GSX PRO is out

[virtuali 4,419]

2 hours ago, somiller said:

Yes, if you want GSX to import the passenger manifest from a simbrief fp there are bunch of superfluous (as far as should concern GSX) variables you have to satisfy - here are two:

1.) Aircraft ICAO type designation MUST match that of the aircraft dispatched in the fp (currently PMDG 737 aircraft.cfg contain incorrect type des. and must be edited for this to work) - if not GSX silently errors and will not load passenger count from fp

2.) fp dispatch time MUST be a time after initiation of passenger boarding time - if not GSX silently errors and will not load passenger count from fp

There's no need to repeat here what YOU think it's "superfluous", when it clearly isn't, and the reasons why have been explained to you on our forum not just by me, but other users as well *before* I had to say anything.

No, GSX doesn't "silently error", what you continue to call error is a precise design decision that has ben clearly explained in the manual when the preconditions to accept a flight plan from Simbrief are explained, which are all obvious and logical for everybody, just you don't accept them.

The icao type restriction is there for the obvious reason we just can't blindly take in a flight plan made for a 747 into a 737, because *everybody* would think it's just wrong and silly for GSX create 400 passengers and have them magically fit into a 737, that's why it's correct to check for the airplane type and don't ignore it as you suggested. 

You found "hardly realistic" that GSX had to estimate a 214 passengers when an real 737-800 could only carry 189, yet you suggested a solution that would have created much larger errors, because the numbers could be coming from a flight plan made for a completely different airplane. With GSX calling for like 5 Buses worth of passengers, because of your suggestion to ignore the airplane type.

And all of this why ? Only because by chance, PMDG made a *small* mistake of setting their icao type designator incorrectly, something that could have been fixed in a minute, and they already said it was a oversight and will be fixed soon.

Because if this didn't happen and the icao type in the aircraft.cfg was correct to begin with, you would have just said "wow, GSX took the pax number from Simbrief automatically", because this is what normally happen. If *BREDOK* made a mistake in their icao_type_designator, making GSX "silently error" nobody would even cared...

Edited August 29, 2022 by virtuali

[virtualstuff 750]

1 hour ago, somiller said:

Completely untrue - I read the manual, ran the installer 3X to update after installing, and still keep experiencing "coatl isn't running" or whatever the error says when the menu won't open. GSX is a disaster, and no amount of polishing that tu^d is going to make it not so. EVERYTHING in that video is 100% accurate.

Well if you read MSFS support forums in general MSFS has a problem to start automatically exe files (a known bug) Fenix has the issue several others too, just start the exe file manual when you're flight is loaded...

Your drive \ local path \ Addon Manager\couatl64\Couatl64_MSFS.exe and before that right click choose the compatibility tab and choose run as administrator (one time edit) 😉

Well the video isn't 100% accurate so re-read the manual....

For example after every update make sure to run the GSX config (via the FSDT installer) and run excluded 3d party stuff and be surprised no double gates as mentioned in the video I can go on...

Edited August 29, 2022 by awf

[MDFlier 2,031]

4 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Not for me is doesn't. Unless you call people floating in the air and poking through roofs working. And if it works out of the box with third party airports why are third party developers making profiles for it?  I was not told, when I paid my money, that time (in fact a lifetime of time), effort and a degree of file editing knowledge would be required in order to get it to be fully functional. 

Someone scolded me once for saying that GSX is a tool that allows you, and pretty much demands, that you use it to customize your experience. In P3D, I edited hundreds of gates to avoid basically the exact same types of things people are talking about here. GSX vehicles have no idea where scenery objects are. It doesn't really know where the airplane is. It knows where the doors, and other contact points are relative to an imaginary point in the center of the airplane. GSX reads one file for the airport. That file exists for every airport and it only gives GSX the layout of taxiways, runways, vehicle paths, vehicle parking positions, gate positions, and probably the generic location of some of the buildings. Airport devs usually put the miscellaneous objects and obstacles present in airports in other files that GSX doesn't even know exist so the objects in them are completely invisible to GSX. There can be many files per airport. The only answer is to A.) Be incredibly lucky that every gate you spawn a flight at will be perfectly laid out so that there are no conflicts, B.) Accept that most gates won't be right and that you will need to edit them once. C.) If you don't want to edit gates yourself, live with the conflicts until you can download someone else's config files for the airport and hope you like how they did it. or D.) Save your money and get something else. The default gate layouts and services are pretty tragic. GSX is making algorithmic decisions as to where to start things based on the radius of the parking, and the obstructions it can glean from that one file. There is no way FSDT could manually fix every gate at every airport in the world.   

