Aerosoft AES VS FSDreamTeam GSX

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Add me to the list of users that would like to see networked interface for GSX.

[tf51d 284]

I don't know how AES works, but I can only guess.

it either uses the Airport/Scenery Addon built in AFCAD file as a reference which is less likely, or it uses it's own AFCAD like files for the airport in question.

if you remember when you activate an Airport in AES, it places some BGL files in the Aerosoft/AES/Secenery directory.

those are probably the "AES" internal AFCAD like files that AES uses.

reading where your plane is situated on the a scenery/AFCAD is easy and done on the fly.

so with the info of the airport and the location of your plane at the airport, AES can service you at the right location as soon as your plane is on the tarmac.

 

I found this video of AES in operation, granted it's version 2.21 not the current one, but to me it looks like it works pretty much like GSX does, After landing you initiate b menu, it defaults to a gate, but it looks like you can change it. Once at the gate You select deboarding which starts the jetway and all the vehicles to move in position. There is no backage unloading animation seen, and it also looks like you activate catering menu, boarding etc by menu also, no different then GSX. Look toward the end of the video right after landing at VHHX.

 

[Akila 39]

the only difference is (not really tested it with GSX, maybe you guys could tell me) , is that with AES once I land and ordered

taxi to a gate through the ATC, i.e. assigned a gate and taxi path (in my case i Use VoxATC, but I know it also works with the FSX stock ATC), I already have the AES crew and marshal and cars waiting for my arrival at the gate.

that is so cool to see how I turn to the gate I get a warm welcoming from the AES Marshal and crew. waiting for me without doing anything.

it was all done automatically.

[virtuali 4,421]

makes sense , however you could have solved this very simply (well in 50% of the cases or so).add an Option in GSX (main/global Option) that the User should Check a box rather AES is installed on the same box or not. and if you really want to be proactive , let GSX auto detect it's presents.

 

Of course it's easy to do but, not without having AES doing something similar, and let users choose if they want to have it started automatically or not. The effort should be made by both parts.

 

P.S. Another added value by doing so , is that you will get rid of the dependency

on one having AES just for Automatic jetways that causes PPL to keep AES (many keep the AES just B/C of that feature).

 

You forget to say:

 

"only at those 3rd party sceneries with fake/static jetways".

 

GSX works at all FSX airports, and you will have animated jetways for all 20000+ FSX airports + all FSDT airports + Flightbeam + UK2000.

 

If GSX supported only selected 3rd party airports, I might agree we should offer support for animated jetways on 3rd party sceneries that don't have them, but since GSX is a global product, it still mandatory for the "rest of the world", or at those sceneries ( Orbx, Blueprint, etc.) whose developers even *oppose* to AES, but can't do anything to "stop" GSX working there and we (or even users, using the provided scenery editor in GSX) can even customize those sceneries.

 

 

And the issue is, supporting every 3rd party scenery with animated jetways would require GSX to go to a "pay for airport" model, which is not what we want to do, since the "pay once" model is EXACTLY what made GSX SO HUGELY SUCCESSFUL ( it sold in 9 months just like our previous N.1 product, JFK, sold in 4.5 years) . On top of that, people that already invested in AES credits will not likely buy support for the same airport again.

 

But, most important, we believe that our time is better spent adding new features to GSX itself, rather than working to animated jetways at individual airports because, exactly due to the GSX nature of a "global" addon, it will benefit more by getting new features rather than specifically supporting individual airports. When we'll add working de-icers, all 20000+ airports will get them at one. When we'll add visible passengers (one day they will come...), they will appear at all airports too. Each single GSX improvement has a much larger weight in GSX, because it affects thousands of airports at once and, if our source of income would be supporting individual airports, we would be locked adding these without much time and manpower to add new features.

 

* simplicity

 

I agree.

 

* One tool for everything (as much as possible)

 

With the exception of animated jetways for those 3rd party sceneries that miss them, GSX is already a complete tool.

 

* Self service (in our case, as much control over the product behavior or the most flexibility)

 

This conflict a bit with simplicity: right now GSX is surely flexible, you are asking options to make it more automated, that surely can be done and, as I've said, it was made like this following suggestions by testers, that all wanted to use it together with AES so, we gave users more control to when and how start GSX and letting them working with GSX installed, as if GSX wasn't installed at all.

