GSX uses the same rules as FSX itself: the AFCAD selected by GSX will be the one that matches the ICAO of the airport used and the one on the higher layer in the Scenery Library will be used in case there are more choices.

 

Yes. I place my "MyTraffic" scenery layer, the one with the multitude of default enhancing AFCADs, on a much lower priority layer (lower number in the CFG) than added airport scenery to ensure it doesn't take precedence. Then every now and then I run one of those duplicate AFD finders and move the duplicates out of the MyTraffic scenery folder into a "saved" sub-folder. They shouldn't theoretically do any harm if the add-on AFD file overrules (deletes) everything (some don't, I've noticed), but it certainly saves some load time and must help performance a tad.

 

Regards

Pete

To sum up this thread, it appears that a number of users don't mind paying three times where they could pay only twice: I.e.

• Once for the airport scenery (with fixed jetways à la Aerosoft/Fly Tampa)
  
• Once for AES credits (because jetways don't move as in default FSX)
  
• Once for GSX
  

That's economically very interesting...

 

Perhaps PMDG should consider skipping the sound files on their upcoming releases, TSS does that very well, and why not let Shockwave do the lights? In the same vein HiFi AS should only do the weather programming and let textures to the Australian fellows who are doing great in this niche...

 

All that would not be bad after all because in each case we would still have the possibility to use the default feature of FSX (graphics, textures, sounds) but in the case of the airports, we have NO choice, once the developers remove the moving jetways from their products, we HAVE to buy AES, since we have no more default feature to fall back on, and this is where I disagree and believe we should demand from scenery developers that they allow the FSX default feature to remain functional if the client so desire.

 

Thanks for your support!

To sum up this thread, it appears that a number of users don't mind paying three times where they could pay only twice: I.e.

• Once for the airport scenery (with fixed jetways à la Aerosoft/Fly Tampa)
  
• Once for AES credits (because jetways don't move as in default FSX)
  
• Once for GSX
  

 

I think that's yet a further misunderstanding. As previously very clearly stated, AES comes ready-tailored for the airports for which you buy the credits. For me that's more important even than the moving jetways. I know GSX can be so tailored (and thank you Umberto for reminding us of this), but I don't often have the time, and even more rarely the patience, to do this. So I, for one, am pleased that Oliver does it for us, for a few credits, effectively a small mark up on the airport price.

 

Pete

a small mark up on the airport price

... that you would not need to pay at all if the default functionality of FSX for jetways were respected by airport scenery developers!

... that you would not need to pay at all if the default functionality of FSX for jetways were respected by airport scenery developers!

 

Oh dear. You evidently didn't read my post thoroughtly enough. As I pointed out, Jetways were not my main consideration!

 

Pete

No sure why there is a fixation on moving jetways. Scenery developers make their own choices and then put it to the market to sell. If you don't like what they have done - don't buy it!!!

 

For me it's not just about moving jetways. I don't mind parking off stand and using stairs. It is the whole support thing that I like eg catering, refuelling, de-icing etc. For that, I don't mind paying a few extra dollars for AES. Maybe one day I will get GSX but AES meets my requirements now.

 

Perhaps the next step for you Jean-Claude is to email the developers and ask why they have made their decisions to ignore the internal FSX functionality.

To sum up this thread, it appears that a number of users don't mind paying three times where they could pay only twice: I.e.

• Once for the airport scenery (with fixed jetways à la Aerosoft/Fly Tampa)
  
• Once for AES credits (because jetways don't move as in default FSX)
  
• Once for GSX
  

That's economically very interesting...

 

Well, there's a solution for this, which is buying FSDT sceneries (and Flightbeam's, I must add...) because they:

• Come with animated jetways already
  
• Don't require to purchase GSX, since GSX works for free there
  

 

Sorry, but you offered me too good of an assist on this...

 

No sure why there is a fixation on moving jetways. Scenery developers make their own choices and then put it to the market to sell. If you don't like what they have done - don't buy it!!!

 

Thank you for making my point...

 

For me it's not just about moving jetways. I don't mind parking off stand and using stairs. It is the whole support thing that I like eg catering, refuelling, de-icing etc. For that, I don't mind paying a few extra dollars for AES.

 

You'll get all of this with GSX, everywhere, with default, 3rd party and past, present and future sceneries ( De-icers should come in the next update...we had de-icers in Zurich since 2007 but, we have to update their models to GSX standards first ).

 

Even if we (hypothetically) went bankrupt, or retire, or stop supporting GSX for any other reason, GSX will STILL continue to work as the one-time purchase it is, even with sceneries not yet released (provided they come with a standard AFCAD) and you'll still be able to customize them using the integrated GSX editor, without the need of special support from us or from the scenery developer.

Are you sure it is free Umberto? You haven't added the cost for GSX to the price of the scenery?? lol

Since i installed W7 i have my 43 AES credits become spendible again : )

 

I'm so happy about that because i use GSX and AES together (AES/GSX for jetway equipped addon airports, GSX for everything else).

 

The jetway is operated by AES, GSX does the catering, AES the cleaning (GSX stairs) and fueling. GSX handles the boarding and pushback.

