FSDreamTeam forum
Products Support => GSX Support MSFS => Topic started by: virtuali on September 22, 2022, 01:35:28 pm
-
This post will contain what to expect in the next updates. It won't include the normal bugfixes, only the main new features which are planned for the next major update:
Use of the new Navdata API that came with SU10
This feature has been now added as a "PUBLIC BETA" with the GSX October 17th Update.
New Fueling vehicles for airplanes with lower wings like the 737 or the MD80
There will be a completely new animation, with the refueling crew using the Fuel cable roller to connect to the airplane refueling point, not using a raised platform, but either a small ladder, or just by standing if the wing is low enough. Both Fuel Hydrants and Fuel Tankers will be updated with this new animation.
A proper VR/Dual Screen mode for the GSX menu
It will be possible to "pin" the menu, leaving it always open, which will be useful in VR or when undocking to a different monitor.
Ability to specify the Jetway floor height in the GSX Airport profile
The Jetway root floor height is data that doesn't exists in the SDK, it's only included in the GSX jetways and in a small internal database of 3rd party Jetway models. Currently, if a jetway model in a 3rd party scenery is not found in that database, GSX will use a default height of 4.60 meters from ground, which might result in passengers walking either too high or too low, if the actual floor is on a different height.
The update will add a Jetway tab page to the scenery customization dialog, where all different models found in a 3rd party scenery will be listed, so their height can be specified precisely, and saved in the airport profile. Only one number for each different Jetway model used by the scenery is required, not for every gate.
-
Thank you very much Umberto for these upcoming updates to this awesome GSX experience. I am relatively new to GSX in flight simuluations and am enjoying every bit of its features and animations. The various audio of the ground crew with regional accents are so realistic and always a joy to listen.
Athena Grey
-
Sounds very good thanks for this roadmap. Always interesting to know what's in the pipeline
-
Thank you for the roadmap, looking forward to these QoL and feature updates!
Not sure if this is the right place, but would love to see push/pull configuration for the pushback tugs if possible. Love the ability to define custom-pathing for pushback but hoping it can be taken a step further to allow the tug to pull the plane as well as push. This would be particularly useful at airports like VHHH where PUSHBACK GREEN procedures requires aircraft to push, then be pulled forward to a set position to avoid blocking other gates.
You can currently already define this in GSX Pro with custom pushback, however the animation for it breaks as when the tug needs to pull the aircraft forward, it either flips itself 180 degrees such that the tug is sitting below the aircraft, pushing it forward, OR sometimes it flips the aircraft entirely 180 degrees on the spot to push it to the final position. So would love to see push/pull implemented if possible. :)
-
Great to see what you're planning for Umberto, thanks for sharing!
First a comment on the VR part. Tonight, I reinstalled GSX PRO after having done some upgrades to my PC and got myself a new VR headset. One thing I noticed in VR was how opening the GSX Settings screen will cause issues. Which I understand since doing so will open a normal Windows window. Which won't be seen inside VR in MSFS. The issue though was how doing so caused GSX PRO to end up in an endless 'Loading...' loop. Where I couldn't manage to bring up any menus again without restarting Coutl.
The simple solution of course is to avoid using the settings screen when you're in VR but still wanted to mention the result doing so. Maybe if possible, you could add something that would block the possibility opening the settings screen when called from inside VR. Where the user would receive a simple message telling them to only use the settings screen in 2D mode.
Speaking of messages. Is there any way messages could also be received in VR?
Reason for my question is how I tonight when playing around noticed that sometimes when GSX is waiting for you to do something. Where you get a text message when in 2D mode telling you what to do, this can be a bit tricky in VR. Where you don't see this text message from GSX. Meaning you'll have to guess/learn what GSX is waiting for during certain phases of operation. Which of course can be a bit tricky. I know I've seen some of these messages directly in the GSX menu but it seems like some of the messages won't show up in the menu. Only as a text band in the upper part of the screen in 2D mode.
Lastly, when it comes to PAX number which can be read from SimBrief, would it be a hard thing for you to code GSX to use the number of PAX from SimBrief when showing the animations of PAX boarding/deboarding? Instead of using the slider on the GSX settings screen where you can only choose from various estimates such as Normal, High etc if I recall correctly. Or maybe this is how it already works? Where the number of people walking through the jetway or to/from the bus will match the PAX number from the SimBrief OFP?
-
The simple solution of course is to avoid using the settings screen when you're in VR but still wanted to mention the result doing so. Maybe if possible, you could add something that would block the possibility opening the settings screen when called from inside VR. Where the user would receive a simple message telling them to only use the settings screen in 2D mode.
That would be the only option, since all the 2D dialogs for the settings page use a different kind of API ( wxWindows ), which can't be used in VR.
Speaking of messages. Is there any way messages could also be received in VR?
We are looking into this. Keep in mind, none of this has any official documentation, it's all a bit of trial and error.
Lastly, when it comes to PAX number which can be read from SimBrief, would it be a hard thing for you to code GSX to use the number of PAX from SimBrief when showing the animations of PAX boarding/deboarding? Instead of using the slider on the GSX settings screen where you can only choose from various estimates such as Normal, High etc if I recall correctly. Or maybe this is how it already works?
It's already like this. The Passenger density doesn't have any effect on the overall number of passengers, which is always taken either from the Payload or from SimBrief. The only thing the density slider controls, is the time distance between the generation of each passengers, resulting in a more dense crowd and less boarding time.
-
Fully understood, will keep my fingers crossed you'll find a good way for handling some of these things in VR. I would be happy to help you out with testing if needed, just let me know.
Thanks for the clarification around the PAX count. That is so cool your actual number of PAX from SimBrief is reflected in the animation of PAX!
-
Hi Umberto,
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways! This would be greatly appreciated as opposed to needing to disable rear stairs at EACH AIRPORT you fly into...this is a highly desirable 'addition' and would seem easily programmed? Just add a tickbox to the customize airports page?
Applause on a very very nice product - GSX Pro really is 'professional'!!
Cheers!
-
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways!
In most of the world, except for the US, the rear staircase is used for the cabin cleaning crew. Passengers won't use it if there's a jetway.
-
Any chance the passengers (as well as the cabin crew and the pilots) could be made visible when they're in the bus?
The way it is now where the bus looks completely empty when it pulls up by the aircraft, followed by lots of people poring out of the bus looks a bit weird. You kind of wonder where all those people came from when the bus was completely empty seconds earlier when you looked :)
-
Any chance the passengers (as well as the cabin crew and the pilots) could be made visible when they're in the bus?
They already are.
The way it is now where the bus looks completely empty when it pulls up by the aircraft, followed by lots of people poring out of the bus looks a bit weird.
That's not the way it is now. The bus does fill up progressively.
-
OK, so I wonder if that means I'm not on the latest version because when I've looked into the bus when it's arriving with passengers, it has been completely empty. Then when it stops and you look inside the bus, you see how passenger by passenger suddenly appear out of thin air just inside the doors and then they step out of the bus.
-
OK, so I wonder if that means I'm not on the latest version
The passenger bus fills up progressively since the first release. Are you sure you are just not seeing the passengers because of their LOD levels being too short, possibly because you are in VR ?
-
Could be, will try to increase the VR LOD a bit more.
-
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways!
In most of the world, except for the US, the rear staircase is used for the cabin cleaning crew. Passengers won't use it if there's a jetway.
I take your point here, but I have several airports where the rear stairs are used at aerobridges/jetways, for pax seated in rows 15 and beyond, to speed up boarding. The only pax waypoints I cannot seem to get right are for this very purpose - jetway at Door 1L and airstairs at 2L. Is there a way to get pax to board/deboard using both of these? Thanks
-
Hello
Any plans to correct the marshaller's message "left is clear, right is clear" while still being at the nose wheel removing the gear pin?
and also his/her incorrect position to show the pin to the crew (being on the opposite side of the pushback route so then having to walk in front of the aircraft)?
-
Hi Umberto
I have a problem with Jetways not quite reaching the aircraft and stopping short so consequently passengers walk in mid air for a short period till they reach the aircraft. This even happend on my payware airports, and before you ask, yes i've excluided the payware airport jetways in the configurator.
Is this due to be fixed with an update or is there anything i can do to fix it. We could actually do with a jetway editor in gsx pro like that which is in gsx level 2 for p3d.
