Developer's Backdoor > GSX Backdoor

GSX Questions before I purchase (Confused)

<< < (2/3) > >>

Bruce Hamilton:
Oliver is under the impression you don't want your sceneries supported now that GSX is available,  is he mistaken?

virtuali:

--- Quote from: Bruce Hamilton on July 25, 2014, 02:01:16 pm ---Oliver is under the impression you don't want your sceneries supported now that GSX is available,  is he mistaken?
--- End quote ---

Never said that.

We had a general agreement with him that, after we would drop FS9 support, which happened after KLAX, having AES support wasn't really necessary, considering how GSX is deeply integrated is in our sceneries ( we do docking systems, custom vehicle positioning, custom pushback routes with custom labels ) in addition to the fact we always had moving jetways in FSX.

But if he want to support CYVR with jetways, he surely doesn't need our permission, because he already has the source files for jetways that we gave him for KLAX, and that's the ONLY thing we need to support AES, since the other part of the work (having the terminal separated from the jetways) we do it anyway, because it's required to create default animated jetways too.

Bruce Hamilton:
Interesting... people request your sceneries receive AES support,  his response is Umberto doesn't want it and he has to respect your decision.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: Bruce Hamilton on July 25, 2014, 04:04:15 pm ---Interesting... people request your sceneries receive AES support,  his response is Umberto doesn't want it and he has to respect your decision.
--- End quote ---

Since the only statements you can find here is that he doesn't need anything more from us to support CYVR, and he never contacted me asking about it, I can't see how this could translate into "my decision".

We only discussed briefly about the general issue about AES for FSX-only sceneries, but this was well before GSX was published.

My last contact with him was an email I sent to the day after GSX was released, with a free Coupon code for him to try and, possibly, making a couple of changes to make it easier for users to use both products together, but never heard back.

In fact, checking my old emails exchanges now, we agreed that, as long is easy for users to decide which services they want to use, it would be all fine with us having AES too, and this was 2 years before GSX was released, yes, Oliver knew about GSX with 2 years in advance!

We were true to our promise, because the very simple fact that GSX doesn't do anything unless you start it, makes it automatically friendly to any other ground service product out there. AES, instead, that starts several services automatically, makes more tricky to use two ground services products together, because you have to play with aircraft configuration files. We were promised that AES would have been changed to be like GSX, and this was the subject of my last email, but this hasn't happened after 2+ years, so I doubt it will ever happen.

So, even if I never said we are opposed to AES now (quite the contrary, see the various threads about CYVR), I would have every reason to say so.

Sooner or later, GSX WILL have better jetways...at least for our airports...

streichholz:

--- Quote from: virtuali on July 25, 2014, 05:14:07 pm ---Sooner or later, GSX WILL have better jetways...at least for our airports...

--- End quote ---

What do you mean by better jetways? What is the difference between the default and AES ones?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page