 

To have them work together without AES vehicles popping up:

 

The AES intelliscene file should contain only 2 doors. The boarding door, positioned correcly and the tail door (for cleaning) positioned correctly except for its hight (should be less than 1.00). PMDG B738 intelliscene looks like this:

 

[Descr]

Type=B738

[Geom]

Nosegear= 12.5

Door1=-1.65, 11.15, 2.75, 8

Door4=-1.45,-15.5, 0.95,-9

 

 

Next the AES marshaller should be made transparent. To do this you have to add a black alphachannel to these two files from the AES texture folder:

 

AES-PN-01-02-0000

AES-PN-01-02-0000_LM

 

Because AES uses FS9 style models the transparent marshaller will be seen as a clear shape on FSX models but i hardly ever notice it. And it looks better than having 2 marshallers during pushback.

If GSX selected a Traffic AFCAD, FSX would have too, and this would result in misplaced taxiways, misplaced parking spots, default buildings popping out, etc, even without taking GSX into account so, you are supposed to fix conflicts between duplicates AFCADs anyway.

 

This is all very true, BUT I did not notice the problem until I started using GSX. This is particularly true when I would use the GSX Warp function. Suddenly I would find my plane parked in the middle of a terminal building. It took me a while to figure out what the problem was. In fact, I really was not aware that My Traffic was using its own afcads.

 

The reason I would not notice is actually pretty simple. I would just taxi and park the plane as it appeared on the ground. I really did not have to worry about what FSX was doing. Well perhaps that would explalin why some jetways would not work right -- I was not parked in the right spot. But this would be a problem in AES as well.

In fact, I really was not aware that My Traffic was using its own afcads.

 

Just move the MyTraffic scenery layer way down below add-on airport layers (lower in the FS scenery layer dialogue, earlier/lower number in the SCENERY.CFG file) then on the whole you'll be fine, and won't have to worry so much when adding a new airport. It is still best to remove those in the MyTraffic scenery folder which do deal with the same airports, but in most cases it works anyway by the priority system.

 

Pete

No sure why there is a fixation on moving jetways. Scenery developers make their own choices and then put it to the market to sell. If you don't like what they have done - don't buy it!!!

 

Yeah I never got the fixation with moving jetways either. I like "realistic" as much as the next guy, but I have never bought AES just to get that functionality. Since getting GSX it handles enough stuff for me and if I am at an 3rd party airport with non-moving jetways it doesn't really bother me. Most of the time the only function in GSX that I use is the push back and parking marshaller. The other stuff I mainly just use for taking screen shots as I dont usually want to take the time to watch the loaders and catering vehicles.

 

As far as not getting an airport just because it doesn't have moving jetways, i've always looked at it like this. If the said airport is one that I really want and the only other option is using the default that has moving jetways, I will always buy the 3rd party one since graphically it will look better and be more accurate than using default.

I think that's yet a further misunderstanding. As previously very clearly stated, AES comes ready-tailored for the airports for which you buy the credits. For me that's more important even than the moving jetways. I know GSX can be so tailored (and thank you Umberto for reminding us of this), but I don't often have the time, and even more rarely the patience, to do this. So I, for one, am pleased that Oliver does it for us, for a few credits, effectively a small mark up on the airport price.

 

Pete

 

I agree. I'd rather have Oliver do the grunt work for a small fee.

 

I use both products but I prefer AES when it is available. As I have stated in the past, if I used GSX on a more regular basis, I would probably have a better understanding of its logic. When I use it on an occasional basis, it just seems a little heavy handed with its constraints. I was in a situation at LAX where I closed my main cabin door too early and GSX wanted me to open it again. If I opened it again I would have messed up the QPAS sequence on the QW757. I just wanted GSX to clear everything an push me back but it wouldn't cooperate. In AES, hit F6.

 

The second issue I have with GSX is it drops a FSDT AFCAD in every FSDT scenery folder every time it updates. Most of my FSDT AFCADS are adjusted with ADE and I rename them with my naming convention so I know they are the ones I created. I remove the original because I do not want duplicates. Whenever GSX updates, it drops AFCADS back in to all of the FSDT scenery files.

I bought GSX, simply because it suits my current FSX setup way better (exactly TWO payware airports plus a handful of freewares) and I was able to demo it before buying. When I do buy more airports I'll probably live with the limitations re: jetways as I'm happy enough with things as they are.

 

At first my gut feeling on AES was that it was an overpriced option, having to buy it on a per-airport basis, and GSX was a no-brainer with its one-time only price. And AES only supports specific airports, compared to GSX working at every (major) airport?

 

But since then I've thought about it at length. AES focusses on supporting payware add-on airports exclusively (plus a couple of freewares I think) If you consider the cost of the AES credit as a surcharge on the cost of the airport in order to get the improved services (which as we are reminded is tailored specifically for each airport)... on reflection that doesn't seem so bad. One of my airports is UK2000's Manchester Xtreme, for £17, one of my very first FSX add-ons. Would I have been happy buying a "Deluxe" version of that airport for £19 which added controllable ground services?* I think so. It's just a matter of perspective.

 

I can see the logic behind someone who uses AES already , then buying GSX to "fill in the gaps" at unsupported or default aiports (if they still use them). Going the other direction, I'm not entirely sure if the added features of AES justify the additional cost when GSX already does most of it but that's purely a personal judgement calland you may feel otherwise. As long as AES and GSX can happily sit alongside eachother and it's not a straight either-or choice, it's not quite the no-brainer that it first appeared to be.

 

Dr V

 

(*Note: Manchester Xtreme does already include a "dumb" service fleet and marshalling options in a very limited number of gates, so not the best example)

Going the other direction, I'm not entirely sure if the added features of AES justify the additional cost when GSX already does most of it but that's purely a personal judgement calland you may feel otherwise.

 

and you lose a big one - Baggage loading.. (Although I believe it may be added in an update to AES)