Developer's Backdoor > GSX Backdoor

GSX Level 2 - More control over the passengers?

<< < (2/4) > >>

avantime:
I too would like to manually select passenger numbers instead of relying on weight readouts, that's because every other aircraft developer seem to have a different interpretation on how their aircraft should be loaded. Maybe have this as a option in the settings menu so others can disable it if they don't like it. Select-able to the nearest 10 passengers would do.

so here's how I think could work:

Select boarding passengers > Menu asks how many pax?

0-10
10-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600

I select 101-200 > How many pax?

101-110
111-120
121-130
131-140
141-150
151-160
161-170
171-180
181-190
191-200

I select 141-150 > GSX starts boarding. (GSX won't tell the simmer how many passengers will be loaded, but will use the boarding time for 145 passengers)

virtuali:

--- Quote from: DreamSkywards on June 23, 2018, 08:36:51 am ---I also noticed that, on the "payload stations" of some aircrafts, the cabins are named. First, Business, Economy etc. If I put XXX weight on First and 0 on Business and Economy, will GSX Level 2 know that and spawn men/women accordingly? I mean people that actually look like they are boarding First class, maybe even men/women in suits or etc? That would be great.
--- End quote ---

That's not possible, since those names are entirely arbitrary: there's no precise "type" for a station, like we have for gears, for example. A payload station can be named "Economy", "Coach", "World Traveler" or any other fancy name the airline can use so, there's no sure way to identify its meaning and, it can be either a group of people (or even cargo), but can also be a single person.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: avantime on June 23, 2018, 03:11:43 pm ---so here's how I think could work:
--- End quote ---

You are making it unnecessarily complex, when GSX can ALREADY estimate the number of passengers automatically without airplane developer support and, with airplane developers support, it can just get the actual precise figure without any user intervention.

You extra step introduces an additional complexity step, forces you to do the same operation twice (first in the airplane loader, then in GSX), and adds a chance to mismatch the two causing mistakes which would in turn become support questions we'll have to reply on the forum.

And, what value will add ? Let's assume you use an airplane where the developer didn't support GSX, so it relies on the GSX estimate so, for example, GSX calculated 150 passengers, while the proprietary airplane loader set it to, let's say, 145. Would you really be able to notice those additional 5 passengers ?

The real reason of having the ability for airplane developers to set the number of passengers for GSX is NOT really to have the numbers matching precisely (although they will), but more to prevent issues with airplanes loading passengers progressively, which would confuse GSX (or not), depending at which stage of the progressive load process you called GSX. Instead, when the airplane sets the GSX variable correctly, GSX will known how many passengers WILL have to be loaded, so it won't use the payload station weight anymore, so it won't be confused by the progressive loading process.

If the airplane doesn't do any progressive loading, the default GSX estimation is good enough.

avantime:

--- Quote ---And, what value will add ? Let's assume you use an airplane where the developer didn't support GSX, so it relies on the GSX estimate so, for example, GSX calculated 150 passengers, while the proprietary airplane loader set it to, let's say, 145. Would you really be able to notice those additional 5 passengers ?

--- End quote ---

The problem for me is that the GSX estimate is vastly off for the aircraft I fly, like up to 200 extra pax. In aircraft like the PMDG 747 GSX counts cargo as pax, because you yourself said earlier that "the best we could come up with, was adding all the stations together, and divide by 220 lbs, to give a rough estimate on the number of passengers." (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,16897.msg119683.html#msg119683)

Adding 200 passengers substantially increases the boarding time, and in many cases the estimate exceeds the max number of seats in the aircraft.


--- Quote ---when the airplane sets the GSX variable correctly, GSX will known how many passengers WILL have to be loaded
--- End quote ---

Don't expect aircraft developers to bend over backwards to accommodate GSX, as they will always do their own thing as they see fit.

I don't use progressive loading methods like PMDG's ground ops, I just enter the ZFW from the PFPX flight plan and start GSX. However I don't want to waste my time sitting at the gate and potentially miss my EOBT, because GSX thinks there are 600 pax to be boarded in a 747. This is why I want some sort of manual entry solution.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: avantime on July 01, 2018, 08:51:57 am ---The problem for me is that the GSX estimate is vastly off for the aircraft I fly, like up to 200 extra pax.
--- End quote ---

That's not something we can do about it. As explained, so many times already, the payload system of the simulator won't give any indication about the station type: it can be anything, from a single passenger/pilot, to a group of people, but can also be just cargo, with no way for addons to differentiate.

The only way to fix this, would be extending the GSX airplane configuration editor to let it specify how much of the loading stations is cargo and how much is not. Something that we were already planning to do, since we were working on an other expansion dedicated to Cargo operation (which has been put on hold until we release this one) allowing to overcome the limitations of the default payload system.


--- Quote ---Don't expect aircraft developers to bend over backwards to accommodate GSX, as they will always do their own thing as they see fit.
--- End quote ---

I don't know what do you mean with "bend over backwards". It's a question of market an competition: we already have several major developers that found this to be very interesting and very easy to add so, if they start doing this and advertise it as a feature, more will come.


--- Quote ---This is why I want some sort of manual entry solution.
--- End quote ---

If we'll ever add it, it surely won't be the default.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page