Thanks
-
I have a problem with Jetways not quite reaching the aircraft and stopping short so consequently passengers walk in mid air for a short period till they reach the aircraft. This even happend on my payware airports, and before you ask, yes i've excluided the payware airport jetways in the configurator.
Since it happens with 3rd party jetways too ( it happens with default airports with default jetways ), it indicates GSX cannot possibly have anything to do with GSX, and it's a know limitation of the default Jetways animations system, which can happen even with default jetways on default airport. Fact you call a jetway from the GSX menu doesn't change how the jetway would work, since the only thing GSX does to call a jetway, is just sending the standard Jetway Trigger command, without any involvement how the jetway works ( or not ).
While it's entirely normal that a jetway might not work on a certain combination of airplane, jetway model and placement and parking position, the real problem is there's no way for GSX to KNOW where a jetway docked, or if it has docked partially, nothing in the SDK allows that, so GSX can only assume it has docked correctly, and will generate passengers based on that assumption so, in a way, when you see passengers "walking in the air", passengers are the only thing working in that scene, because the real issue is the jetway docked incorrectly, with no way for GSX to know that.
The only thing you can do, from GSX, is customize the STOP position, to ensure the airplane will end up in a place where the jetway would work and, since the Stop position is relative to the airplane Preferred Exit ( different planes will stop with their own Preferred Exit in the same position ), you can "reasonably" sure if it works for an airplane, it should work with many others. That's why there's a Jetway TEST function in the Parking editor ( NumPad5 while editing the Parking Position ).
-
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways!
In most of the world, except for the US, the rear staircase is used for the cabin cleaning crew. Passengers won't use it if there's a jetway.
Since I fly ONLY in the USA, it would be very helpful if you would consider adding a tickbox to the GSX setup to "disable rear stairs" entirely, please and thank you very much. In USA, I have never seen them use a rear stairs at an airport that had jetways (as you correctly state). So therefore we who fly only in USA are left with having to disable rear stairs by editing each and every airport we fly to... which is not convenient and a huge consumer of time, whereas from a programming standpoint seems quite simple to do? Thank you Umberto.
-
please add an option for the quick edit pushback function to activate push only when i need not when i push enter to confirm the pushback route. thanks
-
please add an option for the quick edit pushback function to activate push only when i need not when i push enter to confirm the pushback route. thanks
You can already achieve that by creating a custom Pushback slot, which is edited exactly like a QuickEdit pushback, but when you press Enter, it will only saved, not performed.
-
One thing I would like to see is a "Back" button/option in the parking facility menu. When you have picked one category, there's no way for you to go back picking another category in the main menu as I can see. Other than picking a parking you don't want, then cancel that one and start over.
Would be really nice to instead have the option to go back to the previous menu without first having to select some other gate/parking.
This is the menu I'm referring to
https://i.imgur.com/xSlTos5.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/xSlTos5.jpg)
-
Other than picking a parking you don't want, then cancel that one and start over.
You don't have to do that. Just press they menu Hotkey twice, which will close the menu and reopen it, without this resulting in a parking you don't want being selected.
-
Ah, perfect! Will try that on next flight.
-
How about a Push and Pull feature during Pushback ;)
-
Hi everyone,
iam experiencing the issue, that the GSX Boarding in MSFS and P3D only starts if I do press the ESC Button :/ In MSFS when I do the Pushback in the Fenix A320 sometimes I get a Stall Warning and after that the plane crashes ^^....
All the best and take care.
-
iam experiencing the issue, that the GSX Boarding in MSFS and P3D only starts if I do press the ESC Button :/ In MSFS when I do the Pushback in the Fenix A320 sometimes I get a Stall Warning and after that the plane crashes ^^....
I remind you this is not a bug report thread, it's an indication of future new features.
-
What about the File options glitch?
-
What about the File options glitch?
Please clarify what you are referring to.
-
It would be great if we could create a pushback slot directly when we ask for pushback, not having to go through the airport customization menu, it would improve the flow. Especially these days with the quick edit pushback not working sometimes.
-
It would be great if we could create a pushback slot directly when we ask for pushback, not having to go through the airport customization menu, it would improve the flow.
That's exactly how it is right now. When you perform a QuickEdit pushback it will be automatically saved on the QuickEdit slow for that parking position.
Especially these days with the quick edit pushback not working sometimes.
I still unable to replicate this problem, QuickEdit works just fine and works exactly like having already created a Custom pushback slot beforehand.
Users reporting it say they don't have the pushback "dots" removed automatically and, since that code is IDENTICAL ( it's not a "copy" it is executing the SAME code ) to the Custom Pushback slot editing, I suspect the issue must be caused by too much traffic over Simconnect during Pushback that is not happening when editing the slot.
The appearance of new AI products that do AI injection and the reports of the sim possibly having a maximum number of objects visible at any given time, seems to confirm this so, it's nothing we have much control over it, since our code surely does ask the sim to remove all objects created during QuickEdit, which is the same code that runs when editing the slot from the editor.
-
I’m not sure it’s related to AI traffic, it happened to me yesterday in a small airport (LFLL Digital design) without any traffic (both traffic and ground aircrafts disabled in sim) and was not using any injector.
The dots stayed and push didn’t start.
Never had this issue before few days ago.
-
Never had this issue before few days ago.
Last GSX update was Oct. 5th, that is 12 days ago, and that update also didn't changed anything related to Pushback.
-
Yes I understand and don’t want to say it’s on your end.
Just trying to understand what could be the issue, maybe related to a change with SU10. And I’m willing to provide any informations that could help, as I find your pushback being a great tool, and don’t want to revert to manual pushback.
But to be honest I did the last update few days ago.
-
What about the File options glitch?
Please clarify what you are referring to.
-
Hello Umberto,
Would it please be possible to add an option to remove the nose wheel pin in the event that GSX crashes during pushback? Currently, you need to restart the flight completely or figure out how to get the airplane back to a gate and shutdown the engines and restart the process. Could a "remove noshweel pin" option be added even if it has no graphical representation?
Thank you.
-
Would it please be possible to add an option to remove the nose wheel pin in the event that GSX crashes during pushback? Currently, you need to restart the flight completely or figure out how to get the airplane back to a gate and shutdown the engines and restart the process
There's no need to do anything like that. It's not clear what do you mean with "GSX crashes" ( with an error ? If yes, which one ? ) but, regardless how it crashed, you don't have to restart the flight, just restart the couatl program from its Try bar icon, and:
- When the previous GSX session disconnects from the simulator, all the objects created by it will always be automatically removed by the sim itself, which includes the bypass pin.
- When the program restart, no status from the previous session is saved, which means even if the airplane was frozen by the pushback in the previous session, it would be freed up, just as if you started anew.
- There's no need to restart the flight because, if the program happened when the airplane was already outside the parking spot, on the next restart you'll be presented with the parking selection menu, so you can Warp the airplane on any parking, and redo the pushback if you want, or just stay there and continue taxiing from there.
-
One thing I would like to see is having the marschaller wait to announce clear left and right until he/she is in position and showing the bypass pin. Also for the marschaller to be on the right side of the aircraft to avoid walking in front of the aircraft once having waved the aircraft off.
I think this was mentioned before but I can't recall seeing a reply to this request.
-
One thing I would like to see is having the marschaller wait to announce clear left and right until he/she is in position and showing the bypass pin. Also for the marschaller to be on the right side of the aircraft to avoid walking in front of the aircraft once having waved the aircraft off.
I think this was mentioned before but I can't recall seeing a reply to this request.
Noticed the big update released yesterday in perfect timing with SU11 with lots of great fixes as well as some new stuff in there. Reading through the release notes though, I didn't see anything mentioned about this one. Which IMO is a quite serious miss with ground crew walking in front of an aircraft which has already been waved off by the ground crew. In the same way, it also feels odd how the ground crew announce you are clear left and right when they are still not in position to do so.
@virtuali Can you please confirm if you have this one on your to-do list?
-
@virtuali Can you please confirm if you have this one on your to-do list?
Yes, of course.
It's just we need to prioritize bugfixes, usability and compatibility, before adding anything new procedurally that really doesn't affect the program workflow, especially in this case, where a service ended, so it's not as if the rest of the flight or even GSX usage would be affected in any way by this.
-
Yes, of course.
It's just we need to prioritize bugfixes, usability and compatibility, before adding anything new procedurally that really doesn't affect the program workflow, especially in this case, where a service ended, so it's not as if the rest of the flight or even GSX usage would be affected in any way by this.
Thanks for confirming.
