FSDreamTeam forum
Products Support => GSX Support MSFS => Topic started by: ACSoft on November 22, 2022, 12:27:43 pm
-
Umberto,
Maybe this is easy to do, I don't know, but in the waiting of the promised addition in the airport position editor of the possibility to edit jetway PAX waypoints, it would be good if there is an option to disable the visualization of the boarding PAX. Only the visualization, not the boarding nice sounds !
For example, in my BMW969 LFML airport addon, I use the addon jetway gates and unfortunately, the PAX path is too high and I can see the passengers through the roof of the tube. As these jetways do not have transparent glasses, to disable the visualization wouldn't be a problem, but a nice alternative option to solve this problem.
Thanks in forward to take this proposition in consideration.
-
Way better ask the scenery developer get in touch with us, so we can add their jetway to the GSX internal database.
-
OK then I will forward your answer to BMW969.
But, what if this guy don't care about GSX Pro and do not contact you ?
-
But, what if this guy don't care about GSX Pro and do not contact you ?
Why they should ? It's not as if we require extra work on their side, we only need to know the names of the jetways and their floor height from ground.
-
I have contacted him with the link to this thread, so we will see if this work.
-
Just updated to your last version 2.1.8 – November 25th, 2022, where I read:
GSX Pro NEW: Added support for Jetway floor heights for various airports by FranceVFR.
GSX Pro NEW: Jetway floor heights internal database can use partial name matching.
Even if BMW969 scenery was not mentioned, I was hoping to have a good surprise, but no luck ! So, I have checked again if BMW969 almost acknowledge my message, but here also, no luck, so I have no idea if he contacted you or not.
So, you see, assuming he didn't contacted you and don't care about GSX addon, in the contrary as you thought, maybe my idea to have this option to disable the visualization of PAX boarding was perhaps not so bad !
Uberto, in my humble opinion, more options you are able to include to customize GSX Pro to our taste or correct specific problems, like in this case, would be a very big improvement of your GSX Pro addon.
-
I second this, please allow us to "hide" passengers inside the dynamic part of a jetway, so they just despawn once they reach the customizable pax waypoint's end.
It is in no way realistic to have ALL the scenery devs contacting you to maintain your database - we as profile creators need ways to circumvent this issue since it basically affects a LOT of the airport sceneries and the process of devs providing you data is by no means acceptable for us users.
Profiles are released almost the same day a new scenery is released. Please enable us to make profiles that at the very least hide pax where there is no need to show them (inside the intransparent jetways) if they are clipping through the roof or floor.
Just add a checkbox to the gate customization and despawn them at the last waypoint (if there is any) instead of letting them walk into the aircraft. Easy and sufficient for all of us.
-
Uberto, in my humble opinion, more options you are able to include to customize GSX Pro to our taste or correct specific problems, like in this case, would be a very big improvement of your GSX Pro addon.
Reading between the lines of the release notes, especially this one:
GSX Pro NEW: Jetway floor heights internal database can use partial name matching.
Should be clear we are making PREPARATIONS to allow users to customize this as well, something we already confirmed to be on the Roadmap, the "Ability to specify the Jetway floor height in the GSX Airport profile", of course:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,27778.0.html
So no, the correct way to deal with this, is to allow users and profiles creators to PREVENT the problem, not just hiding it and lose all passengers.
-
Yes, I know already you have the intention to add the possibility for us, the user's, to edit PAX path of jetways. What we don't know is when we will get this. In next updates you say. This plural may mean it can be in months !
This is why I have suggested this option which, I suppose, should be very simple to implement and therefore, very shortly available.
Moreover, when you have totally blind jetways, with no glasses at all, this option is totally justified. Why to display something you cannot see ! Why to loose maybe a lot of time to edit a PAX path, to solve the problem, when a simple check mark on an option box will do the job ?
-
I second this, please allow us to "hide" passengers inside the dynamic part of a jetway, so they just despawn once they reach the customizable pax waypoint's end.
It is in no way realistic to have ALL the scenery devs contacting you to maintain your database - we as profile creators need ways to circumvent this issue since it basically affects a LOT of the airport sceneries and the process of devs providing you data is by no means acceptable for us users.
Profiles are released almost the same day a new scenery is released. Please enable us to make profiles that at the very least hide pax where there is no need to show them (inside the intransparent jetways) if they are clipping through the roof or floor.
Just add a checkbox to the gate customization and despawn them at the last waypoint (if there is any) instead of letting them walk into the aircraft. Easy and sufficient for all of us.
+1
-
Yes, I know already you have the intention to add the possibility for us, the user's, to edit PAX path of jetways. What we don't is when we will get this. In next updates you say. This plural may mean it can be in months !
This is why I have suggested this option which, I suppose, should be very simple to implement and therefore, very shortly available.
Moreover, when you have totally blind jetways, with no glasses at all, this option is totally justified. Why to display something you cannot see ! Why to loose maybe a lot of time to edit a PAX path, to solve the problem, when a simple check mark on an option box will do the job ?
And the resources wasted for passengers that are hidden inside a metal jetway. Total waste of fps
-
Yes, I know already you have the intention to add the possibility for us, the user's, to edit PAX path of jetways. What we don't know is when we will get this. In next updates you say. This plural may mean it can be in months !
You are making some assumption here:
- That this PROPER update will take lots of time. "Months", really ? GSX has been out for JUST 4 months, and we already release 28 UPDATES so far:
https://www.fsdreamteam.com/couatl_liveupdate_notes.html
- That it would be SLOWER to do than the temporarily workaround you are suggesting. In fact, it's quite the opposite, because since the logic to have custom height obviously already exists, it's far easier to make the proper update, than adding your suggested workaround, for which a new logic will need to be added.
It is in no way realistic to have ALL the scenery devs contacting you to maintain your database - we as profile creators need ways to circumvent this issue since it basically affects a LOT of the airport sceneries and the process of devs providing you data is by no means acceptable for us users.
Which is precisely why we ARE adding a way to set their heights in the airport profile, as I've said.
Profiles are released almost the same day a new scenery is released. Please enable us to make profiles that at the very least hide pax where there is no need to show them (inside the intransparent jetways) if they are clipping through the roof or floor.
That's precisely what the feature will allow.
Just add a checkbox to the gate customization and despawn them at the last waypoint (if there is any) instead of letting them walk into the aircraft. Easy and sufficient for all of us.
As I've said, this is the wrong way to approach the problem, because it will just be another possible reason for "not seeing passengers", resulting in countless of support questions I'll have to answer in the next years.
So no, user-customizable heights will be.
And the resources wasted for passengers that are hidden inside a metal jetway. Total waste of fps
Using this reasoning, airplanes should stop coming with a 3d cabin, which is a "Total waste of fps" during the whole flight, not just during passenger boarding. And of course, now even *default* airplanes ( see the new A310 ) ARE coming with a 3d cabin, because that's what the market wants.
-
You are making some assumption here:
- That this PROPER update will take lots of time. "Months", really ? GSX has been out for JUST 4 months, and we already release 28 UPDATES so far
The fact you already made 28 updates in 4 months (for which we are all very grateful), does not mean we won't have to wait long to have this specific PAX jetways path edition feature !!!
For sure if you would have said: your temporary solution is useless, because we are publishing the new version with this edit feature, in not more than 10 to 20 days from now. Then, you would have been much more credible !
And SN737 consider this option to be not a temporary solution like I said, but a complementary option, because it is not very optimum or even clever, to display an animations which can't be seen and by the way, dear Umberto, when I am flying, who forbidden me to go in the cabin to salute my invisible passengers ? LOL ! Sometimes, I even go in the toilet you know ? LOL !
I bet that if you would implement this alternative option and simply explain in the user manual that it is a very straight forward alternative (one click !), available for the case of PAX being invisible when boarding (blind tube) would NEVER lead to "... countless of support questions I'll have to answer in the next years", especially if you are clever enough to have this option deactivated by default.
In fact, Umberto, it is just you decided you don't want to do that, period !
Why not, in this case, just say it and basta ? Because, all your last spurious argumentation, trying to convince us that we have had a bad idea, do not convince me AT ALL (I cannot speak for SN737).
-
Using this reasoning, airplanes should stop coming with a 3d cabin, which is a "Total waste of fps" during the whole flight, not just during passenger boarding. And of course, now even *default* airplanes ( see the new A310 ) ARE coming with a 3d cabin, because that's what the market wants.
Totally, they should come with the option to disable cabin.
-
The fact you already made 28 updates in 4 months (for which we are all very grateful), does not mean we won't have to wait long to have this specific PAX jetways path edition feature !!!
The fact you are keep saying that, doesn't mean you will have to wait "months". As I've said, you are making an assumption, while I know what we are working on next.
For sure if you would have said: your temporary solution is useless, because we are publishing the new version with this edit feature, in not more than 10 to 20 days from now. Then, you would have been much more credible !
Your temporary solution is useless, because we'll release the feature in the next update, very likely taking even less than 10 days. Happy now ?
In fact, Umberto, it is just you decided you don't want to do that, period !
Exactly, because I'll be the one that, each time somebody will do the usually incomplete report about "I don't see passengers", I'll have to start the next reply with "have you possibly set the Disable passenger option ?". No, thanks.
-
Which is precisely why we ARE adding a way to set their heights in the airport profile, as I've said.
I'm not sure why you assume that height is the only issue. I have seen dozen of times issues where the pax were sticking out to the side of the dynamic part of a jetway or doing a shortcut just before the pivot point and floating through the air.
So just because you fear POSSIBLE issues with answering questions (which an FAQ and hint in manual would suffice), you decide to not help us profile creators to fix REAL issues we're facing with no solution, even not the one you are implementing right now.
