GSX refueling system ok with PMDG?

[Boeing or not going 578]

Good question for the FSDT forum.  I assume that like all FSDT updates, it will notify you when an update is available.

I received an email, it is in their forums, since it is still a beta release it will not prompt you to update. I am hoping the GSX Cargo version comes soon! - David Lee

[whoispankaj 51]

Isn't there anything in the SDK where it could allow fueling?

[PerWel 23]

In the GSX manual the section about re-fueling is re-written and have an example on how to do it with PMDG 777. It is only a visual thing.

 

I am just about to test it with the NGX737 to see what happens. Set fuel in the FMC as usual and then call for refueling.

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Umberto-

 

Sometime AFTER we get the 400 out the door- we should coordinate a bit on this.

 

We can give you some hooks to help sequence the animation times, from hookup to start of fueling, etc.

 

It will take a bit of cooperation- and this late in the game I don't want to tear into making adjustments to that part of the airplane- but I'm certain it can be done.

[Spidierox 4]

 

 

The setting that controls how GSX behaves with any given airplane, is the "Show Fuel and Cargo" checkbox in the GSX airplane configuration page. If it's Un-checked, it will work in "Passive" mode, so the plane will command everything and GSX will just react to it.

 

Is this a general setting in a menu or can you specify "Show Fuel and Cargo" for each aircraft separately ?

[virtuali 4,421]

Is this a general setting in a menu or can you specify "Show Fuel and Cargo" for each aircraft separately ?

 

It's customizable separately for each airplane.

[virtuali 4,421]

We can give you some hooks to help sequence the animation times, from hookup to start of fueling, etc.

 

Hello Robert,

 

Thanks for the proposal.

 

Right now, we just detect if the fuel quantity is raising constantly, and we stop the service when the constant refueling ends. However, since we support multiple tankers doing several trips (the largest one holds 10K gallons, so it cannot refill a 777/747 in one go), there's a gap between the time when one truck leaves and the other arrives so, it would be nice if the plane could momentarily stop refueling when there's no fuel hose attached, which would make it more realistic.

 

In general, I think we can enhance the experience of both our users, if we had more bi-directional communication between GSX and the airplane systems. The bypass pin simulation might be another thing to consider: right now, when GSX is doing Push back, the rudder pedals are "flickering", because they are fighting with GSX. We already have some published variables that the plane code can read, to know if GSX is pushing, so they can momentarily stop controlling the front gear or the rudder pedals, like a true bypass pin.

 

There are so many nice things that might be added if there was more interaction between an airplane and either GSX or even the scenery itself...

 

I'll contact you to discuss it further.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

However, since we support multiple tankers doing several trips (the largest one holds 10K gallons, so it cannot refill a 777/747 in one go), there's a gap between the time when one truck leaves and the other arrives so, it would be nice if the plane could momentarily stop refueling when there's no fuel hose attached, which would make it more realistic.

 

Honestly, "more realistic" would probably mean that it's only a pump truck and not a tank truck. Many international airports that service larger jets have ground hookups that a pump truck just hooks into.

 

[kingm56 1,031]

I thought there are multiple connection points on larger airframes, which allows multiple trucks to refuel the aircraft simultaneously?

[virtuali 4,421]

Honestly, "more realistic" would probably mean that it's only a pump truck and not a tank truck. Many international airports that service larger jets have ground hookups that a pump truck just hooks into.

 

Well...no. They are BOTH equally realistic, and you cannot say one is more realistic than the other.

 

There are many airports around the world that, for different reasons, don't use an underground refueling system.

 

Here's some examples of international airports, refueling large airplanes with a tanker:

 

787 at Warsaw:

 http://previews.123rf.com/images/stanislaw/stanislaw1308/stanislaw130800037/21456897-WARSAW-AUGUST-4-New-Boeing-787-Dreamliner-of-the-LOT-Polish-Airlines-receiving-fuel-from-tanker-truc-Stock-Photo.jpg

 

777-300 at Saigon:

http://transport-photo.com/samples/Mzc3NjE4NWY4ZGIxZDA2/MTE2ODVmOGRiMWQwNg==/Boeing-777-Refueling.jpg 

 

777 Cargo at Amsterdam Schiphol:

 https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7021/6667966819_cb94c7c565_b.

