Jetway and P/B: too many options

[goggi]

GSX is a very nice addition to the sim suite, a must-have for complete simulation of a commercial flight. Most of its functions (refueling, catering, parking services and boarding/deboarding) are very nice and professionally looking/sounding (let us ignore for now the pilots boarding when they are already aboard, or the forward catering truck going through theright wing when finished). In short: effective and realistic. Nice immersion.

Since GSXv.2, and even more with v.2.7, the GSX development took a radically different twist: a plethora of menus were added to essentially simple actions (jetway operation, pushback), which led to multiple nested menus for the sake of multiplying options, often unnecessary (in one case there is even a menu entry to confirm the choice already made!). In some cases, menu items even change function dynamically during operation.

Rather than becoming more attractive to the simmer, the net effect is quite annoying, with actions requested from the pilot becoming:
- longer and more complex, with waste of time on details unrelated to real-life operations;
- impossible to embed reliably into MCE flows (for unstable timing issues at system level, plus variable menu structure);
- much less realistic, requiring unnerving chains of keystrokes with menu screens having also variable persistence. No real pilot would do that, they don’t care about providers choice or subtle options!.
Please stop this clumsy evolution, which is definitely moving away from realism and immersion. Most options for visual impact could be well replaced by random choices.

If you wish to keep all these options for the sake of amateurs or programmers do it, but PLEASE put all this stuff into GSX Settings options and provide simple and straightforward shortcuts or defaults bypassing all this nonsense (i.e. one single jetway attaching/detaching to the main door; Left/Right/Straight Pushback). All the rest should be optional. Period.

Thank you for your attention,
Giorgio

[virtuali]

a plethora of menus were added to essentially simple actions (jetway operation, pushback), which led to multiple nested menus for the sake of multiplying options, often unnecessary (in one case there is even a menu entry to confirm the choice already made!). In some cases, menu items even change function dynamically during operation.

We haven't added a "plethora of menus". We added just TWO additional options on the main menu:

- Operate Stairs

- Operate Jetways

Those were added after being asked by users, that wanted the flexibility to decide on the fly if they wanted to do the whole ground procedure, or perhaps just operate the jetways or the stairs, without using the rest of the option.

But you are not forced to use these, and the rest of the menus works exactly like it always did. The only thing added was the waiting for a good engine start confirmation, and that's also an option now, and we even removed the start ending before pushback question, which always came, now it's optional by airplane and disabled by default.

In addition to that, we added the Automatic servicing mode, in which GSX operates on its own without any input.

So, in fact, GSX has become more streamlined, not less. If you think it hasn't, please make a precise example of an operation you now find more convoluted than it used to be, and we'll discuss that.

[eremusfly]

Whilst there are many small/sophisticated details that surely drew you a lot of developing time, e.g. the logo we can put on any air bridge, there are some other functional details (probably more relevant than the graphic banners) still neglected (therefore the options aren't too many, ... they are too few):
- With one more option, stairs (which require no door selection) could come along right after jetways (just as one they move away upon departure);
- Why can't we leave the pilots & crews boarding/deboarding procedure out of the deal ? One option box would suffice ...
- Why are we asked to leave the 2L door of a B737 open, to allow the flight attendants to embark/disembark, even if we are parked at a terminal gate and they're likely to use the 1L jetway ? Lack of situational awareness ?
- Why can't we be assisted by the ramp in a simple engine-start procedure with no need for pushback (e.g. taxi-thru stands) ?
- Talking about where to go with more intense customization: if we got our wives/girlfriends to record their voices to expand the flight attendant signals "Catering is over" "boarding complete" "deboarding complete" etc. ... why can't the onscreen messages and/or the default sounds be replaced by custom ones ? Sound customization is poor, yet it is not less important than graphic customization for the overall realism impression.
- If, supposedly, I don't care that much about the company which provides me with a service ... why can't the selection procedure be radically skipped ? Waiting a given number of seconds, watching the menu, is a waste of time if I already know - and I should set that up in the preferences - that I am not gonna bother about that.
- After the luggage has been loaded, why do carts & their operators stay parked in proximity, instead of leaving the spot ? And why are all the suitcases just red or blue ?
These are just two cents. And, yes, the 7.5 ft tall catering crew need to bend over to fit thru a B737 door.

[AirbusA330]

I'd like to comment here because I've a different opinion than the thread opener. I really like the many (new) features of GSX and the number of possibilities to customize the procedures. This way, we are able to replicate the ground handling procedures as close to reality as possible. Thanks for giving us the option to select the right (real-world) jetway logo, ground handler and caterer, thanks for the possibility to define custom quick-edit pushbacks, and for the possibility to operate the jetways individually - like it is in the real world, when shortly before departure one jetway is already removed but the last one is still connected.

