I have never used GSX so can't comment on it. However, I use AES and I have no problems with spending a little extra to buy credits to use it. It takes a lot of work by Oliver to make AES usable for different sceneries as each gate is mapped for pushback etc. Also AES has evolved considerably over the years and will be developed further.

 

Interesting that FSDT aren't going to allow AES for Vancouver. Oh well, I will now remove it from my planned purchase list.

AES is custom built to the airport which is why it costs a modest amount. GSX is one size fits all which is ok as we'll just not as polished in my opinion. But that's what's good about more than one product.

Exactly, It's like add-on aircraft, you could say you're just going to use FSX default aircraft, because it provides many aircraft and don't have to pay for more add-ons. You'd never get the likes of PMDG if you had that attitude, you'd say "Look I already get a modest 737 with just FSX and a whole heap of other aircraft, why buy more?" It's about the experience, and while GSX is better than nothing, in areas where AES is available it's the bees-knees....

 

Exactly, It's like add-on aircraft, you could say you're just going to use FSX default aircraft, because it provides many aircraft and don't have to pay for more add-ons. You'd never get the likes of PMDG if you had that attitude, you'd say "Look I already get a modest 737 with just FSX and a whole heap of other aircraft, why buy more?" It's about the experience, and while GSX is better than nothing, in areas where AES is available it's the bees-knees....

Apples to oranges but I get the point. Don't agree with your opinion but that's why we have forums and choices!

I made the choice of "neither".

 

I fly cargo exclusively though so I'm not really sure what I should be doing. I know that moving jetways are pretty far down my list of wanted fixes for payware airports though.

AES is a ripoff, plain and simple. It's developers feeling free to gouge customers, just to provide a moving jetway. That moving jetway is the only real reason to get AES. And the smart consumer will buy AES for only those airports that do not have moving jetways. GEX works fine for everything else.

 

I really don't see why the consumer should be expected to foot the bill to get a moving jetway. Airport sceneries are expensive. Many developers seem to expect to sell their sceneries for $20 or more for one airport. The least they can include in this price range are moving jetways.

 

Fortunately, only a few developers do not provide moving jetways with their airports. The most prominant example is Blueprint. But there is no AES support for Blueprint airports in any case. Blueprint's work tends to be fairly low quality. Another low quality developer is Imagine Sims. But at least the money one saves in buying their low quality scenery supports the purchase of AES for their airports.

 

And yes, all payware airports which lack moving jetways are low quality products -- the least the developer of higher end sceneries can do is purchase AES for their airports if they do not want to provide moving jetways.

AES is a ripoff, plain and simple. It's developers feeling free to gouge customers, just to provide a moving jetway. That moving jetway is the only real reason to get AES. And the smart consumer will buy AES for only those airports that do not have moving jetways. GEX works fine for everything else.

 

I really don't see why the consumer should be expected to foot the bill to get a moving jetway. Airport sceneries are expensive. Many developers seem to expect to sell their sceneries for $20 or more for one airport. The least they can include in this price range are moving jetways.

 

Fortunately, only a few developers do not provide moving jetways with their airports. The most prominant example is Blueprint. But there is no AES support for Blueprint airports in any case. Blueprint's work tends to be fairly low quality. Another low quality developer is Imagine Sims. But at least the money one saves in buying their low quality scenery supports the purchase of AES for their airports.

 

And yes, all payware airports which lack moving jetways are low quality products -- the least the developer of higher end sceneries can do is purchase AES for their airports if they do not want to provide moving jetways.

 

It's obvious you've got no clue what goes into AES. If you think it's just moving jetways then good on ya. Blowing off this kind of ridiculous post is silly. It's worth every penny due to the custom work done for each and every airport. There's a vast difference that's readily apparent between the one size fits all GSX and the custom AES. Keep the conversation civil. Always one that has to go off the deep end ad turn a good topic to utter crap.

 

@zboe

 

Since I'm employed by a major cargo "airline" I stay away from That type of simming.

 

From my own experience freight airplanes still get catering (on a much smaller scale obviously), there is a visit from a dangerous good specialist , acmx, fueller (in some cases) and the person who coordinates the load.

 

So what can GSX (and maybe AES) provide? You get to see the ULDs come out on the lifters with your airline's logo!

 

Lastly, I have worked in environments where cargo planes do have something like jetways, but they are outnumbered almost 4 to 1 by manual crew stairs.

It's obvious you've got no clue what goes into AES. If you think it's just moving jetways then good on ya. Blowing off this kind of ridiculous post is silly. It's worth every penny due to the custom work done for each and every airport. There's a vast difference that's readily apparent between the one size fits all GSX and the custom AES. Keep the conversation civil. Always one that has to go off the deep end ad turn a good topic to utter crap.