2 hours ago, David Roch said:

Sincerely, when you purchase an airplane, you download and install liveries, right?
So it takes about the same time to configure 1 gate in each 3rd party airports with GSX. You don't need more than that. Or to install ini files others have made for you.
Not a big deal 😉
 

Precisely! Pick a gate or 3 at every airport you use, edit them, and then only use those gates,

I've gotten used to the new editor already so I can fix everything I need to at a gate, save it, and reposition the aircraft to it in about 1 minute. I just place an object, hit F4, place the next, hit F4, and keep going until I hit the last one.

Start edit - Move the entire parking forward until the circle is just a little past the painted airplane on the tarmac. F4 - move the marshaller backwards to some open spot out of the way (and F2/F3 to change to a VGDS if I want). F4 - move stop position so that the nose is on the proper hash (if marked) or any hash or location that puts the door where the jetway can reach it if there aren't any markings. F4 -move the tug back as far as possible and rotate it so it can get to the nose gear without smashing anything. F4 - move baggage carts to the far left side of the airplane, out of the way of the jetway. They just take off across the airport as soon as you start the boarding process, so just put them somewhere out of the way where they won't hit anything when they leave. If I have to, I put them in the next gate over to the left because the jetway will block my view of the collisions. 😁. F4 - move loaders to where catering won't hit them when moving to the aircraft doors, and to where they can get to and from their proper doors without conflict. Press enter to exit. Use reposition at current gate. Done. Once you get used to the keystrokes and the sequence, less than 1 minute. I guarantee it.

Edited August 29, 2022 by MDFlier

[somiller 694]

3 hours ago, virtuali said:

There's no need to repeat here what YOU think it's "superfluous", when it clearly isn't, and the reasons why have been explained to you on our forum not just by me, but other users as well *before* I had to say anything.

No, GSX doesn't "silently error", what you continue to call error is a precise design decision that has ben clearly explained in the manual when the preconditions to accept a flight plan from Simbrief are explained, which are all obvious and logical for everybody, just you don't accept them.

The icao type restriction is there for the obvious reason we just can't blindly take in a flight plan made for a 747 into a 737, because *everybody* would think it's just wrong and silly for GSX create 400 passengers and have them magically fit into a 737, that's why it's correct to check for the airplane type and don't ignore it as you suggested. 

You found "hardly realistic" that GSX had to estimate a 214 passengers when an real 737-800 could only carry 189, yet you suggested a solution that would have created much larger errors, because the numbers could be coming from a flight plan made for a completely different airplane. With GSX calling for like 5 Buses worth of passengers, because of your suggestion to ignore the airplane type.

And all of this why ? Only because by chance, PMDG made a *small* mistake of setting their icao type designator incorrectly, something that could have been fixed in a minute, and they already said it was a oversight and will be fixed soon.

Because if this didn't happen and the icao type in the aircraft.cfg was correct to begin with, you would have just said "wow, GSX took the pax number from Simbrief automatically", because this is what normally happen. If *BREDOK* made a mistake in their icao_type_designator, making GSX "silently error" nobody would even cared...

There's no need for you to repeat here your justification for insisting your software be our babysitter.

"which are all obvious and logical for everybody" Not nearly as obvious or logical as you presume. Fortunately you don't get to decide what's logical for everybody.

Believe it or not Umberto, all of us aren't as stupid as you seem to think we are...I don't need your software to check that I'm using the right aircraft FOR THE FLIGHTPLAN THAT I CREATED - I DON'T NEED YOUR SOFTWARE TO BE MY DADDY.

By the way, thank you for the refund for GSX...I can assure you I had already uninstalled it.

For anyone still on the fence you don't have to believe either of us...better idea - go over to the FSDT forums and see all the "successes" with GSX.

[Reader 2,009]

 

Quote

Fortunately you don't get to decide what's logical for everybody.

 

Without even starting to be involved in a squabble over GSX, something that I do not have,
this statement is a perfect example of the problems faced by those seeking to offer product support.
Computers rely entirely on logic and logic is an entirely objective thing.
Something is either logical or it is not.
It cannot be a bit logical and certainly, one cannot have a personalised logic.
Once logic is treated as personalised, it becomes no more than opinion.

This is why many attempts at product support fail, because the customer applies their "own logic"
and instead of following the solution offered, applies their own solution, which usually does not work.

