciate that the fixes are coming fairly regularly and I appreciate the support offered in the X-plane.org forum you mentioned. Also, to be fair, World Traffic has had issues that had to be addressed. I'd consider software "poor quality" when it does what it is purported to do less than 80% of the time, or it causes X-plane to constantly crash.
    You didn't mention if the issue you observed is reproducible or if it was a one-off. If it reproducible then consider it a bug, otherwise perhaps it was a glitch? TG is amazing, imo. As a GA Pilot, I can hardly wait until they start filling my lonesome FBO's with GA traffic.
    Giving that you planned to repurchased the software, I'm sure you see the value of TG.

  • @virtualgaa the issues were acknowledged on another forum by Jim Keir and discussed at length. And yes they by definition are reproducible. I too appreciate the efforts that he is making to address the issues and will as a result not be giving up on the product.

    With respect to your experience and your consequential opinion of the software, mine was rather different and there were enough issues at my local airport which is my home sim base from where my flights originate, to reach a rather different conclusion. A persons opinion of a product is based upon their personal experience with it, not reviews and certainly not the experience of other users.

    As for the issues, to be fair to Jim Keir, he did explain that it is very difficult to test every airport when so many are included in the software and that the issues I am having at EGGD will be addressed in upcoming updates. At that stage my opinion will probably change. For now it is an honest opinion of how I feel about the version I tried, performed.

    I am pleased that others are enjoying the product including you, I have no wish to spoil other peoples enjoyment of it, However as Jim himself said "Critique is always very useful because it's the only way that I find out what needs to be fixed or improved". In my case the fixes will make a huge difference at my particular airport of choice which at present seems to have several things that need fixing.

  • I am not going to say that the product is poor quality. I will say however, I was expecting more than what we got. $50.00 + USD is a lot of money to spend on an add-on. Personally for me, I was expecting the product to produce aircraft anywhere I flew. What this means is I was expecting if I land on an Airport that has no defined taxi routes, that the product would recognize taxi lines and parking spots and would define on its own taxi routes which in turn would create a busy Airport. Or some kind of Ai that would produce the same results.

    Sure any traffic program can utilize existing defined traffic routes which are already on the market or in case of live traffic, it's free. So as you can guess, I thought by spending $52.00 on this product would've had the technology to accommodate what I stated above and that is what I was paying for. Sadly this is not the case, what you are paying for is the convenience of having the software installed for you and all associated components to allow traffic in the Sim. So yes, I am disappointed in the product, and hopefully it will evolve into something better that justified the high cost this product is.

    Currently I have uninstalled product because I am running (as of this post), 11.50b4, and the product does not support 11.50 at this time. From my point of view, 11.41r1 is the past and I always look forward and not dwell on the past. I wish the developer would have an option to update the software via skunkcrafts or other update utility and allow us to check on betas to allow users such as myself to least have some traffic in the air and not rely on out of the box traffic to be our only traffic during beta phase of X-Plane. I'm assuming the makers of traffic global are at work making their product compatible for 11.50, they should have something by now to keep us customers in the loop and the status of their product working with X-Plane. The best thing to have his communication with your customers, and sadly I have not heard a word via emails or any other social media so far.

    Sorry for the rant, but it's frustrating when you pay so much money and get so little in return.
    Dion Markgraf a Customer of Traffic Global

  • JF Staff

  • @Derek Thank you very much for your response, it is most appreciated. I acquire the necessary patch file, and now I have traffic in X-Plane once again. Cheers Dion

  • @Dionsol TG does try to create taxiway networks from paint lines if no taxiways exist. It's very hit-and-miss because airport designers have used paint lines for all kinds of inappropriate things, but it does try. What it can't do is invent parking spaces - many very old airports only have one, or maybe two or three but they're on the runway or taxiways because they're intended for the user only, and so can't be used.

    Live Traffic is totally different. It doesn't care in the least about airport definitions because it gets the aircraft positions from a live internet feed. The two things are totally different - Live Traffic is simply placing aircraft in locations that it's told to with a bit of smoothing, Traffic Global is creating and flying all those aircraft completely independently of any external service.

    I believe the vast majority of commercial airports provided with X-Plane itself do have taxiways, parking and flows defined well enough now. Some third-party ones, especially if it's not been updated for a while, might not have them.

  • I have to agree with this. I get really frustrated when I pay good money for products that I have to continually trawl the internet for to find answers to problems. This software is pathetic, there are so many problems with it and they are problems that are visually stupid and annoying.