 

there are many more to it, I won't get into it,you get my point...

 

 

Yes, but you simply forget one thing (maybe the most important one)

 

Price...

[Pe11e 812]

GSX vs AES perfomance comaprison? Both addons deliver good models, so...

[virtuali 4,421]

GSX vs AES perfomance comaprison? Both addons deliver good models, so...

 

I don't think you will see much visible difference.

 

The theoretical difference is that GSX uses vertex shaders for animations (which are native to FSX, since it doesn't support FS9), which means it might be slower on a slow video card and might be faster on a modern video card.

 

Also, GSX runs its entire program logic outside FSX, which means the logic can be even fairly complex (and it is) but it won't affect in any way FSX fps or take a single bit of FSX precious RAM, which it would happen if it was running in-process with FSX, with the logic handled by a standard FSX .DLL module.

 

Yes, we use the Addon Manager too, but it doesn't do much for GSX, 95% of GSX code runs externally under Couatl.exe, which means that, on top of not consuming any FSX memory for the program logic, we get multi-core optimization for free, since the OS will schedule the GSX threads using spare CPU cycles, and on a running FSX (on a multi-core system) there's plenty of unused cpu power on the other cores, and users are even able to control it by using the Task Manager Affinity and decide what core to reserve to the Couatl.exe, ideally one that is not assigned to FSX, but this is not really necessary: the OS usually does a reasonable job automatically.

 

Made this way, GSX has a lot of room for growth, because we are not bounded by the available RAM (on a 64 bit OS, Couatl.exe will get its own 4GB without taking away from FSX), and we can do the logic as complex as we want to, without fear of slowing down FSX while doing calculation.

 

I believe this technique might be successfully applied to complex airplane products, having the gauges as "dumb" as possible, just displaying graphics which results from calculations and simulations made externally, and it might be an escape route to fix the lingering problem of less and less memory available to FSX, because it's still a 32 bit app, and is not getting any better, with products getting more and more complex.

[Pe11e 812]

That techique sounds good! If AES is using FSX resources then the conclusion is simple GSX wins the perfomance test easily?

[Akila 39]

virtuali, I read your reply and most of it is correct.

the animated Jet-way, I was not aware it is something custom made/tampered

by Aerosoft on the scenery itself, I thought it was there already and AES just uses it in an automatic way.

no, I do not expect GSX to support the Animated jetway if it's not built in the scenery files themselves.

it would be even stupid to think this is possible for this product price tag. - I agree.

Self service (not really relevant here in this case) but as options for the User, yes it does in away contradict

with Simplicity , a common ground is probably what needed. - I agree

 

what I do not agree is the fact that not adding the features in GSX because of AES might be present without checking if it is

or giving the user the option to and depending it on AES to do the same..

one has nothing to do with the other. if AES want's to do it fine, who cares.

I am talking about GSX users, if they have the option to fully utilize GSX automatic, by either picking the option "AES not Installed" or being auto detected by the GSX system in expense of not having AES,

is an amazing option. let the customer decide rather they will run in GSX full automatic mode , or AES complaint mode.

(I personally seeing myself removing AES if it would be more automatically, who needs it if i get most of it in GSX).

many of us would find it that we no longer need AES if GSX would utilize the features GSX was afraid of implementing because of "interfering" with AES.

Let the user decide on the method, or auto detect it and utilize GSX better if AES not present.

 

did you ever run a survey how many GSX users actually own AES?

I have a great feeling that it's a majority that don't, your testers probably do, but your testers a far more hardcore then the average customer, I wold not base

my product only by your tester's opinion.

remember, there is a huge chance (I might be wrong though) that we are depriving the majority of GSX customers from having full featured automatic product

for the minority that might have AES as well.

I am not saying , who care about the minority, let's put in a full blown featured GSX in their expense. what I am saying not giving the user the option to utilize GSX fully because of the minority doesn't makes sense.

you know what, even if AES users are not the minority and they are actually the majority, why not utilize a pretty simple mechanism as you said yourself is easy to implement,

to auto detect and work GSX accordantly.

just make sure to communicate this to your customers if you do the change.

it is two GSX modes in away, they must be aware of this.

[virtuali 4,421]

That techique sounds good! If AES is using FSX resources then the conclusion is simple GSX wins the perfomance test easily?