Even when this doesn't affect the usage of GSX, it does affect the flight if you want to make it as realistic as possible. Hence my concern since I like to keep things as realistic as possible when flying.
Looking forward to have this addressed whenever you find time for it 👍
-
On the subject of Crew, would it be possible in a future update to be able to select the amount of crew and pilots? For example a Boeing 777-300ER has 12 cabin crew and the A320N has 4 cabin crew. Would love to see the correct amount loaded as per aircraft.
I think I have seen somewhere that you can edit the amount of crew within the program files, however this is a permanent change.
Maybe this can be done within the Airplane Customization options?
-
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways!
In most of the world, except for the US, the rear staircase is used for the cabin cleaning crew. Passengers won't use it if there's a jetway.
One more time, I am requesting you give consideration to the MANY sim pilots who fly 'exclusively' in the US- why not add a checkbox in settings to 'always disable rear stairs' at any airport that has jetways? That way you give everyone a chance to enjoy 'true to life' realism for the AIRSPACE THEY FLY IN (USA). I'm sure the rest of the world pilots won't mind if you add a checkbox to disable the rear stairs. And all of your USA customers who fly commercial jetliners in the US will be thrilled to have this done with for our entire country! THANK YOU for considering this, Umberto! Happy holidays!
-
One more time, I am requesting you give consideration to the MANY sim pilots who fly 'exclusively' in the US- why not add a checkbox in settings to 'always disable rear stairs' at any airport that has jetways?
As you can see from the huge release notes, with weekly updates and sometimes by-weekly updates, each and every suggestions that make sense will usually end up in an update, but we cannot anticipate exactly when.
-
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways!
In most of the world, except for the US, the rear staircase is used for the cabin cleaning crew. Passengers won't use it if there's a jetway.
Again, you are missing my point. I fly EXCLUSIVELY in the US. So why penalize me and force me to edit each and every airport in USA that I fly into or out of, just to get rid of the rear stairs which ARE NEVER USED IN USA airports that have jetways! I feel like you are dodging the issue... and ignoring a large number of flight sim pilots! WHY NOT respond with an 'improvement' to help USA sim pilots make GSX more true-to-life without a lot of editing on OUR PART????? PLEASE??? Please ADD the requested checkbox in GSX settings to permit us to simply 'shut off' the rear stairs globally??? PLEASE???
-
Just remove the rear door from the airplane config, no stairs will come.
-
Hello Umberto,
Thanks for making sure the marschaller walks to the correct side of the aircraft after pushback.
Will you also be able to fix so they don't clear you left and right while still being at the nose wheel but wait until they have walked away from the aircraft?
-
Again, you are missing my point. I fly EXCLUSIVELY in the US. So why penalize me and force me to edit each and every airport in USA that I fly into or out of, just to get rid of the rear stairs which ARE NEVER USED IN USA airports that have jetways!
You are penalized in your desire to use of GSX by refusing to customize the airport, in ways far more important than the purely visual appearance of a rear staircase that won't even be used by passengers.
And even if you don't want to customize airport yourself (which if you are ONLY interested in removing the rear stairs, takes just 3 clicks), so you are only an user of pre-made profiles, if the rear staircases are really such a big problem for profile creators as it seems to be for you, I'm sure they would already configured the gates as such.
But that's besides the point. My point was JUST to try to make you understand that, customizing ( or using a custom profile ), will enhance how GSX works in ways FAR more important than that nitpicky rear-stairs feature, so it's just wrong saying you are "penalized", for something you are supposed to do anyway, if you really want to use GSX as its best.
Having made my point, it should have been clear from my last reply this feature HAS been taken into consideration:
As you can see from the huge release notes, with weekly updates and sometimes by-weekly updates, each and every suggestion that make sense will usually end up in an update, but we cannot anticipate exactly when.
So why you took an earlier post to say I'm "missing" some kind of point ?
This feature, as my LAST previous post say, WILL be included in an update and, the only thing that has changed, is that now we can even say WHEN: in the next update that will be out before the weekend. The option is already there, we are testing it.
-
WAIT FOR THE CAPTAIN ;)
I am soo happy with GSX Pro an enjoying the experience it creates..
I have request that I see others have put, and I like to post it here to..
Because maybe its forgotten.
And that is when boarding is finished, the doors are closed and stairs removed.. That's no good..
Then I have to restart GSX Pro and operate stairs for keeping up to speed with the captain who doesn't want to keep up to speed with the GSX boarding.
A310 and Fenix A320 has a lot of paperwork and both GSX Pro, SLC and passengers have to wait... for the captain
Thank you again Umberto for this addon which give life to the sim, all these fascinating textures vehicles for companies in all the airports and the movements of staff and passengers, and thank you for GSX in the sims through the years. I have been on the journey all the GSX way.
I wish you & yours and fellow simmers also these wonderful persons who makes all these GSX profiles <3
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Julean
-
And that is when boarding is finished, the doors are closed and stairs removed.. That's no good.. Then I have to restart GSX Pro and operate stairs for keeping up to speed with the captain who doesn't want to keep up to speed with the GSX boarding.
I don't know which kind of situation you are describing.
When you select Boarding, either the Pilots are the FIRST one to get on board before anybody else, if you agreed to them boarding the airplane in the menu that asked you that, or there will be no Pilots at all. I can't see how's possible the Pilots or Crew could end up boarding after the passengers.
-
Sorry that's not what I meant..
When the boarding is finished the stairs are removed,
..... before the captain (that's me) is ready to push back.
I suggest stairs can only be removed through
"Operate Stairs" or
"Prepare for departure..."
not by "boarding complete" unless chosen..
All the best
Julean
-
Just out of interest, why would you want to have the stairs connected after the boarding has finished and you're just waiting to perform pushback?
-
Exactly. No need to change the stairs behavior as it is now. Thanks.
-
Yes!!.. Still paperwork to do... ;)
-
Is there a chance that there will be an option to have baggage loaded manually, direct from a small cart into the hold of, say, a DHC6 or Islander? I'm sure I'm not alone in doing a lot of short-hop flights with these aircraft.
The conveyor belt is not suitable and blocks the entry door. If I specify 'none' for loader type, then the baggage train stops for a few moments (for each trolley) then speeds off with the baggage still on! And anyway contains much too much baggage for an aircraft taking 19 passengers max.
Your animations (especially fitting the pushback bar) are so good that it would seem possible to have the baggage handler lift the cases directly into the cargo hatch. After all, he already lifts them onto the end of the conveyor belt.
And while you're there(!) perhaps passengers could be made to duck their heads as they enter aircraft such as these, instead of being decapitated as they enter standing bolt upright. Just a thought.
Cheers, and Merry Christmas.
-
Is there a chance that there will be an option to have baggage loaded manually, direct from a small cart into the hold of, say, a DHC6 or Islander? I'm sure I'm not alone in doing a lot of short-hop flights with these aircraft.
The whole GA/small planes world will require a completely new set of characters, animations and procedure that might possibly justify a possible separate add-on, possibly an expansion for GSX.
-
OK, thanks for that. I suspect there will be many who would look forward to being able to apply GSX to the world of smaller aircraft in a realistic way.
-
re: adding a checkbox to turn off rear stairs 'globally'...
Quoting Virtualli's response:
This feature, as my LAST previous post say, WILL be included in an update and, the only thing that has changed, is that now we can even say WHEN: in the next update that will be out before the weekend. The option is already there, we are testing it.
**Thank you Umberto!** soooo grateful!! **
-
Sorry that's not what I meant..
When the boarding is finished the stairs are removed,
..... before the captain (that's me) is ready to push back.
I suggest stairs can only be removed through
"Operate Stairs" or
"Prepare for departure..."
not by "boarding complete" unless chosen..
All the best
Julean
Julean, how are you loading the Fenix?
I wait until GSX completely finishes boarding and then I use the EFB to do an "instant" load in the Fenix. It pops up its own message that boarding is complete. I click "Dismiss" to stop it from doing anything else.
The 2nd thing to look at is that there is an option in the Fenix EFB to disable automatic jetways. I'm in the middle of a flight in the PMDG 737 at the moment so I can't look to tell you exactly where to look for it but it is in the Fenix options or settings somewhere. I think the Fenix boarding sequence might be removing the jetway, not GSX. For me, GSX always waits until I start pushback before the jetway moves.
-
I know I have asked previously if we could decouple boarding/deboarding pax and bags, which you said would be complicated.
