Products Support > GSX Support FSX/P3D
GSX Pushback tug selection
virtuali:
--- Quote from: VHEBN on September 03, 2021, 08:00:34 am ---On the topic of SIM.CFG files, in speaking to a friend of mine who is perhaps your biggest fan, we discovered that the logic used on the "FSDT_Pushback_Small" uses an OR, not an AND, like the other tugs, which seems inappropriate. In saying that, after reading this post I'm honestly not sure if that's actually an issue or if it's intended.
--- End quote ---
The Pushback Small logic use an OR, and that's exactly what is supposed to be like, to have at least that vehicle always available, considering the constraints in the OTHER vehicles.
If it wasn't like that, considering the other constraints, if you were in an heavy airplane on a small parking, no pushback would come out at all.
--- Quote ---But anyway, I hope that you can now understand why any link between the pushback tug and the parking radius makes no sense, adds nothing to the user experience, and is completely unrealistic.
--- End quote ---
That's just your own opinion, which I don't agree to.
--- Quote ---I really don't see the limited turning animations as a justification for such a big oversight in realism, especially when such issues are so common in GSX regardless.
--- End quote ---
Nowhere I ever said such thing cannot happen, but they would be even WORSE if we didn't restrict the large tow trucks in the smaller parking spots.
--- Quote ---Hopefully this issue can now be resolved.
--- End quote ---
There's nothing to be "resolved", and I thought my explanation was abundantly clear about the reason why it was intentionally made like this, in addition to indicating how EASY if for users to change it to their liking using one of these TWO methods:
- Acting on the parking radius in the GSX scenery customization page. This would be the more correct approach, because the reasons why a parking radius are set are not the same for each scenery and for each parking on the same scenery.
OR
- Acting on the vehicle constraints in the tow truck SIM.CFG. This for those who don't agree to the very idea of restricting tow trucks depending on parking size.
And note that, the current constraint threshold for the parking size is set to 12 mt of radius. Considering half wingspan of a 737 is 17 mt., the real issue here is that your are trying to park larger planes in a place with a radius 5 mt. smaller than a 737 half-wingspan so, the problem is ( assuming the scenery DOES have enough physical space to park there ), the parking radius in the AFCAD has been set way too small for some reason.
VHEBN:
Sticking your head in the sand and saying no issues here, nothing needs to be fixed is really not the solution here.
--- Quote from: virtuali on September 03, 2021, 10:44:36 am ---If it wasn't like that, considering the other constraints, if you were in an heavy airplane on a small parking, no pushback would come out at all.
--- End quote ---
But had you not created the issue in the first place, this solution would not be required, thus avoiding this specific issue.
--- Quote from: virtuali on September 03, 2021, 10:44:36 am ---That's just your own opinion, which I don't agree to.
--- End quote ---
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The only opinion you don't seem to agree to here is whether GSX should realistically simulate ground services or not.
--- Quote from: virtuali on September 03, 2021, 10:44:36 am ---Nowhere I ever said such thing cannot happen, but they would be even WORSE if we didn't restrict the large tow trucks in the smaller parking spots.
--- End quote ---
I don't really see how they could be worse though. The smaller vehicles are already performing strange moves anyway - using a realistic model of tug would not change this.
--- Quote from: virtuali on September 03, 2021, 10:44:36 am ---And note that, the current constraint threshold for the parking size is set to 12 mt of radius. Considering half wingspan of a 737 is 17 mt., the real issue here is that your are trying to park larger planes in a place with a radius 5 mt. smaller than a 737 half-wingspan so, the problem is ( assuming the scenery DOES have enough physical space to park there ), the parking radius in the AFCAD has been set way too small for some reason.
--- End quote ---
And so then given how prevalent this seems to be, wouldn't that be even MORE of a reason not to use it as a factor? If it's completely irrelevant and often incorrectly set then it's not a surprise that using parking radius causes issues. Given how easily demonstrable and common the issues are, it's amazing to me that you don't want to even admit they're issues, let alone fix them.
