FSDreamTeam forum
August 15, 2018, 01:21:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Pushback Procedure overhaul?  (Read 1715 times)
Dreamliner787
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« on: December 16, 2017, 05:21:24 PM »

As I saw you are planning to overhaul the pushback procedure, would it be possible to make it faster?
I filmed a pushback back in summer and GSX is really slow compared to it: https://youtu.be/pVq-ly5c3ww
And you could also place the guy that handles the comms and walks besides the aircraft onto the pushback vehicle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYEPoY6DWQA
On some airports the pushbacktruck operator does everything by himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI8NGDw4SeQ

Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29840



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2017, 03:08:38 PM »

The pushback speed is tuned with a realistic wingwalker speed so, most likely, that pushback you filmed didn't had any wingwalkers, since it really looked too fast for a walking speed.

Quote
And you could also place the guy that handles the comms and walks besides the aircraft onto the pushback vehicle

On some airports the pushbacktruck operator does everything by himself

It's already like that, with vehicles that do have a standing platform, because the guys comes over it. And, we are assuming he IS doing everything by himself. In this case, acting as comm operator and wingwalker so, he cannot be on the vehicle while he's wingwalking.
Logged

HeadlessHershel
Newbie
*
Posts: 10


« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2018, 12:02:20 AM »

Would it be possible, down the road, to maybe make the "wingwalker" get back in pushback after inserting tow pin. He wouldn't be technically wing walking, but you could increase pushback speed and have him get out to disconnect tow pin after pushback.
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29840



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2018, 11:06:24 AM »

Would it be possible, down the road, to maybe make the "wingwalker" get back in pushback after inserting tow pin.

So people will then ask what's happened to the wingwalker.
Logged

Hightower
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2018, 09:30:22 AM »

I would like to see pushback revised. It works, but not alot of control.   Something like the new pushback plugin for X-plane would be great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0sucua2Wc
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29840



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2018, 12:31:56 PM »

I'm not sure why people keep referring to that X-plane plugin as an example of how an eventual GSX pushback could be improved. If anything, that would be a perfect example of how it should NOT be done!

That kind of interface could be maybe used in the scenery *editor*, possibly to create a custom pushback route but, it's just wrong being forced to go through all that procedure each time. The whole point of the GSX pushback, is that is able to figure out MOST of the common push backs automatically, and it's not realistic that you, as the pilot, would do that.

The issue is, that plugin, with all that fancy (and cumbersome, if you are flying, not editing a scenery) interface, is made that way, just because it's much EASIER, from a programming point of view, to force users to tell everything to the pushback, rather than having the program figure it out automatically 95% of the time, which is how GSX works. So, this is a clear example of when a program that "looks" more featured, but only because it's less capable of doing the proper calculations on its own.

That kind of interface might be used when editing a scenery, but surely we wouldn't want to go through that each time you ask for pushback.

In any case, when I refer to improving the pushback, it means actual new features, like push-ins and gate to gate transfers and more realistic procedures, with better animations too. These will all come at some point.
Logged

Speedbird ATC
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2018, 02:12:26 AM »

I'm not sure why people keep referring to that X-plane plugin as an example of how an eventual GSX pushback could be improved. If anything, that would be a perfect example of how it should NOT be done!
The UI takes just a few seconds to customize, and it generally results in a far more precise pushback then GSX could ever give. The fact is I do not have the time to go through GSXs cumbersome editor for every gate I want to pushback from only to either have my airplane slew across the field or have the pushback not turn out right.
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29840



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2018, 01:00:26 PM »

The UI takes just a few seconds to customize, and it generally results in a far more precise pushback then GSX could ever give. The fact is I do not have the time to go through GSXs cumbersome editor for every gate I want to pushback from only to either have my airplane slew across the field or have the pushback not turn out right.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with the "GSX cumbersome editor". There's NO editor for the pushback route yet so, how you could possibly call "cumbersome" something that doesn't even exists yet ?

Eeven if it takes "a few seconds" to do it in X-plane, you must do it at every pushback, while the proper way should be doing it only ONCE, and then having it saved forever for that gate, which how we'll do it, of course.

And this would be required only for some specific pushback routes because, most of the time, when the parking is straightforward, GSX CAN pushback correctly and very precisely, automatically, with no user intervention, while the "better" pushback plugin always requires your input, because it's not able to sort it out those standard Left/Right directions automatically, like GSX does.
Logged

lpf20011
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2018, 08:44:08 AM »

A slightly related request from myself from the OP.

 Will it be possible to have more than 2 pushback options - Hong Kong has for instance 3 - 4 pushback options (labelled red, green, blue yellow). I like that in the current version of GSX you can rename the pushback options but having more would be very handy.

I  think also giving a maximum wingspan to a pushback option would be useful, especially where one pushback route may not provide sufficient wing tip clearance.

Thanks
Logged
VHHHflyer
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 62


« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2018, 08:37:18 AM »

I personally prefer the GSX pushback over the XPlane one, which i find unrealistic/cheap.
Logged
LB777
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2018, 10:09:36 AM »

I have to respectfully disagree with you here Umberto.
 
it's just wrong being forced to go through all that procedure each time.

With GSX you also have to go through UI clicks to do your pushback, every time you have to
  • Ctrl-Shift-F12 to open the menu
  • Select the pushback option
  • Select which direction you want

The main difference would simply be to have to click once or twice from a birdís eye view to make your pushback path and thatís it, itís really not a big deal.

is able to figure out MOST of the common push backs automatically, and it's not realistic that you, as the pilot, would do that.

But then itís also not realistic to push back on completely wrong paths because they were computed for you. Iím sure you know it is very common to have planes pushback onto further out taxiways or down different distances because of taxiways constraints (A380), other traffic taxiing, pushing back, etcÖ The complexity is endless.
Being able to create custom pushback routes depending on the situation (traffic, ATC requests) is, in my opinion, more valuable than simply not having to do a couple of mouse clicks more.

