Developer's Backdoor > GSX Backdoor
Pushback Procedure overhaul?
LB777:
I have to respectfully disagree with you here Umberto.
--- Quote from: virtuali on February 05, 2018, 12:31:56 pm ---it's just wrong being forced to go through all that procedure each time.
--- End quote ---
With GSX you also have to go through UI clicks to do your pushback, every time you have to
* Ctrl-Shift-F12 to open the menu
* Select the pushback option
* Select which direction you want
The main difference would simply be to have to click once or twice from a bird’s eye view to make your pushback path and that’s it, it’s really not a big deal.
--- Quote from: virtuali on February 05, 2018, 12:31:56 pm ---is able to figure out MOST of the common push backs automatically, and it's not realistic that you, as the pilot, would do that.
--- End quote ---
But then it’s also not realistic to push back on completely wrong paths because they were computed for you. I’m sure you know it is very common to have planes pushback onto further out taxiways or down different distances because of taxiways constraints (A380), other traffic taxiing, pushing back, etc… The complexity is endless.
Being able to create custom pushback routes depending on the situation (traffic, ATC requests) is, in my opinion, more valuable than simply not having to do a couple of mouse clicks more.
--- Quote from: virtuali on February 05, 2018, 12:31:56 pm ---That kind of interface might be used when editing a scenery, but surely we wouldn't want to go through that each time you ask for pushback.
--- End quote ---
Can you imagine how annoying it would be if users had to start to look on forums for “pushback profiles” every time a scenery comes out or is updated, just to have more accurate (but still hardcoded!) routings?
--- Quote from: virtuali on February 05, 2018, 12:31:56 pm ---So, this is a clear example of when a program that "looks" more featured, but only because it's less capable of doing the proper calculations on its own.
--- End quote ---
For sure, it’s quite obvious that GSX is a lot more complex, algorithmic-wise, but sometimes the best solution is actually the simplest one, and I think that’s the case here.
Ultimately you guys already did the hardest part! Having automated pushback on any airport. So if coding the alternative method is so straight-forward, why not offer both to users in GSX?
virtuali:
--- Quote from: LB777 on June 13, 2018, 11:09:36 am ---The main difference would simply be to have to click once or twice from a bird’s eye view to make your pushback path and that’s it, it’s really not a big deal.
--- End quote ---
That's only in the case of the most simple procedures, those that GSX can already calculate automatically now.
--- Quote ---But then it’s also not realistic to push back on completely wrong paths because they were computed for you. I’m sure you know it is very common to have planes pushback onto further out taxiways or down different distances because of taxiways constraints (A380), other traffic taxiing, pushing back, etc… The complexity is endless. Being able to create custom pushback routes depending on the situation (traffic, ATC requests) is, in my opinion, more valuable than simply not having to do a couple of mouse clicks more.
--- End quote ---
I suggest reading the manual, the part that explains the custom pushback nodes. GSX already had for some time the ability to create custom routes and with what you have now, it's already possible to fix a lot of less common used cases.
What we are missing is only:
- The ability to base the route on waypoints which are not already-existing AFCAD nodes.
AND
- The ability to pull too.
AND
- The ability to have more than 2 custom routes.
And that's what we'll going to add.
--- Quote ---Can you imagine how annoying it would be if users had to start to look on forums for “pushback profiles” every time a scenery comes out or is updated, just to have more accurate (but still hardcoded!) routings?
--- End quote ---
So, you find more "annoying" to create the route yourself, each time, when someone might already made it ? That's not how should be done.
With GSX Level 2 addon, the airport configuration capabilities will be already more extensive, which means there's added value in users sharing their own custom profiles, for example with airports having a completely new set of jetways.
Which means, at some stage, we would like to have some kind of network of user-created content, where the program can automatically look for airport profiles, and download them on the fly, possibly with the ability for other users to up/down-vote the contributions.
--- Quote ---For sure, it’s quite obvious that GSX is a lot more complex, algorithmic-wise, but sometimes the best solution is actually the simplest one, and I think that’s the case here.
--- End quote ---
The simplest solution is already the one that GSX use now: being able to sort out the most common cases automatically.
--- Quote ---Ultimately you guys already did the hardest part! Having automated pushback on any airport. So if coding the alternative method is so straight-forward, why not offer both to users in GSX?
--- End quote ---
And where, exactly, you read we are NOT going to do it ? I only said we are not going to do it in THAT way.
LB777:
--- Quote ---So, you find more "annoying" to create the route yourself, each time, when someone might already made it ? That's not how should be done.
--- End quote ---
I do yes, because if you think about it, when you fly in the sim you'll mostly depart/arrive at another parking stand for each flight. So ultimately, when you need a custom pushback route (more complex than what GSX would give you) you'd have to add it manually anyway.
So you don't really "win" anything by saving it for the future or for others, and you have to live with the fact it's hardcoded. Again, being able to create a custom route, based on the situation (ATC, traffic), is the most important to me.
--- Quote ---at some stage, we would like to have some kind of network of user-created content, where the program can automatically look for airport profiles, and download them on the fly, possibly with the ability for other users to up/down-vote the contributions.
--- End quote ---
Well obviously that would be great, again it sounds a bit like a complicated solution to a simple problem, but hey...
--- Quote ---And where, exactly, you read we are NOT going to do it ? I only said we are not going to do it in THAT way.
--- End quote ---
Yes I was refering to that specific way of doing it.
I think it really boils down to different philosophies, you believe it's better and easier for custom routes to be made by people, shared, etc. so they can be used automatically. I believe it's easier and more powerful to be able to create a route on the fly even if that means a less automated way of doing things.
Anyway, I'm excited for the GSX lvl 2 expansion and whatever updates you have planned for GSX, so all I can say is, prove me wrong! Bring it on and prove me your approach is better! :D
Kilstorm:
I am very happy to hear that FSDT is looking to overhaul the pushback like what it has done with refueling. Coming from a GA perspective I would like to provide some user feedback. If there is anyway to not have the pushback tug for small planes that would be great. Either by reading the size of the plane like how GSX already does to determine parking sizes or to be able to disable the tug like how we can buses and stairways per parking spot.
Additionally, to have a golf cart, side by side or something more favorable to GA needs for a pushback tug would also work. Another option for parking spots to call up a tug as opposed to gates where the tug is already in the area like what we have now.
There are so many things that still could be done for GSX and GA let it be as an expansion pack or more features to GSX. Like having a marshaller there infront of the plane and when the mags are turned on, the marshaller gives the engine start hand motion. Using his right arm to point at the plane for single engine or the port engine and then if the plane is a twin, uses his left arm to point at the plane for starting the second or starboard engine. Stretched golf carts instead of buses for passenger transport is another option and lastly the tradional hand cart for luggage instead of the tug with a the luggage cart attached.
Speedbird ATC:
Who knows? Maybe we will see UCGX and we can use that for our pushback needs
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version