However I have since discovered a situation where this is really important - when performing a refuelling stop, and you let the pax off but there's no point in unloading bags just to load them again.
Would it be possible to have an option not to load bags at all - similar to how you have an option not to board crew?
-
Would it be possible to have an option not to load bags at all - similar to how you have an option not to board crew?
That's more feasible and less potentially disrupting ( = possible bugs ) than a complete division of Boarding/Deboarding into separate services.
-
Hi Umberto,
Just a small nit picky question - is there any plans to have 2 buses pull up when deboarding/boarding to speed up the boarding process on remote stands?
Thanks,
Greg
-
Hello, unless I missed something, the other day I was using GSX Pro with the PMDG 737-800 cargo and if everything looks realistic with the main cargo door loaders and containers, the belt loaders on the right side of the aircraft were loading suitcases, just like the pax aircrafts.
For more realism, is there a way to make the loaders loads small parcels instead of suitcases when we use a cargo aircraft?
Thanks
-
Sorry to keep asking, but is this possible?
On the subject of Crew, would it be possible in a future update to be able to select the amount of crew and pilots? For example a Boeing 777-300ER has 12 cabin crew and the A320N has 4 cabin crew. Would love to see the correct amount loaded as per aircraft.
I think I have seen somewhere that you can edit the amount of crew within the program files, however this is a permanent change.
Maybe this can be done within the Airplane Customization options?
-
Is the updated fueling animation for the 737 still scheduled? For some time now the tanker has been animated correctly but there is no hydrant (just a fuel truck driving up and sitting there)
thanks
-
Hi Humberto
Great news. Thank you very much !!
A query,
In all the paid airports that I have installed, the boarding gates do not match the gsx gates. Is there a possibility to correct this?
thanks
Luciano
-
A query, In all the paid airports that I have installed, the boarding gates do not match the gsx gates. Is there a possibility to correct this?
This surely doesn't happen but, instead of posting in a "Roadmap" thread, you should open a new thread, with a proper title, so not only we can explain why something that doesn't happen might happen to you, but also other people in the future will have an easier time locating the post, with the help of a proper title.
-
Ok. I´ll do that.
I´m sorry
-
first off, love GSX. I have used it since it 1st came out with P3Dv4 and now MSFS. A couple things could be improved though. Having tugs and other equipment parked on taxiways leads to me having to go into the rough at times, also boarding could be improved. I get the same amount of luggage whether I'm flying a 320 or smaller regional jet. I avoid using it with smaller planes at the moment. thanks for your continued product development
Craig
-
Is the updated fueling animation for the 737 still scheduled? For some time now the tanker has been animated correctly but there is no hydrant (just a fuel truck driving up and sitting there)
thanks
Yep, I'm hanging out for this as well. If nothing else it's hard to tell that refuelling has actually commenced - but with the animation you can see clearly by that.
I'm sure it's coming. Soon, hopefully.
-
I'm sure it's coming. Soon, hopefully.
Of course it's coming, and it won't just be a "refueling for a 737", it will cover a vast range of airplanes, with refueling points under the wing between about 1.80 mt. to 3.40 mt. from ground, and because of this it's quite a bit of work, since we'll have several new vehicles, each one with a different animation, to cover different cases:
- A Fuel Hydrant if underground refueling is available, for refueling points ranging from about 2.50 mt. to 3.40 mt from ground, with the crew using a stairstep ladder to reach the wing
- A Fuel Hydrant for refueling points ranging from about 1.80 to 2.50 mt from ground, which can be reached without a ladder.
- A Fuel Tanker when no underground refueling is available, with a different crew using a ladder.
- A Fuel Tanker which can be reached without a ladder.
All vehicles will have animations showing the crew unrolling the big cable sprocket, instead of using the raising platform.
However, before the Refuel update, we'll release the 2nd step of the recent "Deicing Update", which will add the visual editor for custom Deicing areas, which is highly requested by GSX profile creators and will make it easier for anybody to create custom deicing pads.
-
Would it also be possible for the fuel truck or fuel equipment to have a sort of "staging spot" near the gate that it goes to if you call it while other services would otherwise block it? It would save a lot of time if it could drive up to the gate and wait off to the side while the baggage loaders are in the way instead of waiting to even start driving over until they're gone.
-
Would it also be possible for the fuel truck or fuel equipment to have a sort of "staging spot" near the gate that it goes to if you call it while other services would otherwise block it?
That's exactly how it works now, when there are already other vehicles performing something (usually baggage loading) when the truck arrives.
-
I think I asked this before but any chance you could add an option to avoid having the question whether you would like to board/deboard crew and pilots on every flight?
Having a checkbox called something like 'No crew/pilot boarding/deboarding question' would be awesome!
-
Having a checkbox called something like 'No crew/pilot boarding/deboarding question' would be awesome!
A checkbox won't be very useful because, assuming we removed the question, what should be doing by default ? Boarding everybody, just the pilots, just the crew, nobody ?
I'm fairly sure that, regardless which option we chose to be default, there will always be somebody not liking the default so, I'm fairly sure that, instead of a checkbox, we'll have to do something like a multi-choice selectable "default answer".
-
I was thinking it could be just the way it is now. Meaning those who like it the way it is now don't need to do anything. While those who don't want this question can simply tick the box.
Don't you think that would work?
-
While those who don't want this question can simply tick the box.
You are still missing the point. What GSX should then do with the pilots and crew, when the option to skip the question is selected ?
- Before this was even a problem ( it never was in years ), GSX always boarded/deboarded everybody.
- Then users complained they didn't want to wait for pilots/crew to arrive or they are simulating a turnaround, so we added the question.
- Now even the question seem too much so, again, what should be doing, revert to always board/deboard everybody, as it always was in years ?
How many seconds you'll think will pass after such change, that will see users asking for things like:
"I'm annoyed by the question, but I always board pilots, but not the crew"
"I'm annoyed by the question, but I always board the crew, but not the pilots"
"I'm annoyed by the question, and I only want to board passengers"
See how just an "Yes/No" option wouldn't really work, for something that is INHERENTLY a 4-ways choice ?
-
No, I don't think I'm missing the point but I fear maybe you are.
When the option would be ticked, GSX Pro would do the same thing with the pilots and crew as it already does today when you select 'Nobody'. Meaning it won't simulate them boarding/deboarding but only simulate the passengers boarding/deboarding.
Again, this way those who like to have the possibility to choose if the pilots and/or crew should board/deboard would simply leave the suggested option unticked. All fine. Where those of us who find it a bit annoying having this question on every flight could tick the box and by doing so, only have the passengers boarding/deboarding.
-
While those who don't want this question can simply tick the box.
You are still missing the point. What GSX should then do with the pilots and crew, when the option to skip the question is selected ?
- Before this was even a problem ( it never was in years ), GSX always boarded/deboarded everybody.
- Then users complained they didn't want to wait for pilots/crew to arrive or they are simulating a turnaround, so we added the question.
- Now even the question seem too much so, again, what should be doing, revert to always board/deboard everybody, as it always was in years ?
How many seconds you'll think will pass after such change, that will see users asking for things like:
"I'm annoyed by the question, but I always board pilots, but not the crew"
"I'm annoyed by the question, but I always board the crew, but not the pilots"
"I'm annoyed by the question, and I only want to board passengers"
See how just an "Yes/No" option wouldn't really work, for something that is INHERENTLY a 4-ways choice ?
Perhaps something simple when first using GSX at an airport (could be done when selecting a parking spot), the user selects a profile
-Single flight (full boarding / deboarding)
-Turnaround (boarding / deboarding of pax & bags only)
-Fuel Stop (boarding / deboarding of pax only)
And have a global option to disable the prompt, so users can just get full boarding every time if they like without questions.
-
No, I don't think I'm missing the point but I fear maybe you are.
I obviously haven't, but it really seems you are. Or, more precisely, have failed to see what the likely complains about what you are suggesting would be.
When the option would be ticked, GSX Pro would do the same thing with the pilots and crew as it already does today when you select 'Nobody'. Meaning it won't simulate them boarding/deboarding but only simulate the passengers boarding/deboarding.
And again, who's deciding what would be the correct default action when the option to skip the menu is enabled ? BEFORE we had the questions, for years, GSX always boarded pilots and crew and there was no question.
So, if we disabled the question, logic would dictate we should go back to the previous behavior, which was boarding everybody with no question. But now you are instead suggesting a change which, again, makes my point that a YES/NO option wouldn't be enough, because everybody would want a different "default" behavior, if the question was to be skipped.
