My goodness Umberto. I was referring to my earlier November post, not to my "Sunday" post not getting a reply.
But you wrote this:
Yesterday, I replied to that post with "Has anything been done?" with no reply.
Yesterday surely doesn't sound like you were referring to the November post, surely not in this 2nd sentence, and to THIS I was replying to, when saying "do you always work on weekends ?"
As to this "fix", Flightbeam was able to fix these AFCAD situations within a very short time
The issue is, you are assuming these have anything to do with AFCAD, but they don't. Some of these objects are created by our script engine, and (IF they are separate objects), they are usually removed AUTOMATICALLY by GSX, only when GSX selects a gate, so you are not presented with the choice between always having an empty scenery, just to be sure nothing will never conflict with GSX, or having a more detailed scenery, which might clash with it, because THANKS to the cooperation between the scenery and GSX, you can have both.
However, not all of them are automatically removable, and they are usually embedded as details of a larger 3d objects, since it's better for performance. So, while a traditional scenery using .BGLs might look simpler to fix, it's coming with some performance cost, since separate objects in their own .BGL are harder on fps than a detail of a bigger mesh.
Now, it would be easier if you could make an example of a problematic gate, so we could check more easily if this is just a case of an automatically-GSX-removable object that for some reason cannot be removed automatically, or it's just a detail mesh that would require some reworking of the 3d object.