 

I only explained how GSX works internally, not really making comparisons. That's the theoretical difference. The real-world practical difference in *fps* might be more related to how 3d models are made.

 

Sometimes it's difficult to compare: AES doesn't have luggage, pallets and crew with skinned animations loading them so, I would expect it being faster on that service, GSX surely would be, if we got rid of the humans and all kind of visible baggage, but we think the impact on fps they have is very tolerable, considering you are sitting on the parking, losing a couple of fps shouldn't be a problem in that situation, and it surely looks much better this way.

 

is an amazing option. let the customer decide rather they will run in GSX full automatic mode , or AES complaint mode.

 

 

I must say this way of doing it might be a good suggestion, we'll surely think about it.

 

Note that, we just opened a developers section on our forum, because we are considering doing an external API to let 3rd party access and control GSX from their software, and we wanted to hear from other developers what they would need to interface GSX with their products.

 

Products like Fs2Crew will be able to control GSX, so the Virtual Co-pilot might be assigned to handle all ground services, if needed, and this might fit well in a program such Fs2Crew.

 

So what you are asking might eventually come, either as a standard GSX feature, or as a feature of such external products.

[Akila 39]

this would would have a huge positive impact on the product what you are saying.

it would be a great thing if it works out.

that for sure would promote the product dramatically if there will be an API interface utilized by 3rd party.

I bless for it successes.

[OmniAtlas 93]

AES better for me, no doubt!

It's straightforward, I hate all those messages by GSX on the FS screen, those bips to remind you to close or open the doors, etc. With AES you arrive at the gate and you find it ready with the marshaller and the vehicles, with GSX you have to remember to start it with CTRL+F12, then select the gate, etc.... Too many unrealistic clicks and windows, a further load for the virtual pilot that the real pilot DOESN'T HAVE! With AES Remote I don't see a single window on my FS screen and everything is more automatic. Not to speak about the lack of the fingers in GSX!

 

It hink with the latest gsx you can turn off the messages.

[Ben Cap 89]

Add me to the list of users that would like to see networked interface for GSX.

 

What would be the benefit/purpose?

[Swofford 155]

 

 

What would be the benefit/purpose?

 

Anything I can run on a seperate machine I do just because I find it easier to mess with. I don't like things popping up on my FS screen.

[Ben Cap 89]

Anything I can run on a seperate machine I do just because I find it easier to mess with. I don't like things popping up on my FS screen.

 

Ahhh okay... Thanks! :smile:

[WarthogCC 0]

I know this is an old thread but after today I have to add something about GSX.  As far as the software is concerned I fully agree with alepro's assessment.  But I must say GSX was developed and supported by one guy.  And I just had the worst experience with that guy.

 

I simply asked a few months ago for support regarding entering the serial number.  I found out later that the popup appeared behind the FSX app when in full screen.  But when I asked initially for this help, the very first comment I got was an insult.

 

"it's really simple if you wouldv'e read the documentation." assuming FINDING the documentation was easy.  When I continued on to explain to him how difficult is was to figure out, he just kept insulting my intelligence.  Telling me that it's simple, or, (the popup) isn't showing because of something I might be running in the background, or, "no one else has this problem so why do you?", etc, etc.

 

It kept going on like this even though he could have simply said "the documentation is located here..." or "some people have discovered that the popup usually 'hides' when in full screen" or "not a problem, let me see if I can assist you with that", or, "any feedback you can provide would better help me, help you.", or just generally being nice overall.

 

But no, it just was a bunch of avoidance responses and insults.  (This was 3 months ago)

 

In the end, I discovered today that he replied back with a "final" insulting response.  So I had asked him nicely Why?  Why all the insults and elitist attitude?  To which it went on some more.  I already saw where this was going so I had said that I am not afraid to post reviews about this.  No one should have to be treated the way I was.

 

So he decided to give me an immediate refund with the mindset that "You are now no longer a customer and cannot say such things."  LOL  I didn't even ask for a refund.  Oh well, his loss.  Maybe one day he'll grow up.

 

Note: I just wanted to say that I in no way condone insulting people or making them look bad.  But when you are a "customer" paying REAL MONEY for support, you would expect to be treated fairly.  Apparently this is not the case with the developer of GSX.