-
I fail to understand why you always have this urge to over-complicate things. Very often to not use the word always, what seems most important to you is to be right and have the last word. Regardless whether you're right or not.
I made a very simple suggestion which I think many of us would appreciate. With the risk of repeating myself, with the suggested box unticked (which would be the default), people would be able to choose exactly what the like. Just like it already is. However, for those of us who would like to skip the crew and pilots boarding part for turnaround flights or simply to save some time, we could tick this box. Meaning the passengers would board and deboard with no further questions asked. Simple as that.
Now give me that famous last word of yours Umberto, telling me how I'm wrong and you're right so we can end this debate and spend out valuable time on something more fruitful ;)
-
Now give me that famous last word of yours Umberto, telling me how I'm wrong and you're right so we can end this debate and spend out valuable time on something more fruitful
It would have been enough to re-read my post more carefully: it included all you need to read to understand it, so I'll copy it again: that's how users will say if we tried to do a YES/NO option like you suggested:
"I'm annoyed by the question, but I always board pilots, but not the crew"
"I'm annoyed by the question, but I always board the crew, but not the pilots"
"I'm annoyed by the question, and I only want to board passengers"
See how just an "Yes/No" option wouldn't really work, for something that is INHERENTLY a 4-ways choice ?
But that's besides the point. The point is: where, exactly, I said it would be a "problem" making a drop-down choice with 4 choices ? Have I said this would cause issues, or made up some kind of excuse about NOT doing it ? Where, exactly, have you read that from any of my replies ?
Yes, we can add the option, and yes, it WILL be a 4 choices, because IT IS the best choice, way better than just an YES/NO option like you suggested, without even realizing your suggestion that GSX should board "Nobody" in case it was deselected, which is exactly the opposite how GSX always worked when there was no question: that in itself should be ample evidence that a 4 way choice is the better option, since we couldn't even agree on what should be the default, when the question is skipped.
-
There we go and great to hear what is coming 👍
...and edited to add, what would have been enough would have been for you to say from start:
"That's a great suggestion Richard and you know what, I'll make it even better by adding multiple options. To cater for all needs. Thanks for your feedback and for using my product."
-
Two things I want to ask regarding the future of GSX Pro.
1.) Any plans to incorporate a feature to have the tugs tow your aircraft to your parking stand? I feel this is something that would be appreciated by many and can be possible already with the current pushback system.
2.) Any plans to make configurations to have GSX be more "business jet/GA friendly" for aircraft like the Citation Longitude, CJ4, Cessna 172/152's etc? Some things like out-of-the-box compatibility with aircrafts, (for the GA side of things) the options to only have pushback/towing for the 172/152, and maybe new things like limos/vans rather than a bus to load pax, loading bags via a single ground crew member/no baggage cart, etc would be very nice to see with GSX making it more dynamic and usable for more than just commercial/freighter jets.
-
1.) Any plans to incorporate a feature to have the tugs tow your aircraft to your parking stand? I feel this is something that would be appreciated by many and can be possible already with the current pushback system.
Of course. That was the 2nd most asked feature on GSX Creators Discord, after Remote Deicing so yes, we are fully aware is a requested feature.
However, this won't come before we'll have the chance to add all the upcoming additions to the SU12 Navdata API update, which will allow us to have a much better reliability whenever jetways and passengers are concerned. Since we expect SU12 Beta to start very soon, that will be the highest priority.
Next, as this Roadmap thread indicated, will be the extra Refueling trucks for airplanes with wings lower than 3.40 meters ( 737 and below ), which will also come before we'll ever look at the pushback Pull option, which is quite complex.
2.) Any plans to make configurations to have GSX be more "business jet/GA friendly" for aircraft like the Citation Longitude, CJ4, Cessna 172/152's etc? Some things like out-of-the-box compatibility with aircrafts, (for the GA side of things) the options to only have pushback/towing for the 172/152, and maybe new things like limos/vans rather than a bus to load pax, loading bags via a single ground crew member/no baggage cart, etc would be very nice to see with GSX making it more dynamic and usable for more than just commercial/freighter jets.
Yes, but I'm afraid to do it right, it might require a dedicated add-on, considering the huge amount of new characters animations required. In addition to new crew that would perform things like manual pushbacks pushing the wings on smaller GA planes, there's the issue of having to basically redo ALL passenger animations that are currently tailored for airliners.
-
Awesome, thanks for the update! I'll happily be ready to buy that new addon once it comes out :)
-
Ability to specify the Jetway floor height in the GSX Airport profile
The Jetway root floor height is data that doesn't exists in the SDK, it's only included in the GSX jetways and in a small internal database of 3rd party Jetway models. Currently, if a jetway model in a 3rd party scenery is not found in that database, GSX will use a default height of 4.60 meters from ground, which might result in passengers walking either too high or too low, if the actual floor is on a different height.
The update will add a Jetway tab page to the scenery customization dialog, where all different models found in a 3rd party scenery will be listed, so their height can be specified precisely, and saved in the airport profile. Only one number for each different Jetway model used by the scenery is required, not for every gate.
Any news on this? Cheers
-
Any news on this? Cheers
This feature has been there for a while, and there are many custom profiles that already use it.
-
How is the Plan of the possibility to manually add stands/ gate Like the deice stands but as normal gate:)
-
One thing I would love to see is possibility to use stairs in stands, that have jetways. Is that planned feature?
-
Please consider my request to add a "disable all stairs" GLOBAL option for entire world airports - why? For those simmers who fly tubeliner jets and park only at airports with jetways!
In most of the world, except for the US, the rear staircase is used for the cabin cleaning crew. Passengers won't use it if there's a jetway.
What about Australia? At many airports there, for more efficient turnarounds, the front door is used with a jetway while the rear door is used with stairs. Passengers walk towards a set of steps built into the terminal which connects to the bridge the jetway is attached to. (See attached images.)
-
How is the Plan of the possibility to manually add stands/ gate Like the deice stands but as normal gate
If you mean using GSX to fix mistake in sceneries, then no, it's not really feasible because, while Deicing pads could be added without necessary having to be connected to the rest of the taxiway layout, adding real parking spots would require to have them connected to the rest of the taxiway layout, otherwise almost nothing in GSX would work correctly: Pushback couldn't possibly work in automatic Left/Right mode, and all GSX vehicles that comes from some place, wouldn't be able to reach the airplane, that's why GSX doesn't allow to use an "Isolated" parking: if we allowed to create a parking without being able to add its connections to the rest of the taxiway network, we would end up with an Isolated parking.
Allowing for full taxiway layout editing, basically duplicating what the MSFS own DevMode editor, is really outside the scope of GSX and, in fact, if you really had to "fix" an existing scenery, even doing it from GSX wouldn't be much different, as workload is concerned, as doing it with the MSFS own DevMode.
-
Is it possible to add an option to separate interior (cockpit) and exterior (ambience) sounds by sound device? I have 2 sound cards and I can separate interior and exterior sounds using Voicemeteer. It's pretty cool, because for ATC (I use PF3 by oncourse), I can listen through my headphones, and for all other exterior sounds I use my main speakers. It increases the immersionby far.
Thanks
Enviado do meu Redmi Note 8 Pro através do Tapatalk
-
Is it possible to add an option to separate interior (cockpit) and exterior (ambience) sounds by sound device?
Yes, it's a planned feature, which we'll look into, after the most pressing issues will be done, which right now is adding support for the new SU12 SDK, which will fix most of the current issues with jetways.
-
Glad to hear that, keep up the excellent work
Sincerely, Carlos
-
Ciao Umberto,
I have an idea that is buzzing in my head since GSX introduced the walk-in gates, with passengers following a precise path. Why can't we do the same for all the vehicles that operate around the aircraft? It would be great to set the start point for the bus, for exemple, and create a custom path that exactly matchs with the lanes of airport's services vehicles routes. At the moment, I guess, everything is done by reading the AFCAD file of the airport, but it has a lot of limitations, such as vehicles driving on taxiways, or impacting with other GSX vehicles (I can't count how many times I saw baggage vehicles collide each other). It would be a feast for the eyes to see them following a pre-seclected path on the tarmac.
We could basically use the same method that has been implemented for passengers: 10 dots or more to place around the aircraft, and a start point somewhere near the terminal, far enough from the plane, where the vehicles are supposed to start.
