Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

peter11

A plea to all software developers: PLEASE stop making fake/Static Jetways.

Recommended Posts

I am really getting tired of this business between Working Jetways, AES, GSX, And Fake/Static Jetways. Now that GSX is probably favored over AES, this is really getting ridiculous!! I am also getting tired of having 2 marshallers!!

 

Last night I was flying from Aerosoft's PANC,(With AES) when I called for GSX's refueling, the air stairs parked up the aircraft right inside the jetway. Now I know this is no fault of GSX, but it's a fault of companies not updating their sceneries to natively support moving jetways.

 

I really LOVE flytampa, but I resent the need to buy even more for the airport, just to have moving jetways!??? Ridiculous!

 

Static jetways might of made more sense in the Days of FS2004, when moving jetways weren't internally supported, but in FSX there is No reason to not make moving jetways.

 

It's not even going to make AES go out of business!! They still make AES support for, Let's say, FSDT KLAX, and they make the jetways very nice.

 

If you don't like the animation of the default FSX jetways... then Buy AES! The scenery developer shouldn't force a customer to choose between ground handling companies.

 

This is 2013, not 2005, Grow up.  <_<  <_<

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I agree too. I hate when airports require AES

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know fsx generic moving gates have tons of limits on details? AES bypass those limits.

 

If a scenery has moving jetways, AES can STILL make better jetways for that Airport! Look at FSDT KLAX. AES isn't just limited to airports with fake jetways. Therefore, there is no reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply pretend that for whatever reason the jetway is currently inop, that's why the airstairs of GSX are used instead :P!

It's really not such a great deal, and at the few airports where I really would like to have the jetways move I can spend a few AES credits. And for the double marshallers, you can still edit the GSX congiuration if that really annoys you that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know the feeling. One of the reasons that has put me off the new Budapest scenery (for now)

 

Buy a nice scenery - i.e. Dubai.. then you need to buy AES credits to get the jetway working!

 

Least airports such as LAX/LAS already have the moving jetways!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only FSDT makes GSX interact with all payware airports that AES supports, I'd be much happier using just GSX exclusively then.

 

They already support air bridge operations at all default airports plus their own airports , wonder why they didn't make the jump over competition and offer their own software that supports all airports - payware, freeware or default!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read an interesting discussion about this elsewhere.  Like with most things FSX, there are different viewpoints.  Some scenery makers believe that the "look" of the FSX default jetways detracts from the rest of their work.  In other words, great realistic looking airport, but the jetways do not match their reality counterpart at that airport.  Another viewpoint is that the default jetways negatively affect the performance (they are not coded right, old code, etc.)  Instead of designing moving jetways as part of their scenery, they design static ones.  It just happens that one could purchase AES credits to "replace" the jetways, with moving jetways and the rest of the features in AES.  GSX offers similar features, but does not replace the jetways.  

 

For pilots who prefer moving jetways as part of their immersion, the options are limited.  Another pilot in this forum pointed out that his criteria was that if it did not have anything to do with "piloting" he wasn't interested.  Taking that approach would eliminate this jetway issue because no matter how "low cost" the airline is, the pilots do not operate the jetway, open the jet doors, load/unload, refuel, etc.  I would prefer a product that does all of this automatically.  That would really be immersive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fps penalty for moving gates is not worth it. It's FLIGHT simulator not gate simulator.

 

There are much bigger fish to fry in the fsx world IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only FSDT makes GSX interact with all payware airports that AES supports, I'd be much happier using just GSX exclusively then.

 

 

Because it requires the developer of the particular airport to provide the files to do that. Umberto explained that, and imagine how long that would take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fps penalty for moving gates is not worth it. It's FLIGHT simulator not gate simulator.

 

There are much bigger fish to fry in the fsx world IMHO.

 

Obviously wrong, default gates do not affect fps that much. Yes, it's an easy way to save FPS, but look at ALL of FSDT's airports. They all have default jetways and FSDT KLAX has excellent frames.

 

And the same could be said about any add-on. Go say to Fsdreamteam "This is a FLIGHT simulator, not a GROUND handling simulator", or "This is not an airport simulator".

 

All of the small things add up to make the most realistic experience, so yes, we should focus on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an issue that has weighed very heavily on my mind for several nano-seconds now and I'm glad to see it finally being addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I worried about this all last night so much, that I didn't sleep a wink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why there are some very condescending replies in this thread. If it doesn't bother you or you don't have anything constructive to say, don't reply...

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why there are some very condescending replies in this thread. If it doesn't bother you or you don't have anything constructive to say, don't reply...

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

Well said :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee, sometimes we just get bored and read these sub-interesting posts.

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously wrong, default gates do not affect fps that much. Yes, it's an easy way to save FPS, but look at ALL of FSDT's airports. They all have default jetways and FSDT KLAX has excellent frames.

 

And the same could be said about any add-on. Go say to Fsdreamteam "This is a FLIGHT simulator, not a GROUND handling simulator", or "This is not an airport simulator".

 

All of the small things add up to make the most realistic experience, so yes, we should focus on this. 

 

Here is a quote from the jetways section which you may like to read:

 

"The screen shot shows the default jetway. This one design is used throughout the simulated world.

There is a performance cost in rendering animated jetways, so they only appear when the Scenery Setting is set to the maximum."

 

So, the question is why are animated jetways more framerate intensive than non animated?

 

Well, a simple non animated jetway can be one single part and will only make one drawcall (if the texture is mapped properly). In addition, again if the scenery is made properly, adding additional jetways will not increase the number of drawcalls due to the FSX texture batching. Drawcalls are important because these really kill framerates, far more than increasing polygons. If you can draw 50 jetways with only 1 drawcall you are doing really well.

 

Animated jetways use bones animation and in the example in the SDK there are 8 bones in a single jetway. Animated parts do not use FSX texture batching. Having 8 animated parts means there will be at least 8 drawcalls (each animated part creates at least one new drawcall). Multiply by 50 jetways and you could have 400 drawcalls for animated jetways versus just 1 for non animated.

 

And drawcalls have a very big impact on performance. Reducing drawcalls to the minimum possible should be the objective of all good scenery designers. It is also one of the things that all scenery designers have to consider. Performance vs appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


This is 2013, not 2005, Grow up.

 

Yes indeed it is, but the sim we are using is still 2006 tech, and if devs see benefits in performance by not having moving jetways I don't blame them. I rather have static jetways than having the airport run like a slideshow -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can throw all the technical jib jab at me all you want, explain FSDT's excellent frames at their airports then.

 

And if Animated Jetways have such a high performance cost, than doesn't adding AES just cost more FPS then? hmm..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently I'd just be wasting my time.

No, you haven't! That post was very interesting, thank you very much for taking the time and share your knowledge.

 

Since I have no idea about what developing a scenery actually means, this might sound stupid, but what about developers give us the option to choose between static and (default) moving jetways during the installation process? As mentioned above, I have no problem with static ones myself, even without AES, but since obviously quite many want to have moving jetways, that seems a reasonable aproach to me (but again, I don't know about scenery design, so from a pro point of view that could very well be supid)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites