GSX Questions before I purchase (Confused)

[jay907uk]

Hi,

I'm thinking of getting GSX but just have a couple of questions? I currently use AES but am not sure to change over and use GSX in FSX

1) Did I read right that it will work at all airports in FSX? And either uses stairs or jetways ? Depending if the jetways are able to move ??

2) I tried to use it at EDDM with Aerosoft scenery but couldn't get the jetway to move? And kept getting this message saying waiting for exit 2 ??

3) Do I need to select the com freq for the jetways to move if I've got add on scenery ?

4) I imagine you need to configure the doors and pushback truck similar to AES or am I getting confused?

I've read the manual but am still slightly unsure of some of the workings within GSX. I'd appreciate any comments/advice regarding using GSX.

Thanks

Jason

[virtuali]

1) Did I read right that it will work at all airports in FSX?

Of course, that's exactly what the site clearly says what GSX does...and on top of that, is totally free on all FSDT and Flightbeam sceneries, so if you have any of them, GSX will work there even without a registration, just like the full version.

And either uses stairs or jetways ? Depending if the jetways are able to move ??

It uses front stairs if the parking doesn't have a jetway. If you have a 3rd party scenery that doesn't have moving jetways or have non-standard jetways, GSX cannot detected automatically, so there's an option in the GSX scenery customization page, where you can say, parking by parking, which of them have a fake/static jetway, so GSX won't try to display front stairs and a passenger Bus there.

2) I tried to use it at EDDM with Aerosoft scenery but couldn't get the jetway to move?

You should probably suggest to Aerosoft they should consider releasing airports with working jetways, a feature that even default airports have. That won't *prevent* AES to work there in any way, but it will surely increase the perceived quality of their product...one would imagine that a payware scenery would AT LEAST match the default scenery features!

And kept getting this message saying waiting for exit 2 ??

Since you don't say which airplane you were using, I can't say if you simply tried to load baggages with the cargo doors closed (why would you??), or you tried to use an unsupported airplane and haven't made a custom configuration for it, so the cargo door was indicated with its generic default name and control, but the 3rd party add-on airplane you used had a different mapping for that door.

3) Do I need to select the com freq for the jetways to move if I've got add on scenery ?

If the 3rd party add-on scenery you use requires the use com frequencies to move its jetways (which is a very old method used many years ago), having GSX installed or not won't change this.

If the 3rd party add-on scenery you use have proper native FSX animated jetways, like all the more recent products from the best scenery developers out there ( all FSDT, Flightbeam and many from UK2000 are all made that way ), then you use the standard CTRL+J command, and having GSX installed or not, won't change this.

If the 3rd party add-on scenery you use doesn't have animated jetway at all, having GSX installed or not won't change this either.

4) I imagine you need to configure the doors and pushback truck similar to AES or am I getting confused?

If you want to add an unsupported 3rd party airplane to GSX, then yes, there's a configuration utility included, fully explained in the GSX manual, of course.

[streichholz]

And the most important thing is, you safe money with GSX. I will not support the credit pattern anymore. I also disabled all aerosoft german airports. I can't see the old FS9 ported and performance unfriendly airports after I bought some FSDT and all(!) flightbeam airports.

You should probably suggest to Aerosoft they should consider releasing airports with working jetways, a feature that even default airports have. That won't *prevent* AES to work there in any way, but it will surely increase the perceived quality of their product...one would imagine that a payware scenery would AT LEAST match the default scenery features!

And that's why the european community is looking for some great scenery for germany (or other european countries). They will never add moving jetways because of AES (the good old cashcow).

If FSDT or FB will do a german airport, my friend I will come to you and   you.

[Bruce Hamilton]

AES was made for FS9, it was carried over to FSX because of so many users wanting it.  And personally, I far prefer the customized AES jetway animation to default.  If Umberto had sent CYVR and KIAH to Oliver, I would've gladly paid credits to activate just for the better jetways.

[virtuali]

And personally, I far prefer the customized AES jetway animation to default.  If Umberto had sent CYVR and KIAH to Oliver, I would've gladly paid credits to activate just for the better jetways.

About CYVR and AES, it has been explained several times already, for example here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,8969.0.html

There's nothing new for us to send, because CYVR jetways are exactly the same as KLAX, which means Oliver already has anything he needs to support CYVR, if he wants to, and he surely doesn't need our approval.

I think he must have realized that not many users would purchase AES credits just for having a less buggy jetway at FSDT airports, because of the close integration they have with GSX. And what about if LM P3D and/or Dovetail would finally FIX the default jetway bugs ?

[Bruce Hamilton]

Oliver is under the impression you don't want your sceneries supported now that GSX is available,  is he mistaken?

[virtuali]

Oliver is under the impression you don't want your sceneries supported now that GSX is available,  is he mistaken?

Never said that.

We had a general agreement with him that, after we would drop FS9 support, which happened after KLAX, having AES support wasn't really necessary, considering how GSX is deeply integrated is in our sceneries ( we do docking systems, custom vehicle positioning, custom pushback routes with custom labels ) in addition to the fact we always had moving jetways in FSX.

But if he want to support CYVR with jetways, he surely doesn't need our permission, because he already has the source files for jetways that we gave him for KLAX, and that's the ONLY thing we need to support AES, since the other part of the work (having the terminal separated from the jetways) we do it anyway, because it's required to create default animated jetways too.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Interesting... people request your sceneries receive AES support,  his response is Umberto doesn't want it and he has to respect your decision.

[virtuali]

Interesting... people request your sceneries receive AES support,  his response is Umberto doesn't want it and he has to respect your decision.

Since the only statements you can find here is that he doesn't need anything more from us to support CYVR, and he never contacted me asking about it, I can't see how this could translate into "my decision".

We only discussed briefly about the general issue about AES for FSX-only sceneries, but this was well before GSX was published.

My last contact with him was an email I sent to the day after GSX was released, with a free Coupon code for him to try and, possibly, making a couple of changes to make it easier for users to use both products together, but never heard back.

In fact, checking my old emails exchanges now, we agreed that, as long is easy for users to decide which services they want to use, it would be all fine with us having AES too, and this was 2 years before GSX was released, yes, Oliver knew about GSX with 2 years in advance!

We were true to our promise, because the very simple fact that GSX doesn't do anything unless you start it, makes it automatically friendly to any other ground service product out there. AES, instead, that starts several services automatically, makes more tricky to use two ground services products together, because you have to play with aircraft configuration files. We were promised that AES would have been changed to be like GSX, and this was the subject of my last email, but this hasn't happened after 2+ years, so I doubt it will ever happen.

So, even if I never said we are opposed to AES now (quite the contrary, see the various threads about CYVR), I would have every reason to say so.

Sooner or later, GSX WILL have better jetways...at least for our airports...

[streichholz]

Sooner or later, GSX WILL have better jetways...at least for our airports...

What do you mean by better jetways? What is the difference between the default and AES ones?

[virtuali]

What do you mean by better jetways? What is the difference between the default and AES ones?

The default jetways have some bugs with some airplanes, like sinking wheels when they get close, and they don't support special configurations like double jetways. They work without having to purchase anything extra, not even GSX, just by pressing CTRL+J, provided the scenery supports them, which is the case for all default FSX airports, all FSDT and Flightbeam airports, and other airports from developers like UK2000, etc. They don't have to "look" default, because developers can model and texture them, but they are animated by FSX itself.

AES use its own proprietary method, which requires specific programming to support airports individually, so you must pay for each airport to use them, and they work only on a list of supported airports.

GSX doesn't have any interaction with jetways, other than it recognize them (if they are of the standard FSX kind, otherwise you must tell to GSX where they are) and it doesn't display Front stairs and a Passenger bus if there's a jetway, but other than that, there's no other relationship between jetways and GSX.

We'll surely have a better method to create jetways as a feature of a possible future GSX version.