8 For, 4 against, 1 mixed.

Thanks folks. For me it's not important whether they're controlled by CTRL+J or SODE. AES were the best but cost a fortune.

I wouldn't fall for the pricing strategy they use for AES,  the more you use the more you pay. No thanks.

SODE is exciting, I notice the new Flightbeam KMSP has a gate with dual jetways that work with the PMDG B744v3. Sweet.  I've got learn all about SODE on my to do list.

I prefer moving jetways because my sessions start in the cockpit of an airliner that some other crew just left there and it's time to preflight and "kick the tires."  Doing the pre-pushback list of making sure doors are closed, power from APU, etc., includes closing main door, retracting jetway and turning on beacon.  It's minor when jetways don't move, but it is still a little annoying.  If you're dedicated to their use, just figure out which bgl is the dead jetway and add jetways to the AFCAD.

@downscc, I also start from cold & dark but with Concorde. There's plenty to do to get her fired up so realism is important to me.

I've paid plenty to Oliver for AES but as it will probably never be compatible with P3D we can forget it. I spent over £100 on credits!

If only it was as simple as adding moving jetways to the AFCAD we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I imagine there's a bit more involved than that.

Horses for courses but I'm not in the least bit interested in moveable jetways.

I have FSX, P3Dv3.4 and P3Dv4 installed on different drives on my pc.  I've preferred active jetways where available and it really doesn't matter if it is ctrl+j or Sode activated. Mainly, for realism purposes.  I like my a/c to be as realistic as possible (PMDG, TFDi, LevelD) and the airports/scenery and jetways would also fall into that preferred level as well (FSDT, Flight Beam, ImaginSim (KATL), LatinVFR, Tropicalsim, FlyTampa, et al).

I'm slowly going to migrate totally over to P3Dv4 as it matures along with all the addons.  So I'll have many airports that probably will have active jetways and some that won't.  If they don't, I can live with it, have been doing so for some time. 

24 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If only it was as simple as adding moving jetways to the AFCAD we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I imagine there's a bit more involved than that.

It is actually that easy.  At locations where developers have developed their own jetway models, the AFCAD has parking spots without jetways.  Add a jetway to a parking spot and it appears in the simulator. That easy.  Hard part is figuring out which file is the jetway model, but usually the name give it away.  Current ADE compatible with P3Dv4 is free at Scruffyduck, listed in the FSDevelopers forum.

Moving jetways are not that difficult to create and implement in scenery.

For me what we really miss, is the ability to be the one who drive, with the joystick, the jetway to the aircraft, or the chance of pushing the aircraft from the gate to taxy. In the actual situation I never use the jetway and I am not intrested.

I use only the pushback as it's required as part of the flight procedure, but again I would be more interested of interact with voice and not by button.

 

4 hours ago, GHarrall said:

Most of the Orbx ones don't move either.

To answer your question and be quite frank, its not a feature I am interested in at all. I know many do like them and each to their own but I find them pointless. I would rather the developer spend more time on the buildings and surroundings etc. 

 

about as pointless as moving control surfaces? 

I think moving jetways are an important part of high quality airports. Otherwise what is the point purchasing them? We expect full animation of our aircraft and you cant see the conrtol surfaces from the cockpit of MOST aircraft. So why shouldn't we expect moving jetways.

There is/was a bug in the 'ctrl-J' jetways, which made it less attractive for developers, the wheels wouldn't stay on the ground. SODE gave more control, and there has been a shift to this method, but I wouldn't want to have to update hundreds of jetways just to get them moving. Newer projects, though, could and should have them from the start these days.

Definitely in favor of functioning jetways. Especially if it is a paid airport. I'm spending money on something, and I want that thing to, at least, have its most basic parts functional. 

This is why I'm very happy with FSDT KIAH and GSX.

If given he options I would prefer SODE Jetways, because then you can have multiple Jetways connect to your heavies.

The default ones I usually ignore and don't use them.

If animated jetways were never introduced in FSX, there would be an outcry for them. I remember long ago when some default airports had static jetways and they were too tall and a dark gray. Now that we have the functionality, it would be nice to see diverse models and actually have the option for a ground crew to operate them and AI to walk through them. As the AI board, the plane actually gets heavier and visa-versa.

GSX is a very popular add-on, and this proves that ground operations is important to a big portion of the community.

The PMDG 744 v3's inclusion of a highly detailed ground operations module is further evidence of the importance of ground operations to the community.

Its true that GA and bush pilots have little use for animated jetways, but there are other ground operations practical to these pilots that could serve to immerse them. 

I hope to see fully functional (by AI) default airports according to real world operations someday.

6 hours ago, LEFTSEAT said:

Not important 

Same here.

All my flights start at ready to push back and stop with brakes set and engines shut down.

 

Don't give a flip about jetways, I'm more interested in what's happening in the cockpit.  But I know others enjoy the verisimilitude.  Wouldn't be a make or break feature for me personally, either way,