Docking Systems Spawn at Wrong Height

[virtuali]

Please, you tell me "that doesn't happen". You've got great support etiquette that you blame the users and it can never be GSX's fault.

Of course it doesnì't happen here, but that doesn't auto-magically mean it's YOUR fault. Fact is not GSX fault (it clearly isn't, otherwise it would happen in MSFS 2020 as well), doesn't mean it's YOUR fault either. You just can't accept the simulator HAS issues?

[davidcherrie]

The amount of times you tell users that "it can't happen", "no one else has reported it", "no that is not GSX fault" all when they are reporting a problem is severely condescending.

[davidcherrie]

The 3.5.3 update now has the docking systems spawning on the ground in 2024... And no it is not the profile.

[virtuali]

The 3.5.3 update now has the docking systems spawning on the ground in 2024... And no it is not the profile.

I can say the way it "doesn't happen here". In a way, it does happen, but surely not as severe as in your screenshot. Yes, I can replicate a very small difference in height in some airports (FSDT LSZH), the STATIC docking system is created a few centimeters below the normal height, but it gets immediately correct as soon you open the GSX menu.

When debugging this, to fix the problem with the fonts going up/down which is now fixed and you completely ignored, the real reason is that MSFS 2024 is reporting the ground height to be continuously changing for a few seconds *after* the flight loads. As in: if we read the ground altitude for 3-4 times in a row, we get different values each time.

With the font, the problem was fixed because we could just re-read the altitude again and clear the screen before drawing any text, but with the static is a bit more difficult, because the static is supposed to be there *before* you even start a flight so, even in the best possible case we might improve on that, you would STILL see the static docking jumping in place as the flight starts.

And guess what, that is exactly what default ground vehicles do (with no GSX involved) when you start a flight! They jump up/down but, because they have a physics and ground contact points, they jump and then settle down on ground. The static docking system is static, so it just stays there until is replaced by the dynamic one.

So again, we'll try to improve this because, I always saw very small differences so it looked tolerable, I never seen such big difference. And no, the 3.5.3 update hasn't changed ANYTHING in the way the STATIC docking system is created, the fix you decided to not noticed was JUST about the TEXT, this would have happened even before the update.

We'll obviously look into this separate issue, of course.

[davidcherrie]

I hope you spend as much time looking into problems and fixing them than over explaining them. I don't care what you do, just make your program work properly and reliably.

[virtuali]

I hope you spend as much time looking into problems and fixing them than over explaining them

It's really striking how many factually wrong information you have been able to put in a single sentence, not even including the always condescending and tone. This sounds even more wrong after working for a whole month releasing a massive update with tons of new features AND fixed.

And no, I'm not the one programming GSX, I'm PART of the team and I'm not even the main programmer, but something has to explain things, that's why I "waste" my time explaining things, which doesn't seem to be appreciated.

So, I'll issue the standard "I'll forward this to the programmer", because this is what will really happen. There goes the urban legend that GSX is just me.

[davidcherrie]

Then you’re explaining things to the wrong person and explain it to the people who can actually do something about it. Don’t be like the Mathias Kok of FSDT.

[virtuali]

Then you’re explaining things to the wrong person and explain it to the people who can actually do something about it.

If you think you don't need or even deserve an explanation, why you posted here, which is precisely the place where you are SUPPOSED to obtain one. Without even mentioning your unfunded assumption this is not already being discussed with the team, but that's not your concern.

Your concern should have been obtaining an explanation, you got one, and you complained. I guess you would have complained in any case.

[davidcherrie]

I don't need an explanation, I'm not looking for an excuse. All I need is "Yep, we acknowledge the issue and will look into investigating it" as the same as any other bug I report anywhere else so that the issue can be fixed and the program works as intended.

Instead when reporting an issue here it feels like stepping into a boxing ring as if I'm touting some conspiracy theory and being gas lit.

[virtuali]

I don't need an explanation, I'm not looking for an excuse. All I need is "Yep, we acknowledge the issue and will look into investigating it" as the same as any other bug I report anywhere else so that the issue can be fixed and the program works as intended.

You are now complaining of having received a much better service and carefully articulated reply, instead of something that might have been generated by an AI bot.

Instead when reporting an issue here it feels like stepping into a boxing ring as if I'm touting some conspiracy theory and being gas lit.

That's exactly how I feel when you post something using that kind of attitude. Trash-in->Trash-out.

[davidcherrie]

Because you instantly dismiss it with ‘Doesn’t happen here. Must be something you’re doing wrong.’ It’s as if you’re taking a bug report as a critique to your work and then writing paragraphs explaining why it isn’t your fault or couldn’t happen when it has.

When anyone reports a bug, we just want it fixed and the acknowledgement you’re working on fixing it. If you’re not sure why it is happening then ask more questions. My experience in technical support is always assume something is broken for everyone then if it isn’t, triage why some users are experiencing it and some aren’t.

[virtuali]

Because you instantly dismiss it with ‘Doesn’t happen here.

Wrong, again. I said exactly the opposite about THIS issue you are reporting now, I said it happens, but I never seen that much difference.

You are confusing with the OTHER issue you reported when you open this thread, which was TWO docking systems together. THAT I could never reproduce and I still can't, but the current update should have fix that, because instead of "just" sending the VGDS underground, we are now also moving it away entirely so, not only you are wrong about me saying "doesn't happen here" as a way to "dismiss" a report, but the current update should have proven to you that your issue HAS been taken care of.

Do you still have double VGDS now ?

[davidcherrie]

I haven’t even completed my first flight yet after updating GSX and this is the first thing I saw with it sitting on the ground and the pink missing textures over every ground vehicle. I didn’t get to surveying the area to see if there was another several metres because I was more preoccupied with documenting it.

[virtuali]

I didn’t get to surveying the area to see if there was another several metres because I was more preoccupied with documenting it.

So you are now hinting that when I said the double VGDS has been fixed, I'm not trustworthy because it can still happen and you just haven't checked ? Your rudeness (you even call me "liar" in the other thread) is beyond reproach.

[virtuali]

So I'll ask again:

- Do you still have double VGDS ? Try WHEN YOU HAVE TIME

- Do you still have text out of place ? Try WHEN YOU HAVE TIME.