Do you think it's reasonable/technically possible in a future update?
Thank you
-
Do you think it's reasonable/technically possible in a future update?
It surely possible and we thought about it but, I think it will be a lot of effort ( to create profiles ), but while it might improve something issues, mainly caused by badly designed AFCAD files, you will still have issues with vehicles clashing into each other, because the path itself is not always the problem, sometimes the problem is the timing, which is affected by both the order the services are called and the distance from the airplane and the airplane type as well, like where are the exits, etc.
As an example: let's say you create carefully placed a non-intersecting path for a baggage loader. How well it work and won't interfere with other carefully placed paths, when the airplane has the cargo door in a completely different position, or even the opposite side ? That's just an example, but there are many like this.
I think I already explained so many times to users thinking GSX vehicles are "dumb": surely they are and, even if we decided to kill the simulator performances by constantly monitoring the position of every vehicle in relationship of all the others, it's not the problem would be any easier to fix, just consider how many years (and an almost "infinite" budget ) the auto industry is taking to crack the problem of self-driving cars, especially in traffic. This is not a very different problem.
-
I know it's coming, but do you have any idea when the low wing refuel vehicles will be released?
It really detracts from the immersion without the animation, especially if you mostly fly PMDG. I know everything takes time, but I would hope this is given some priority.
-
I know it's coming, but do you have any idea when the low wing refuel vehicles will be released?
When it's done.
It really detracts from the immersion without the animation, especially if you mostly fly PMDG
That's how GSX always worked for 10 years in FSX and P3D, and many used PMDG. Of course, if you want a crewed vehicle NOW, it IS possible to get it on a 737, with a bit of "cheating": that is editing the refueling point under the wing and moving it a bit towards the outside of the wing, so that it would be higher than 3.40 from ground, which will result in getting the crewed hydrant or tanker.
I know everything takes time, but I would hope this is given some priority.
The absolute top priority we are working right now, is to support SU12 Beta, with the new Jetway data added to the Navdata API, which will improve so many things about jetways and passengers.
We are working on the new Fuel vehicles at the same time (because SU12 is mostly programming work, while Fuel is mostly modeling work, so it's not done by the same people), but it's likely we'll release the SU12 update first, hopefully as soon SU12 wil came out officially, and then the Fuel update.
Of course, this won't stop the flow of small updates/fixes for other things that has been released almost every week since release date.
-
A couple of wish list items I'd love to see:
1. Giving users opportunity to change the "show me gate" signage timer... I think currently it's 5 to 10 seconds. Could we have an option so that it appears until we get to the gate? Or at least make the timer a bit longer so the blue arrow shows our gate longer?
2. Additional PAX sounds to keep it varied and changed up
3. Emergency vehicles - i.e. have an emergency landing, would be cool to have them show up
-
A couple of wish list items I'd love to see:
1. Giving users opportunity to change the "show me gate" signage timer... I think currently it's 5 to 10 seconds. Could we have an option so that it appears until we get to the gate? Or at least make the timer a bit longer so the blue arrow shows our gate longer?
2. Additional PAX sounds to keep it varied and changed up
3. Emergency vehicles - i.e. have an emergency landing, would be cool to have them show up
#1!! Please number 1!
-
Any chance the services order in Auto can be configurable? In every airport operation I’ve seen, the refueling and catering happens first. Often times the catering and refueling crews are waiting to meet the airplane as it pulls up to the gate. The baggage loaders are often working up to the very last second. Having the refueling and catering crews not appear until the baggage loading is done just seems backwards.
-
Having the refueling and catering crews not appear until the baggage loading is done just seems backwards.
That's not how it's happening, it's an exception for airplanes loading cargo from the left.
-
I always start asking for the refueling service, followed by catering and boarding. Which then happens in that order and seems realistic to me.
-
Ah, sorry. Missed you were discussing automatic mode. Which is something I don't use.
-
Is it possible to add an option to separate interior (cockpit) and exterior (ambience) sounds by sound device?
Yes, it's a planned feature, which we'll look into, after the most pressing issues will be done, which right now is adding support for the new SU12 SDK, which will fix most of the current issues with jetways.
Hello Sir, when can we expect this feature? For sure it will be a great improvement. Thanks
Sincerely, Carlos
-
Will MSFS2024 be supported by GSX Pro?
-
Will MSFS2024 be supported by GSX Pro?
Microsoft has issues a FAQ stating the simulator will be backward compatible and no add-ons will have to be repurchased. I don't think it would be any more different than having the FSDT Installer recognize the two MSFS versions ( MS Store and Steam ), so I don't see any issues here.
-
Interestingly enough, Asobo states that MOST should be compatible, but not necessarily all: https://www.flightsimulator.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-2024-faq/
Since there is a potential for having some incompatibility, virtuali, how will that look? If an addon doesn't work in MSFS2024, will a process be provided to migrate? Will a fee be charged? I understand if an answer can't be provided at the moment, after all the announcement was only 24 hours ago, but it is something to think about, and I (and I'm sure others) would be curious to know what FSDT's stance will look like.
-
You must understand that no 3rd party developer knows much about the exact details of ths sim: nobody even knew it existed before the announcement!
The exact wording of the FAQ is not "most add-ons" but, a more encouraging and encompassing "virtually all add-ons", indicating a very high degree of backward compatibility.
Nobody knows the "few exceptions" they say might have issues, and of course nobody knows what would be required to fix those.
My guess, which is complete speculation, is they surely must have changed a lot the Mission system to add those new features we see in the trailer and, since the Mission system was never completely documented and the included editor simply doesn't work reliably ( as far as I know, those making missions are using a combination of FSX/P3D tools and XML editing by hand ), it's likely anything related to Mission and/or Bush flights might need some reworking, which might difficult or not, depending how much hand-editing was made to the source code by the individual developers. Bush flights are probably easier, since they are usually made with automatic tools that operate by starting on a Flightplan but at this stage it's only a guess work based on very limited information.
Note that, if you read the sentence in the FAQ page carefully, it's made of two separate sentences, with the first one discuss working/not working add-ons in general, and it says that "virtually all" will work, and the second part saying that Marketplace add-ons won't have to be repurchased.
Microsoft surely cannot guarantee anything about upgrade policies on non-Marketplace purchases, if a certain developer decided to charge you for just a new installer, there's nothing they can do about it, they can only comment on Marketplace products, and here they said you will not have to purchase again anything. This is a further indication that, if there is work involved to update something that is not already working as is, it can't be something too complex to do, otherwise they wouldn't be so sure about free updates and they wouldn't said that, it they knew it could possibly take months to convert something.
And of course, if you wanted to know about something more FSDT-related, I can only say that we are fully committed to offering free updates, even for products bought outside of the Marketplace.
-
About 3D passengers in cabin:
What a useless new feature instead of implementing finally push/pull pushbacks or having more variability for follow-me (follow me pick-up points for airport), more animations for different services, not having the pushback truck visible already when requesting the first service, instead we get animated scary passengers. Nice.
-
About 3D passengers in cabin: Brilliant!!!
This is a great addition for those of us that fly GA ops ... 10x the level of immersion than we (GA pilots) currently have.
Regards.
-
About 3D passengers in cabin: Perfect !!
I’ve been wanting this for ages. Good job FSDT.. Can't wait. :D
-
Same here, finally we'll not be flying a completely empty aircraft.
-
Hi,
I‘m realy looking forward to the announced 3D passengers animation. Are there a date for publication this major update?
Regards Rolf
-
I really hope gsx remembers wich passenger enters the plane, would be unrealistic if like one woman and a child goes on the plane and 2 men exit at arrival.
-
I really hope gsx remembers wich passenger enters the plane, would be unrealistic if like one woman and a child goes on the plane and 2 men exit at arrival.
well, you'll probably also have to live with a lot of repeating models I suppose. not 100% sure, but I think I've seen the same human models boarding the plane every now and then. I don't know how many different models there are, but I could imagine there's a limit and if you walk trough a cabin with 200+ people seated, there might be a lot of duplicates...
-
To make it more realistic, just think of them as twins 😂
-
My thanks to the creators of this mod. Makes every flight an enjoyable and much more immersive experience.
Can't wait for the Fenix A320 passengers in the cabin/not only walkways.
I saw a video today, looks brilliant. Any idea of the release date? I'd even download the Beta if available, give feedback on it.