And so the issue still stands. After speaking with some people I know, literally everyone agreed that the tug should be chosen based on the aircraft type or weight - maximum parking radius has nothing to do with it.
But hopefully this issue can now be resolved.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: VHEBN on September 04, 2021, 08:51:26 am ---Sticking your head in the sand and saying no issues here, nothing needs to be fixed is really not the solution here.
--- End quote ---
You AGAIN used a derogatory term ( like the first "stupid" ) to make your point. Attacking won't make your point any more effective. You have your opinion, I have mine, I'm sorry if they don't match.
--- Quote ---But had you not created the issue in the first place, this solution would not be required, thus avoiding this specific issue.
--- End quote ---
We haven't created any issue. We tried to have the program reasonably guess if an airplane is using the correct spot, using the data at its disposal, which can be tweaked without changing the scenery.
--- Quote ---It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The only opinion you don't seem to agree to here is whether GSX should realistically simulate ground services or not.
--- End quote ---
Saying "it's a fact" doesn't make it any more factual than it is. It's still your opinion, which I don't agree to. Because, in FACT, it all boils down what thing is seen as the worse bug by the average user. My option is the average user would see bad moving vehicles everywhere as a worse bug, compared to seeing "not appropriate" vehicles ONLY at small parking spots when using a large airplane.
--- Quote ---I don't really see how they could be worse though. The smaller vehicles are already performing strange moves anyway - using a realistic model of tug would not change this.
--- End quote ---
The smaller PUSHBACK vehicles perform reasonably well, except in a very few borderline cases. If we allowed large vehicles there, without any change to their start position, which should be done by the user, because it's too dependent on the actual parking spot, they WILL PERFORM WORSE, this is out of the question.
Since what you call the "problem" CAN be fixed with the parking customization anyway ( even easier, just make the parking spot bigger than 12 meters ), you won't gain anything if we simply removed the constraint in the SIM.CFG ( which, again, you can remove yourself, as I already showed ): you would STILL require tweaking the starting position or the parking radius to let the vehicle move more better.
--- Quote ---And so then given how prevalent this seems to be, wouldn't that be even MORE of a reason not to use it as a factor? If it's completely irrelevant and often incorrectly set then it's not a surprise that using parking radius causes issues. Given how easily demonstrable and common the issues are, it's amazing to me that you don't want to even admit they're issues, let alone fix them.
--- End quote ---
I really don't follow you. I gave you a precise, exact, number. You think it's reasonable to park something like an A330 or 787 in a parking that is too small for a 737 ?
--- Quote ---And so the issue still stands. After speaking with some people I know, literally everyone agreed that the tug should be chosen based on the aircraft type or weight - maximum parking radius has nothing to do with it.
--- End quote ---
As I've said already in my first post, the tug IS normally selected by airplane weight, that's the default. The only time it's based on the parking radius and you would find it inappropriate for the airplane type, in on those very small parking spots less than 12 mt of radius used with an heavy airplane.
--- Quote ---But hopefully this issue can now be resolved.
--- End quote ---
As I've said, several times already, there's no issue to be "resolved" because:
- the "problem" is caused ONLY when you try to park a large airplane in a parking smaller than 12 mt.
- the "problem" can be easily fixed in TWO ways:
1) acting on the parking radius, which is what you should probably do ANYWAY (even if we allowed larger vehicles there), to give the tug better approach paths, and this is of course the more realistic approach, since in real life each parking spot is different.
OR
2) acting on the SIM.CFG of the tug, which will "fix" the non-existing "problem" GLOBALLY, if you don't want to customize the parking size. Of course, doing this, you will have proof of what I said, that larger vehicles will move worse than smaller ones on such small parking ( now free to use for every tug ), so you'll find you WILL have to use method #1 anyway...
Sholay:
Guys,
Let me tell you this - and this is not a sarcasm, really.
I love this discussion, I learned a lot from it.
Thanks for keeping it to the point, very informative.
&
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version