That kind of interface might be used when editing a scenery, but surely we wouldn't want to go through that each time you ask for pushback.

Can you imagine how annoying it would be if users had to start to look on forums for ďpushback profilesĒ every time a scenery comes out or is updated, just to have more accurate (but still hardcoded!) routings?

So, this is a clear example of when a program that "looks" more featured, but only because it's less capable of doing the proper calculations on its own.

For sure, itís quite obvious that GSX is a lot more complex, algorithmic-wise, but sometimes the best solution is actually the simplest one, and I think thatís the case here.

Ultimately you guys already did the hardest part! Having automated pushback on any airport. So if coding the alternative method is so straight-forward, why not offer both to users in GSX?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 10:11:28 AM by LB777 » Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29840



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2018, 03:04:42 PM »

The main difference would simply be to have to click once or twice from a birdís eye view to make your pushback path and thatís it, itís really not a big deal.

That's only in the case of the most simple procedures, those that GSX can already calculate automatically now.


Quote
But then itís also not realistic to push back on completely wrong paths because they were computed for you. Iím sure you know it is very common to have planes pushback onto further out taxiways or down different distances because of taxiways constraints (A380), other traffic taxiing, pushing back, etcÖ The complexity is endless. Being able to create custom pushback routes depending on the situation (traffic, ATC requests) is, in my opinion, more valuable than simply not having to do a couple of mouse clicks more.

I suggest reading the manual, the part that explains the custom pushback nodes. GSX already had for some time the ability to create custom routes and with what you have now, it's already possible to fix a lot of less common used cases.

What we are missing is only:

- The ability to base the route on waypoints which are not already-existing AFCAD nodes.

AND

- The ability to pull too.

AND

- The ability to have more than 2 custom routes.

And that's what we'll going to add.

Quote
Can you imagine how annoying it would be if users had to start to look on forums for ďpushback profilesĒ every time a scenery comes out or is updated, just to have more accurate (but still hardcoded!) routings?

So, you find more "annoying" to create the route yourself, each time, when someone might already made it ? That's not how should be done.

With GSX Level 2 addon, the airport configuration capabilities will be already more extensive, which means there's added value in users sharing their own custom profiles, for example with airports having a completely new set of jetways.

Which means, at some stage, we would like to have some kind of network of user-created content, where the program can automatically look for airport profiles, and download them on the fly, possibly with the ability for other users to up/down-vote the contributions.


Quote
For sure, itís quite obvious that GSX is a lot more complex, algorithmic-wise, but sometimes the best solution is actually the simplest one, and I think thatís the case here.

The simplest solution is already the one that GSX use now: being able to sort out the most common cases automatically.

Quote
Ultimately you guys already did the hardest part! Having automated pushback on any airport. So if coding the alternative method is so straight-forward, why not offer both to users in GSX?

And where, exactly,  you read we are NOT going to do it ? I only said we are not going to do it in THAT way.
Logged

LB777
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2018, 05:42:47 PM »

Quote
So, you find more "annoying" to create the route yourself, each time, when someone might already made it ? That's not how should be done.

I do yes, because if you think about it, when you fly in the sim you'll mostly depart/arrive at another parking stand for each flight. So ultimately, when you need a custom pushback route (more complex than what GSX would give you) you'd have to add it manually anyway.
So you don't really "win" anything by saving it for the future or for others, and you have to live with the fact it's hardcoded. Again, being able to create a custom route, based on the situation (ATC, traffic), is the most important to me.

Quote
at some stage, we would like to have some kind of network of user-created content, where the program can automatically look for airport profiles, and download them on the fly, possibly with the ability for other users to up/down-vote the contributions.

Well obviously that would be great, again it sounds a bit like a complicated solution to a simple problem, but hey...

Quote
And where, exactly,  you read we are NOT going to do it ? I only said we are not going to do it in THAT way.

Yes I was refering to that specific way of doing it.

I think it really boils down to different philosophies, you believe it's better and easier for custom routes to be made by people, shared, etc. so they can be used automatically. I believe it's easier and more powerful to be able to create a route on the fly even if that means a less automated way of doing things.

Anyway, I'm excited for the GSX lvl 2 expansion and whatever updates you have planned for GSX, so all I can say is, prove me wrong! Bring it on and prove me your approach is better!  Cheesy
Logged
Kilstorm
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2018, 07:51:06 PM »

I am very happy to hear that FSDT is looking to overhaul the pushback like what it has done with refueling. Coming from a GA perspective I would like to provide some user feedback. If there is anyway to not have the pushback tug for small planes that would be great. Either by reading the size of the plane like how GSX already does to determine parking sizes or to be able to disable the tug like how we can buses and stairways per parking spot.

Additionally, to have a golf cart, side by side or something more favorable to GA needs for a pushback tug would also work. Another option for parking spots to call up a tug as opposed to gates where the tug is already in the area like what we have now.

There are so many things that still could be done for GSX and GA let it be as an expansion pack or more features to GSX. Like having a marshaller there infront of the plane and when the mags are turned on, the marshaller gives the engine start hand motion. Using his right arm to point at the plane for single engine or the port engine and then if the plane is a twin, uses his left arm to point at the plane for starting the second or starboard engine. Stretched golf carts instead of buses for passenger transport is another option and lastly the tradional hand cart for luggage instead of the tug with a the luggage cart attached.
Logged
Speedbird ATC
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2018, 03:56:02 AM »

Who knows? Maybe we will see UCGX and we can use that for our pushback needs
« Last Edit: June 16, 2018, 08:07:46 AM by virtuali » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!