As eremusfly says it would be great to have the possibility to have a procedure for taxi-out stands and the option to select crew boarding and passenger boarding seperately.
Also, it would be great to customize the time needed for deicing, as the deicing is much too fast in comparision to real world deicing, which needs 15 or more minutes sometimes

[virtuali]

Whilst there are many small/sophisticated details that surely drew you a lot of developing time, e.g. the logo we can put on any air bridge, there are some other functional details (probably more relevant than the graphic banners) still neglected (therefore the options aren't too many, ... they are too few):

So you think being able to customize the graphic was overkill...

- Talking about where to go with more intense customization: if we got our wives/girlfriends to record their voices to expand the flight attendant signals "Catering is over" "boarding complete" "deboarding complete" etc. ... why can't the onscreen messages and/or the default sounds be replaced by custom ones ? Sound customization is poor, yet it is not less important than graphic customization for the overall realism impression.

...then you suggest you would like to have a better sound customization ?

- With one more option, stairs (which require no door selection) could come along right after jetways (just as one they move away upon departure)

Please clarify this.

- Why can't we leave the pilots & crews boarding/deboarding procedure out of the deal ? One option box would suffice ...

This will be added, I think we already said this in other threads.

- Why are we asked to leave the 2L door of a B737 open, to allow the flight attendants to embark/disembark, even if we are parked at a terminal gate and they're likely to use the 1L jetway ? Lack of situational awareness ?

We'll check this.

- Why can't we be assisted by the ramp in a simple engine-start procedure with no need for pushback (e.g. taxi-thru stands) ?

Please clarify, are you referring to adding a new kind of procedure, or just an option to not perform a pushback ?

why can't the selection procedure be radically skipped ? Waiting a given number of seconds, watching the menu, is a waste of time if I already know - and I should set that up in the preferences - that I am not gonna bother about that.

The operator selection menu will be skipped if there's only once choice, so you could do that by setting a single operator on a gate.

- After the luggage has been loaded, why do carts & their operators stay parked in proximity, instead of leaving the spot ? And why are all the suitcases just red or blue ?

They aren't. They are black and brown, as many users suggested to be the most common colors.

Are still on FSX ? If yes, you must be aware that everything related to FSX for us in "life support" mode, we won't do any new developments for FSX, especially those that take lots of time like 3d modeling and texturing.

We are still releasing updates to the GSX *CODE* that works in FSX, but that's just because that's a custom Python code that runs in our interpreter which is not really depending on the simulator used, but we stopped updating the models for FSX years ago. GSX looks totally different in P3D4, from a graphical point of view.

These are just two cents. And, yes, the 7.5 ft tall catering crew need to bend over to fit thru a B737 door.

He's not. The P3D4 guy is 5'4" ft tall, the FSX guy is 5'8" tall, see the attached screenshot from 3DS Max.

[eremusfly]

1) So you think being able to customize the graphic was overkill...
Didn't say that; my point was "functionality first, esthetic second". Never sacrifice the first for sake of the second.

2) ...then you suggest you would like to have a better sound customization ?
Yes, and that will happen not only when more events can be notified through sounds, but also when users are free to put their own files (including boarding/deboarding, which need to be "regionalized" too ...) instead of the default ones.
Mind you, this full customization should include ... silence. If there is another software taking care of the same "noises", GSX ought to prove flexible.
Take pax boarding for example ... for the time being you must give away GSX graphics if GSX sounds can't be turned off ...
And silent (empty) wavs are a quick and flexible equivalent to a complexe series of sound-on/off options.
You save programming time for other stuff, and leave the sound recording jobs to users. Open your sound system to GSX users as free contributors.
They will gladly send you their collections for public download, worldwide ... The flightsim community is no stranger to this !


3) Please clarify this.
What I meant is ... can we have an option so that the "operate stairs" is issued automatically after an "operate jetways" command has taken place ?


4) This will be added, I think we already said this in other threads.
SUPER ! Can't wait to see it working

5) We'll check this.
Same as above

6) Please clarify, are you referring to adding a new kind of procedure, or just an option to not perform a pushback ?
The other user (AirbusA330) who replied to Goggi's post also mentioned a "taxi-out stand" ground assistance option ... and I have some real pilot friends that are GSX users and are aware of the same need ... but let the mortals up and ask ! There might be some new pieces of dialogues involved ... Hope you don't mind. Can be more specific after I have talked to one friend and maybe invite him here.


7) The operator selection menu will be skipped if there's only one choice, so you could do that by setting a single operator on a gate.
I hope you are kiddin. Are we turning the whole house around the bulb to replace a burnt light ?
Why don't you just add an option to randomize the operator selection, for users who don't care ?
Or offer another way where the operator selection menu just doesn't get in our way so often ...


They aren't. They are black and brown, as many users suggested to be the most common colors.
Then I am either daltonic or there is something wrong with my FSX or my pc. I see them red and blue.
But this was not my point ... they are standing there, on those carts, even when they shouldn't, being too early (airplane just parked) or too late (airplane pushing back).


9) Are you still on FSX ?
See above.

10) He's not. The P3D4 guy is 5'4" ft tall, the FSX guy is 5'8" tall, see the attached screenshot from 3DS Max.
Well, if that's their correct size, then I have a Lilliput Airlines B737. They clearly bend forward when they enter the cabin, like they were NBA champs. And it looks ridiculous.

[eremusfly]

to be precise, they are as tall as the door and they don't bend forward: they kneel down.
See attachment.

[Captain Kevin]

3) Please clarify this.
What I meant is ... can we have an option so that the "operate stairs" is issued automatically after an "operate jetways" command has taken place ?

I'm kind of curious as to why you would want to operate the stairs in the first place if you're already using a jetway. I don't know too many places where they would be doing this.

[goggi]

Pity, my English must be really inadequate or exceedingly convoluted.

I am not proposing, in any way, to steal from you your beloved changeable banners (which I do appreciate, but not in this implementation) or your streamlined menus within menus within menus.

I am just proposing to follow the procedure adopted for the quoted “good engine start confirmation”: a nice small checkbox in the GSX Settings page (the various options being applied at random or by default, your choice). No quarrel, no sweat.
Giorgio

[virtuali]

What I meant is ... can we have an option so that the "operate stairs" is issued automatically after an "operate jetways" command has taken place ?

They obviously move automatically when you do a Boarding or Deboarding. The whole point of having a separate "operate" menu for both, is to let users control them manually.

They aren't. They are black and brown, as many users suggested to be the most common colors.
Then I am either daltonic or there is something wrong with my FSX or my pc. I see them red and blue.

You are not daltonic, you only failed to read the rest of my answer about FSX.

10) He's not. The P3D4 guy is 5'4" ft tall, the FSX guy is 5'8" tall, see the attached screenshot from 3DS Max.  Well, if that's their correct size, then I have a Lilliput Airlines B737. They clearly bend forward when they enter the cabin, like they were NBA champs. And it looks ridiculous.

I don't know what are you trying to say here: should we model people shorter than they normally are, just because the airplane door looks too small to you ?

[eremusfly]

3) Please clarify this.
What I meant is ... can we have an option so that the "operate stairs" is issued automatically after an "operate jetways" command has taken place ?

I'm kind of curious as to why you would want to operate the stairs in the first place if you're already using a jetway. I don't know too many places where they would be doing this.

In the first place ? I didn't say that.
I did say I would love to have the stairs automatically connected soon after I have connected the jetway.
Most FS gates with jetways don't have external stairs of their own, so having some stairs connected to the aft doors allow ground access. Cleaning crews outta use them, I don't think they board - like passengers - from inside the terminal ... do they ?

[pete_auau]

you  probably  find  they  do  enter  via  like  passengers if  they are  connected  to a jetway

[eremusfly]

I guess I can't ask PDMG to raise the 737 doors ... I thought it was possible to shorten the crews so that they needn't kneel under the doors.

[virtuali]

I guess I can't ask PDMG to raise the 737 doors ... I thought it was possible to shorten the crews so that they needn't kneel under the doors.

So now, you are really asking to make people SHORTER than reality, because you suspect the door on a PMDG airplane is too low ? I have no idea how tall a 737 door really is, and if it's required to crouch to enter in real life, but that's besides the point.

The only thing we should care, on our side, is to model OUR objects correctly and, as I've already shown in my previous screenshots, our two Catering both have normal heights.

P.S.
why you keep writing in Blue ? If you need to quote, use quoting.

[eremusfly]

I guess I can't ask PDMG to raise the 737 doors ... I thought it was possible to shorten the crews so that they needn't kneel under the doors.

So now, you are really asking to make people SHORTER than reality, because you suspect the door on a PMDG airplane is too low ? I have no idea how tall a 737 door really is, and if it's required to crouch to enter in real life, but that's besides the point.

The only thing we should care, on our side, is to model OUR objects correctly and, as I've already shown in my previous screenshots, our two Catering both have normal heights.

P.S.
why you keep writing in Blue ? If you need to quote, use quoting.

Good. Let the crews crouch, as I've already shown in my previous screenshots. I have no idea how tall a 737 door really is, too, but I seriously doubt the real ones do ... pax themselves should crouch too. If their height is adequate, removing the crouch should be enough.
P.S. I like blue