Once "my perception" of "logic" is introduced, all hope of successful product support is lost.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Reader

[steve 86 287]

what i would love to have is waypoints for vehicles so i dont need to place all vehicles near the stand, and would love to be able to connect the tug when ever i wish 

[virtuali 4,419]

1 hour ago, Reader said:

This is why many attempts at product support fail, because the customer applies their "own logic"

And that's precisely why I don't just write single blanket sentences, which can then be quoted as the definitive answer.

I always argument my point and, my point was:

somiller thinks GSX should just ignore the airplane type, and load a Simbrief flight plan made for another aircraft in any case, even if it could then cause in a massively inaccurate variations in the number.

I explained why doing this would be worse than what *he* experienced, a way lower difference in the passenger count, caused only because the icao type designator was wrong in the airacft.cfg file, which caused GSX reverting to its default method of estimating the passenger number based on payload, which is not as inaccurate as it would be, if we just took any flight plan, without checking.

This is called "argumenting" and my opinion is the suggested solution of ignoring the airplane type would lead to way more wrong perceptions as "GSX has a bug" than how it currently works.

[virtuali 4,419]

1 hour ago, steve 86 said:

what i would love to have is waypoints for vehicles so i dont need to place all vehicles near the stand,

This is an interesting suggestion, which I don't think it will be very difficult to add. It will of course made the program more complex to use.

[RALF9636 1,902]

Is it possible to only use the follow-me-car feature of GSX without having GSX do anything else to the sim?

I am not interested in new jetways, walking passengers and service vehicles and don't want the sim to become more complex.

To have a follow me car would be great though.

So can that single feature of GSX be used without anything else?

[F737MAX 5,517]

6 minutes ago, virtuali said:

This is an interesting suggestion, which I don't think it will be very difficult to add. It will of course made the program more complex to use.

How about creating a 'normal' and an 'advanced' selection in GSX that only permits functionality, like vehicle waypoints, when 'advanced' is chosen?
It may encourage some users that cannot use these extra features to leave them alone, while giving extra capabilities to other, more adept users - those who seemingly can create a highly detailed new GSX profile for an entire airport in about 5 minutes.

Just my 2p worth.

[tup61 1,542]

3 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Is it possible to only use the follow-me-car feature of GSX without having GSX do anything else to the sim?

I am not interested in new jetways, walking passengers and service vehicles and don't want the sim to become more complex.

To have a follow me car would be great though.

So can that single feature of GSX be used without anything else?

Afaik you can ignore anything you don't want to use. I do know some people mainly use GSX for the push back and nothing more. So yes, you can iognore the rest and only use the follow me car. A bit of an expensive car it would be but well. ;)

[NZ255 309]

28 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Is it possible to only use the follow-me-car feature of GSX without having GSX do anything else to the sim?

Yes although the follow me car relies on the ‘AFCAD’ (are we still calling it that?) so results are dependant on the airport developer laying it out correctly. Most of the time it should work great

[psolk 3,037]

I find all of this talk of manually editing gates and airports pretty amusing considering since it's release there are almost 200 GSX profiles on .to   It will probably be over 200 by the end of the day!  

In P3D I leveraged the incredible work that produced Cartayna files but that still required some fiddling and quite some time to amass so this is the equivalent but community driven and at scale.  

In P3D I customized maybe 5 gates that I used most and leveraged Cartayna files for the rest, in MSFS I will do the exact same thing.  

It's amazing what took years to accomplish in the past by one dedicated individual has been surpassed in weeks by the community.  

Don't see much need for fiddling, chances are someone already did it for me and I am incredibly grateful!  🙂  

Edited August 30, 2022 by psolk

[virtuali 4,419]

12 minutes ago, psolk said:

I find all of this talk of manually editing gates and airports pretty amusing considering since it's release there are almost 200 GSX profiles on .to   It will probably be over 200 by the end of the day!  

We were expecting this, although not *that* fast, that's why we spent so much time on the editor and to provide lots of high quality objects like Jetways and VGDS, which are not easy to do.

I can only guess what will happen when freeware authors will start to realize they are not limited to making "just" a GSX profile, but they can also use the vast amount of jetway models and operators ( there are more variations than we used, for example they are also multi-colored ) and the VGDS to create entirely new sceneries using the standard DevMode editor, which allows to place any object anywhere and combined with the GSX own customization like unlimited pre-planned pushback routes for each gate, walking passengers paths, will allow to freeware of a very high quality.

[kevinfirth 1,392]

1 hour ago, virtuali said:

This is an interesting suggestion, which I don't think it will be very difficult to add. It will of course made the program more complex to use.

Only more complex if one chooses to use the feature 👍