If GSX renders pax to the side of the jetway, there is still no way to fix this.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with this decision. I'm tired of seeing pax sticking to all sides of jetways that are totally opaque for no reason. There is not even a reason to render pax if there is no transparent part and no pax waypoints *at all*.
But yeah, let's ignore this and just stick to the fear of people asking support questions.
You don't want to know how often profile creators get asked why pax is sticking outside of the jetway despite using their profile...
-
I'm not sure why you assume that height is the only issue. I have seen dozen of times issues where the pax were sticking out to the side of the dynamic part of a jetway or doing a shortcut just before the pivot point and floating through the air.
This has been explained so many times already, for example here:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,28557.msg186411.html#msg186411
And most importantly, here:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,28527.msg186293.html#msg186293
You don't want to know how often profile creators get asked why pax is sticking outside of the jetway despite using their profile...
If you read and understood the above issue with jetways at large, it should be obvious that this won't be fixed by a profile, because I don't consider disabling passengers a "fix", it's just a temporary hack to what is really an MSFS issue that must be fixed by MSFS, because the SDK doesn't currently give us enough information to be sure IF a jetway docked completely and WHERE ( which door ), which as I understood from the Asobo streaming, should be added in the SU12 SDK.
If the issue will be fixed in SU12, you would find yourself with hundreds of useless profiles that disabled passengers for no reason other than deal with an SDK limitation that has been confirmed to go away that will have to be amended by then.
You are making an assumption that profile creators will only use it to disable passengers in solid jetways, which of course is not the case, since we have the "passengers in the air" issue so, we can expect profile creators will start to disable passengers everywhere, because you can never know WHEN or WHERE the issue might appear, because it depends on so many variables like the airplane used, where it's parked, where the jetway has docked, if the Drone camera is used, so you could possibly always face it in so many situations you might be tempted to disable passengers everywhere.
The mistake here is assuming GSX "renders pax to the side of the jetway" because GSX is crazy. It obviously isn't, the issue is ALWAYS caused by either the jetway not docking completely, docking on the wrong door, or snapping out of the docked position because of the known LOD bug, with no way for GSX to KNOW about any of these situation, because of the missing data from the SDK.
And no, about wanting to disable passengers to save fps, it's not something that should be decided by a profile creator: how you can possibly make a decision for the user, maybe he has no fps issue, or he doesn't care, or he likes using the Drone camera to peek inside, but then you created a profile with passengers disabled, so you are forcing your "fps decision" over users that might not want it.
Because of this, we would then go back to possibly having a "global" setting to disable passengers, which also doesn't make much sense, both because users set it , forget it and go here asking why they lost the passengers, but also because it would likely have to be
-
Your temporary solution is useless, because we'll release the feature in the next update, very likely taking even less than 10 days. Happy now ?
Yes, I am happy you gave finally a precise information and will be even more, the day we will have the possibility to call separately, crew and PAX, and why not, even baggage loading !
;)
-
you might be tempted to disable passengers everywhere.
If a profile creator considers this to provide the best experience, why patronizing them (us) in that way by withholding a useful feature?
But I get it, it's your product and if the community is asking for a quite easy-to-implement feature that would save some headache for us you just say that you don't want to do it because you know best what the community needs :)
-
If a profile creator considers this to provide the best experience, why patronizing them (us) in that way by withholding a useful feature?
Because the "best experience" is not hiding the passengers, for more than one reason:
- The problem might just be the lack of a a custom jetway height. This is going to be fixed in the next update with the ability to customize it, so it's no longer an issue.
- The problem might only appear with the airplane parked in a certain position, resulting in the jetway not docking correctly, so it would be wrong to take decision when making a profile, to fix a problem that might not always happen.
But I get it, it's your product and if the community is asking for a quite easy-to-implement feature that would save some headache for us you just say that you don't want to do it because you know best what the community needs
You obviously don't get it. I already make my case quite clearly, why this feature is not only useless, it's wrong and it's detrimental to the GSX as a whole, because it will spread the wrong impression that profiles are made to fix GSX "bugs", when in fact the real issue is a temporarily lack of features in the SDK that we are quite confident will be eventually sorted, which would make the "fix" completely useless in most of the case.
Even in the one and only case were you *might* have a point, that is saving fps in solid jetways, the custom profile is the wrong place for an fps-saving feature, because users have other means to save fps, like reducing the passengers density for example.
Without even mentioning that, the overlapped glass of the transparent jetways, are probably affecting fps more even when empty (because multiple overlapping glass surfaces are hard on fps), than a solid jetway full of people, because the hardware z-buffer occludes them, so they are not really completely drawn until you enter the jetway so, trying to "save" fps on the solid jetway, doesn't make much sense, considering the place were you might really want to save fps, is where you also want to see the passengers from the outside.