 

Randy,

 

I have to admit that other than moments of weakness where I was tempted to get AES credits just to make the jetways move on some of my airport sceneries, I've pretty much felt the same way as Douglas. Can you explain what other differences there are between GSX and AES and why AES is better? Given the massive price difference you would expect AES to be much higher quality but the object modeling quality, at least, is lower across the board. What other value is AES adding to these airports that GSX isn't?

 

This is a serious question I'm asking in good faith--if there really is a reason to go with AES besides the jetways maybe I can justify getting some moving jetways at San Francisco and Yekaterinburg. ^_^

 

James

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/361500-aerosoft-aes-vs-fsdreamteam-gsx/

 

Read through that topic. Really more than I can say off the top of my head. There really is quite a bit more to AES than people realize. I own both products and like them both but AES is what I prefer when it's available.

I have a ton of credits in AES, and I do agree that the customization is great. I just don't think that graphically it stands up to GSX anymore. The newer models and animations are better, but not nearly as good. I think the way the marshaller and vehicles look as they travel across the ground are clunky, and often simulate a reverse moon walk where they glide across the surface rather than appear as though they are actually walking. The vehicles have that same glide sensation rather then driving and I find them a bit distracting anymore. And finally the pushback is also very clunky with a sudden pick up and jerk backwards rather than a smooth push where the wheels actually turn in time with the movement.

 

GSX just looks and feels much more natural to me, which as was said, is of course just my opinion. We are spoiled for choice and I'm thrilled by that fact.

Oh I'll agree the eye candy of GSX is better. One thing I hope Oliver updates soon.

Personally I thing that AES has the edge on GSX in almost every way, the notable exception being the baggage loading animations (which are non existent in AES) and the price.

 

What annoys me about GSX is primarily the poor vehicle movements. About ~75% of the time I use GSX I get vehicles moving in physics defining ways, doing double takes, driving through objects, my plane or each other. Often it looks like a cow on ice, rather then a vehicle on tarmac. Most of the time that is just an eye candy issue that I just choose to ignore, but when it involves the follow me car or the pushback truck it annoys me. It's just a little silly when the follow me truck drives next to the taxi way line, turns of a taxi way, only to do a 360 a little later and come back to the taxi way it just vacated. Same goes for all these times the push back truck has pushed me into buildings, of the tarmac or just didn't turn the plane at all. The other day in Wellington (ORBX) it pushed me on the airports car parking lot :mad: .

 

I was hoping that those issues would be addressed but as of version 1.5 the vehicle logic seems unchnaged to me.

 

The other issue is the gate handling which is non-existant in GSX. Given how flawed the FSX gate handling is I can't blame scenery designers such as ORBX, Aerosoft and Flytampa for not bothering with it, although I still preferred they did.

 

I also find AES expensive, but you can't argue with the fact that the guy researches all implemented airports properly and models each and every parking positions logic by hand, including push ins and towing aircraft away from obstacles/buildings before giving permission for engine start.

I had to :He He: on the GSX vehicle comments. True, I never saw huge tow trucks turning that fast. The cow on ice, nice!

 

But I think GSX just shows how some AFCADs are designed. With the generic approach, one has to pick a dependency to make all the airports work, so that's the one GSX uses.

My initial post was not meant really to start a debate over "one system is better than the other" but express a disappointment - and surprise - that airport scenery designers would not implement the standard jetway movement thus giving the exclusivity to AES.

 

For example, when reading yesterday evening all the manuals of Aerosoft, I noticed (evidently) that they were recommending AES to get jetways movement. I certainly can understand why Aerosoft does that (to increase their sales), I don't when other developers do it as well, such as (but not only) Fly Tampa in St Marteen where there is just a handful of jetways to design.

 

This is where I believe the consumer is being cornered to buy AES simply by the unwillingness of the scenery designer to add this feature that was standard before for most of them!

I like both of them, because AES simply does a great job on everything I want (though the configuration of new aircraft may be a bit difficult), and GSX still fills the gap at those airports not supported by AES very well. I think that the pricing of either is just fair.

I actually don't even really mind the lack of moving jetways by GSX, except at some airports that neither have AES support nor moving jetways, so I can stand at the gate, and can't get my passengers deboard, because GSX wants me to attach the jetways. I think there should be some option to "trick" GSX into thinking the jetway was in place.

The only thing I really dislike about GSX is the behavior of the Follow Me Car, as someone has stated already. It's hardly possible to follow it, especially when you have to slow down to turn.

 

Regards,

Flo