-
Is anyone else using the Fenix2GSX Github integration mod? https://github.com/Fragtality/Fenix2GSX
Makes everything run much better. It would be great to incorporate it into the main add-on. If that's technically possible of course.
-
This is beauty, Eh! https://fselite.net/content/fsdreamteam-bringing-animated-3d-passengers-to-inside-aircraft-with-gsx-pro/?fbclid=IwAR3W00KbqnEFtlrHz4V6odNERYY8ujbGJ71jBqXxDILFlcmzQWkdqpZ_Sco
-
Is anyone else using the Fenix2GSX Github integration mod? https://github.com/Fragtality/Fenix2GSX
Makes everything run much better. It would be great to incorporate it into the main add-on. If that's technically possible of course.
I am. And I agree, this integrations makes Fenix+GSX even better.
It manages very well the refueling without having to start loading the aircraft from EFB, and, in general, helps improving realism of the pre-flight procedures. I didn't notice any performance impact when used togheter with GSX Pro and Fenix
-
What a useless new feature instead of implementing finally push/pull pushbacks or having more variability for follow-me (follow me pick-up points for airport), more animations for different services, not having the pushback truck visible already when requesting the first service, instead we get animated scary passengers. Nice.
You don't seem to realize how an EXHIBITION environment really works: there are lots of users that don't even *know* what GSX is, and they pass through many boots with lots of things, so you need something that can is immediately recognizable from a distance, while you are walking, that is in a couple of seconds.
And that's precisely what we show THAT on FsExpo. The mistake here is assuming we are only working on THAT.
-
New Fueling vehicles for airplanes with lower wings like the 737 or the MD80
There will be a completely new animation, with the refueling crew using the Fuel cable roller to connect to the airplane refueling point, not using a raised platform, but either a small ladder, or just by standing if the wing is low enough. Both Fuel Hydrants and Fuel Tankers will be updated with this new animation.
has this been completed? last time i tried the fuel truck drove up, refueled without animation, then scurried away.
-
has this been completed?
Of course it hasn't, if it was, it would be surely advertized.
last time i tried the fuel truck drove up, refueled without animation, then scurried away.
No, it hasn't, that's why it's still in this post, which is a road map of things that are not there yet.
-
thank for the reply, hope short-term means less than two years after launch, jk.
going out on a limb here, but with a large user base with 737 and md80, they want to see this animation come to gsx, rather than seeing passengers inside the plane.
-
thank for the reply, hope short-term means less than two years after launch, jk.
Since we are still to reach the first year after launch, I find a bit premature assuming this feature won't appear for another extra year.
going out on a limb here, but with a large user base with 737 and md80, they want to see this animation come to gsx, rather than seeing passengers inside the plane.
In both these airplanes, the refueling is not a simulation, because GSX is not refueling those airplanes.
The airplanes will still refuel themselves as they always do but, instead having just a truck as it is today, we'll have 2 extra animated guys adding extra eye-candy to the refueling truck service. Not unlike seated passengers, except instead of just two extra guys, we are adding a lot more, with passengers.
-
extra eye-candy to the refueling truck service
i like!
-
Are there any plans for better sounds in the addon? Many of them are ancient and very generic. Generic low quality truck sounds for the ground crew, and the boarding sounds are very poor in my opinion. I had to delete them from the folder, nothing more annoying than "I'm right next to her.... thank you" and "Can I see your boading card sir please, thank you". Generic american voices flying Ryanair a bit immersion breaking.
-
...or hearing "Good morning" at 8 PM...
I couldn't agree more how improved sounds in GSX would really add a lot to the overall experience using the product.
Adding some form of intelligence and variation depending on when and where you fly would be awesome and if you would also add some proper boarding sounds, safety announcements etc based on actual airline, I think many of us would be thrilled. I know I would!
-
Will the 3D-animated passengers actually be visible while walking to their seats after entering the cabin? Or do they just appear straight to their seats??? Please make it so that we can see them walking inside the cabin. Otherwise, it's pointless... Another thing that is needed is persistent cargo. It's ANNOYING seeing the ULDS vanish after entering the cargo hold. (BTW this was achieved way back in FSX days with captain sim, so i dont see why it cant be done now)
-
Will the 3D-animated passengers actually be visible while walking to their seats after entering the cabin?
Yes, of course they will be seen standing inside the cabin, forming queue waiting to be seated. Note that, we won't have transition animations, no passengers making an effort to reach the window seat when the other two seats are taken, etc. That would be really to complex, and doesn't play well with the method we used to have the seated passengers extremely lightweight on fps.
-
Love the idea of animated pax, however, as far as I know, the FBW A320 doesn't offer interior views, and since it's the only jet I fly, I won't be able to enjoy it.
-
as far as I know, the FBW A320 doesn't offer interior views, and since it's the only jet I fly, I won't be able to enjoy it.
Not sure how this could be fixed by GSX, I guess an interior will eventually come for it, but in the meantime, there are plenty of other airplanes available that have it.
-
you know what would be really cool? also see an animation of the crew explaining where are the emergency exits, seat belts etc etc
-
you know what would be really cool? also see an animation of the crew explaining where are the emergency exits, seat belts etc etc
We are planning a complete overhaul of the crew in a future update.
-
Yes, but I'm afraid to do it right, it might require a dedicated add-on, considering the huge amount of new characters animations required. In addition to new crew that would perform things like manual pushbacks pushing the wings on smaller GA planes, there's the issue of having to basically redo ALL passenger animations that are currently tailored for airliners.
I appreciate that it would be a lot of work but this is the number one feature I would like to have. I can do without the push back of small GA, those are usually handled by the pilot anyway. But the VIP services would be awesome, like a red carpet and a black Mercedes Sprinter with tinted windows rolling up and Louis Vuittons loaded into the baggage compartment 🙂
-
Can we get better pushback truck animation logic? They sometime go left then correct then go to the path they need to do.
Same for GPU unit, the animation it reverses for so long before its parked, an better animation like in real life would be cool, right now the path the gpu takes isnt realistic looking they way it backsup etc.
Can these be improved? Arent those animation from p3d now into msfs? Time for an overhaul.
-
Can we get better pushback truck animation logic? They sometime go left then correct then go to the path they need to do.
Please make a reproducible example, with the airplane used, the airport used, the gate and the pushback direction, assuming it was the automatic Left/Right with no custom pushback ( because it will make testing easier ).
-
thank for the reply, hope short-term means less than two years after launch, jk.
going out on a limb here, but with a large user base with 737 and md80, they want to see this animation come to gsx, rather than seeing passengers inside the plane.
I've been really happy with the progress of GSX MSFS since launch, but this particular issue stands out as bizarre. I would have thought something as basic as 737 (and similar) refuelling would have had higher priority than some of the new features launched. I certainly hope to see this before any internal pax animations.
That said, it's up to FSDT to set their priorities, so we are at their mercy. I still check the release notes for every update hoping to see this included.
Once PMDG release their 777 I may lose interest in flying the 737 and this will become redundant. Then we'll have the issue of multiple aerobridges which is a much bigger problem without SODE.
-
I don’t think anyone has discussed the new Self-Loading Cargo and GSX. Those developers have mentioned that there is not a way to actually sync the two services unless they work directly with FSDreamteam. That said, they are going to make some additions to work with GSX. I think GSX can add a couple of things to make this a little easier with SLC.
1) SLC requires the jetway to be connected long before boarding begins. So, I connect the jetway in MSFS for SLC, then, when I start boarding in GSX, it disconnects the jetway. Maybe give an option so the jetway does not automatically move when you start boarding?
2) Separate Passenger Boarding and Baggage Loading as two separate entities. SLC usually starts baggage loading a few minutes before passenger boarding.
GSX has been working great for me, and I think you’ve done a fine job with this software.
Michael Caparula
-
Then we'll have the issue of multiple aerobridges which is a much bigger problem without SODE.
This. I really miss this and makes loading wide-body aircraft like 747-8, 787, A330-900 that are already available in the sim much more realistic and faster. Plus Aerosoft, PMDG, INIBuilds, Headwind, and other developers are in the process of making or about to release wide-body airliners.
While I don't know about programming, I wonder how difficult this would be for GSX. It already sees existing jetways and controls them, so could it take static jetways and convert them to moveable jetways and control them also? How did SODE do it and could GSX replicate this function in MSFS? From there, the jetway control could function the same as it does in P3D where you tell GSX I want Jetway 1 to door 1L and jetway 2 to door 2L so if only 1 jetway is needed, you just select the one you want to the door you want. I hope this can be done.