 

787 at Paine:

 http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/images/bioana1.jpg

 

Air France 777, unknown location:

 http://avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_ja676MG45Zg/S5wZq6-XQiI/AAAAAAAACmI/JfgQ3V7DVgk/s1600/Air_France_Boeing_777-300ER_refueling.jpg

 

As you can see, there are plenty of examples of large tankers still being used today so, you cannot say one system is more realistic than the other, since they both are.

 

Of course, we made the tanker first, because an hydrant system would require SOME cooperation with the scenery too, so we must find an easy way for users and developers to indicate were the fuel points are located on the airport, we simply cannot place them randomly over the apron: that would be "unrealistic".

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Well...no. They are BOTH equally realistic, and you cannot say one is more realistic than the other.

 

Statistically speaking? I'd argue that you're more likely to run into the pump trucks, at least at airports where you're going to see the 747 and 777 (and other heavies). I'd agree with you that, for the airports with more 737s and smaller planes, the story could be a bit different.

 

Imagine making a shorter turn time at a large international airport (particularly in the EU where slot times are do-or-die), where you have to swap trucks 4-5 times to fill a 747. Keeping in mind, as well, the fact that international arrivals and departures are usually scheduled for around the same time, with only about 2-3 hour turn time, you'd have to have a literal rotating fleet of trucks at these airports to meet demand. Luckily, at many of these larger airports with heavier aircraft with larger capacities, this isn't often the case.

 

I can see precisely why - logistically - one would make their program use a tank truck. I was simply challenging the use of "realistic" to describe filling a 777 up with one, and having to do a bunch of code work to pause fuel loading to accommodate that. Does it happen? Sure. Often? Eh...

[virtuali 4,421]

Statistically speaking? I'd argue that you're more likely to run into the pump trucks, at least at airports where you're going to see the 747 and 777 (and other heavies). I'd agree with you that, for the airports with more 737s and smaller planes, the story could be a bit different.

That probably depends what airports you choose to include. Yes, on large, modern airports, the hydrant is surely more common, but overall, taking into account ANY airport where a 747/777 could land, the fuel truck tanker is not so uncommon, especially in some countries with less environmental concerns.

 

Just an example of an airport we just made, Memphis: they upgraded the refueling system to use underground piping only in 2014, the current satellite image on Google maps still shows the work in progress. 

 

But that's beside the point: you said an hydrant fuel system would be "more realistic", now you are saying it's more common (which is not so clear, worldwide, but let's assume it is) but More common != More realistic.

 

I was simply challenging the use of "realistic" to describe filling a 777 up with one, and having to do a bunch of code work to pause fuel loading to accommodate that. Does it happen? Sure. Often? Eh

I'm sorry, but that's not the case. I was simply challenging your usage of the term "more realistic", when it might be more common, but that hardly makes it "less realistic".

 

In fact, I would say that, without the "bunch of code to pause fuel loading", the airplane refueling simulation is not as realistic as it could be, since it only support one system and doesn't take into account the possible usage of a tanker truck.

 

Of course GSX is totally ready for this, it would be enough to just add the proper vehicle and, as I've said, some kind of support from the scenery (or an easy way for users/developers to do it) to indicate exactly where the ground connections are located.

 

By disabling the "Multiple Trips" option in the GSX Settings page, the result would be a tanker with "infinite" capacity, so the refilling will always be made in one go, with no need to pause anything so, you'll effectively get the same effect as an hydrant, except for the actual vehicle model, which is not there yet, but it certainly will at some point.

 

That doesn't change in any way the fact that it would be nice if we could DO something to pause the refueling, when a tanker is used.

[Zuendholz 50]

The usage of the fueling truck with PMDG is not clear to me. Will GSX recognize a PMDG aircraft and do the refueling passive, but I still can type in my wanted fuel and GSX is simulating the fulingtime like in the shown video? Because the PMDG 737 doesn't simulate a refueling time. Or do I get here something completly wrong?

[Gabe777 132]

Probably best just hitting whatever you fancy in the list and then Pushback when ready to go. Treat it as an animation, rather than the integrated intelligent app, it purports to be.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Gabe777