Author Topic: Suggestion jetways  (Read 3666 times)

jakecreates

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Suggestion jetways
« on: May 06, 2013, 06:03:21 pm »
Hello,
It is very annoying when pulling up at an airport and finding out that the jetways wont work because the animations are not assigned as they require AES. I would like to propose that GSX/3RD Party offers a service where for a small fee we can have animations for that airports jetways and if possible a full ground plan that will ensure GSX dosnt make any mistakes with marshalling or push backs? Whilst this may seem farmilliar to AES unlike AES, gsx will still be avaliable at every airport in the world for free however the customer will have the choice to upgrade for a better experience
Kind Regards
Jacob

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50659
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Suggestion jetways
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2013, 06:23:39 pm »
I would like to propose that GSX/3RD Party offers a service where for a small fee we can have animations for that airports jetways

In FS9, it made sense for 3rd party developers to rely on AES, because doing animated jetways was cumbersome, complex and not very flexible. But on FSX, the official SDK offers a way to create animated jetways, which are also featured in DEFAULT sceneries.

Some of the best airport developers out there (excluding FSDT, which someone might see as having an interest in pushing proper FSX jetways because GSX, even if we had them in Zurich when GSX wasn't even planned...), like UK2000 and Flightbeam, understand this, and realize that if you ask money for an FSX scenery, it should support *at least* what FSX supports by default.

They airports surely have more value than others with static jetways, and also shows a better ability to optimize, since it's just too easy to make a "fast" scenery, with all static jetways.

And, this doesn't prevent to have AES support on top of it. In fact, once you lay out a scenery to have FSX animated jetways, which means you separate the terminal from the jetway, most of the work is already done to have both default FSX and AES support, for those that want it.

Quote
and if possible a full ground plan that will ensure GSX dosnt make any mistakes with marshalling or push backs?

This is already possible, to some extent, with the integrated scenery editor that comes with GSX. You or the scenery developer can create a GSX customization for an airport, and the scenery developer can distribute the .INI file together with the scenery. In fact, is so convenient, that we used it ourselves for CYVR and JFK V2, the .INI file that comes in the scenery folder together with the .BGLs is the same file anybody can create with the GSX editor.

What is still not possible with the supplied editor, is to create custom Pushback routes and add Docking systems. But many problems with the Pushback could be easily solved if scenery developers wouldn't always accept the ADE default of "None" as the Pushback preference (although this might be quickly fixed with GSX editor) and set a proper Left/Right/Both preference.

But I agree that custom Pushback definition, which GSX supports but doesn't allow to be user-editable, would be a worthwhile addition.

I'm not sure it would be really feasible trying to chase the pay-per-airport business model, since GSX is a global product, I'd say our limited resources are probably better spent to improve the core features of the program that would immediately benefit 20.000 airports at once AND giving users better editing tools, so they can share airport customization freely.

Or, having new variants on the GSX theme, like products based on GSX tailored for GA aviation, one for Cargo, another for Military, etc. But still always Global in scope.