-
I would guess the best solution is for Asobo to build it into the base game. It's not complex - of other problems they've solved I don't imagine this is incredibly difficult. I'm still surprised this wasn't included from launch.
It's a fair assumption that even when enabled, any existing scenery would have to be updated to make use of the new feature; we saw that with SODE - still plenty of older scenery (and some new) didn't support it.
I don't think it's reasonable for GSX to have to come up with their own solution as ultimately it has to be supported by scenery developers as well.
-
Come on lads! I love this mod. When do we get the passengers in the Fenix?
Obviously, there will be bugs; don't worry just release it we can all debug if necessary. :)
Peace & Love
-
Hello Umberto!
I'd like to know if is possible to make CDS 2438 air stairs covered or something similar. Basically, you can find only those type of stairs in Brazil.
We'd appreciate that so much.
-
hi, I don't see references to the 3D animations of the passengers, has it been abandoned or is it still in progress? It was truly fantastic
-
hi, I don't see references to the 3D animations of the passengers, has it been abandoned or is it still in progress? It was truly fantastic
Of course, it hasn't been abandoned. We never gave an exact release date, we are only generically targeting sometimes before the end of the year but as with anything in software, release dates can change at any time, which is another good reason why we never announced any.
-
Charge everybody an extra 5€ Considering Microsoft's policy now. I don't mind paying a little extra to help the company and programmers.
-
Charge everybody an extra 5€ Considering Microsoft's policy now. I don't mind paying a little extra to help the company and programmers.
I Agree.
-
Hi Umberto,
It has been over 1 year since a "proper VR/Dual Screen mode for the GSX menu" (direct quote) was promised in the first post of this thread, aptly named "Short-term Roadmap: what to expect in the next updates".
Updates have come and gone, but VR compatibility was never again mentioned.
Could you please give us an update on this? Is it even being worked on?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Best regards
-
Could you please give us an update on this? Is it even being worked on?
The feature is still in the queue, but it will be part of a more general "pinned menu" concept which has been requested as well, they are connected, but there's no saying when they'll make it in GSX, because we have been adding other new features on a regular basis in the meantime.
-
Hello Umberto,
When you will add passenger to the cabin, will it be possible to have animation to sync up with tfdi pacx, or will the crew estimate the flight time, and serve food, safety anoucement and ect ?
Thanks
-
Would be nice to see a roadmap summary covering january to june or up to version 3.0 Pro -- this is a massively long thread so if the information is in there its hard to find. GSX Pro adds so much to the game! thanks
-
Good morning,
Maybe these questions have already been asked and I apologize if I haven't seen it:
Is an ASU planned?
Is the DC Designs Concorde also suitable for boarding bridges? Because with the current configuration, they do not adapt correctly to the plane. (view the photo)
Regarding pushbacks, I also confirm that tractors often take 90° angles and push the plane across (as if it were sliding on the ground). I'll try to take a screenshot at this time, it hasn't already been done by someone else.
-
Is an ASU planned?
Most airplanes that needs one, comes already with one.
Is the DC Designs Concorde also suitable for boarding bridges? Because with the current configuration, they do not adapt correctly to the plane. (view the photo)
You haven't posted any picture.
Regarding pushbacks, I also confirm that tractors often take 90° angles and push the plane across (as if it were sliding on the ground). I'll try to take a screenshot at this time, it hasn't already been done by someone else.
They normally don't. If they do it for you, always do a proper report, clearly indicating what is happening, where, if you use a GSX profile, everything.
-
Is an ASU planned?
Most airplanes that needs one, comes already with one.
Is the DC Designs Concorde also suitable for boarding bridges? Because with the current configuration, they do not adapt correctly to the plane. (view the photo)
You haven't posted any picture.
Regarding pushbacks, I also confirm that tractors often take 90° angles and push the plane across (as if it were sliding on the ground). I'll try to take a screenshot at this time, it hasn't already been done by someone else.
They normally don't. If they do it for you, always do a proper report, clearly indicating what is happening, where, if you use a GSX profile, everything.
Thank you for your reply.
Yeah sorry I forgot the screenshots! ;D
For the boarding bridge, here is a screen of the DC Designs Concorde in boarding gate E20 at Toulouse-Blagnac Airport (LFBO) (Flightbeam Studios – LFBO Toulouse–Blagnac Airport v1.0.1)
https://i.ibb.co/FK6D0mK/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-42-17-48.png (https://i.ibb.co/FK6D0mK/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-42-17-48.png)
https://i.ibb.co/VTR6H38/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-42-48-79.png (https://i.ibb.co/VTR6H38/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-42-48-79.png)
No GSX profile is used for the aircraft, only for the airport itself. (link of the airport GSX profile : https://fr.flightsim.to/file/40917/flightbeam-lfbo-gsx-profile)
The mobile stairs work perfectly, the problem only comes from the boarding bridges.
You will also see the incorrect positioning of the Fuel Truck and the GPU cable floating in the air.
Concerning the pushback, you will find attached the screen of the pushback in E20, on taxiway T43. The tractor completely exceeds the maximum turning angle of the plane, causing it to slide for several meters.
https://i.ibb.co/FXDhmvp/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-04-72.png (https://i.ibb.co/FXDhmvp/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-04-72.png)
https://i.ibb.co/StyWxRt/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-13-90.png (https://i.ibb.co/StyWxRt/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-13-90.png)
https://i.ibb.co/RC3816c/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-24-81.png (https://i.ibb.co/RC3816c/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-24-81.png)
https://i.ibb.co/y6Fx0gb/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-39-64.png (https://i.ibb.co/y6Fx0gb/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Screenshot-2024-01-18-14-48-39-64.png)
Pushback problems also occur with other more classic aircraft (PMDG 737 / Fenix A320 etc.)
Thank you for your help
-
Would be nice to see a roadmap summary covering january to june or up to version 3.0 Pro -- this is a massively long thread so if the information is in there its hard to find. GSX Pro adds so much to the game! thanks
Completely agree on this one. All updates are much appreciated, but it's quite hard to follow what's coming.
-
The mobile stairs work perfectly, the problem only comes from the boarding bridges.
GSX doesn't have anything to do with jetways. How they work (or not) how they connect (or not) and to which door they connect (good or bad), is completely OUTSIDE any control by GSX. Jetways in MSFS are affected ONLY by:
- How the jetways are modeled (and in your case, you are reporting an issue with a jetway that comes with a scenery so, it's not even a GSX jetway)
- How the airplane is parked
- How the doors are configured in the airplane (NOT in GSX!!!)
No GSX profile is used for the aircraft.
This is clearly a mistake on your part. The DC Design Concorde is NOT included in the GSX internal database, so you MUST have a profile for it, either made by yourself, or by somebody else who shared it to download it. Without an airplane profile, an airplane that is not already internally supported by GSX simply won't work, at all.
You will also see the incorrect positioning of the Fuel Truck
Caused by the lack of a GSX profile for that aircraft.
and the GPU cable floating in the air.
That's a separate issue, we don't have a GPU with a cable long enough for a Concorde. We'll look into it, when FS Labs will release their own so, at least, the work to update the GPU would be worth for at least 2 airplanes.
Concerning the pushback, you will find attached the screen of the pushback in E20, on taxiway T43. The tractor completely exceeds the maximum turning angle of the plane, causing it to slide for several meters.
That's only because either the airport profile you are using doesn't provide for custom Pushbacks or, if it does, whoever made the profile made it for a smaller airplane and haven't tested it with a Concorde. However, your lack of an airplane profile will also affect this. All these kind of issues are always fixable by adapting a Custom Pushback to the parking, being sure the curve won't require such extreme steering.
Pushback problems also occur with other more classic aircraft (PMDG 737 / Fenix A320 etc.)
No, they don't, if the pushback procedure is programmed correctly.
-
Thank you for all this information! I wasn't aware of most of it, and it's good to have that clarified.
-
Hi there,
First time posting on the forum so wanted to take this opportunity to thank the FSDT team for their incredible contribution to MSFS. Your products have truly been game changing.
One thing I wanted to ask about, is the possibility of adding wingwalkers during pushback and taxiing into the gate. I know this feature has no major significance, nor would it change much, but I think it would be a really cool extra level of immersion and realism.
Thanks and hoping to see more great features in the coming updates.
-
Hello, would it be possible for the pushback tug to connect whilst the passengers/cargo is loading?