GSX Pro yes or no?

[Alaska738 8,506]

If i had to recommend it the answer is yes. It's essential software. 

[pilotter 270]

And just to let everyone know, you can not go wrong buying GSX Pro, you can always test and if you don't like it , it is possible to get your money back. First time I bought it, I asked my money back, which I did get back. And because I like some features so much I bought it later again. For sure Umberto and FSDT will get everything sorted, and I might sometimes be nit-picking, you can not go wrong.

[abrams_tank 7,474]

Looks like GSX is getting better and better. IMO, MSFS is lucky to have GSX.

[virtuali 4,446]

2 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

1) Customization of flight crew number. There are Lvars with which one can control the number of pilots and crew for third-party developers, but the last time I tried, I was unable to set these numbers for a specific airplane.

This feature surely works, because several 3rd party airplanes are using it.

 

2 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

Customization of walking points. 6 months ago, I tried very hard to make passengers walk from the terminal to a small airplane. I failed despite numerous attempts, the editor never started pax and crew properly, and often they just launched vertically upwards. After that, I gave up on customizing airports.

It was enough asking and, as usual, the explanation would make it clear is not obviously a GSX bug ( most of them seldom are, when they are, we fix those ). The real reason for this is building crashboxes. Passenger waypoints must be placed in relationship to the ground, otherwise they couldn't walk over uneven terrain. The problem is, when you are inside a building, the "ground" is not there anymore, it's at the height of the roof so, even if we are placing something on ground, it will be raised, because the ground has been raised because of the building crashbox.

In addition to that, crashboxes don't precisely follow the building perimeter, since they might be a bit expensive to calculate, they are in fact a bounding box so, even if you *think* to be safe because you placed a waypoint inside a crannie, you are not, because you are already inside the building crashboxes.

Now, experienced scenery developers know that crashboxes have an effect on fps, so we never used them on our sceneries, to give that extra performance benefits, but also so we can place walking waypoints everywhere, but not all developers know or do that, and ALL default buildings in default airports have crashboxes.

 

2 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

Customizing small airplanes. GSX Pro works great with commercial jets, but I found the results with small airplanes like the Islander or the Cessna 310 underwhelming. I always found that boarding passengers makes most sense when they have to walk across the apron. I don't care whether pax walk through a jetway where I don't see them; it is kind of ironic that GSX performs poorly just for airplanes where the boarding process is visible.

Yes, of course GSX is geared towards airliners. First because they are the most popular, by an huge margin, but also because their services and movements are more standard and, even when they involve humans, there's less variability. GA is very complex, because there's far more human interaction, and passengers boarding the airplane in many cases (that is more and more true the smaller the airplane is), would basically require custom animation for each airplane, which multiplied by the number of passengers and the number of airplanes (even supporting just the default ones would be an huge undertaking), would be an effort bigger than the whole GSX. That is to say, we see in the future a separate expansion dedicated to GA.

[virtuali 4,446]

1 hour ago, Merawen said:

For example, a Profile for the Simwings Lepa wont work with the justsim Lepa Airport?

Well, it depends how accurate those sceneries are.

In theory, two perfectly accurate sceneries for the same airport *should* be very similar, the gates should be named the same, they are supposed to be in their real life position, and same for taxiway lines. So yes, in an ideal world, a profile made for an airport *should* work on a different version of the same airport made by another developer.

However, that would be the ideal situation, because in reality the sceneries might have been released at different times, the airport might have changed in real life, a developer might have omitted (or named wrong) some parking spots, there might be issues in one scenery the profile creator tried to fix that might not apply to the other so, in general, it would be best to use the profile with the scenery it was designed with.

But is that really a problem ? Do you always blindly download and install freeware stuff, without even checking if it *might* conflict with another scenery, or require something else to work ?

And yes, OF COURSE GSX has a way to at least help you identify these problems, because when you open the airport customization page, there's a "parking match" function that runs automatically, and checks all parking position in the custom profile against the ones in the loaded scenery, and if it finds any mismatch, it will tell you how many parking spots there are and how many didn't match, offering you a choice what to do, which will be either trashing the profile entirely and starting with a new one OR will let you save it back, keeping only the parking spots that matched the loaded scenery.

Usually, the number of reported mismatches will give you some idea: if there are just a few positions, it means the scenery you are using, even if might not be the one the profile was made for, it's close enough and it's likely to be usable, maybe with some tweaks, but if MOST the parking positions didn't match, you can be sure the profile is not meant for that airport, so it would be best not using it.

Edited July 15, 2023 by virtuali

[Fiorentoni 4,374]

1 hour ago, Merawen said:

Im on the fence of buying gsx pro.

But im feared in the time to obtain all the gsx profiles for my installed airports (or check of some of of them already have one).

I have a List of them, payware, free ones and the asobo ones, about ~220 Airports.

It looks like, i have to obtain the right gsx profile for the specific version of the airport.

For example, a Profile for the Simwings Lepa wont work with the justsim Lepa Airport?

 

No need for profiles, those basically only manually set the position of the ground services (so no one is clipping with a wall or something like that) and add custom pushbacks, i.e. longer pushbacks to a different, more complex position than "nose left, nose right" on the taxiway. But even without a profile all services will work normally and pushback will read the taxiways from the scenery and offer you a basic "nose left, nose right" which works perfect in about 90% of the cases. In the other 10% it's mostly the scenery devs being lazy/incompetent with proper taxiways connection, but even in these cases it will push you back, though just straight only and not onto the taxiline.

That said, downloading a profile is really easy and can be done just prior to your flight (or even during your flight IIRC), as Sethos said, and you just have to drop it to a certain folder.

[Car147 2,287]

It had a few teething problems at first, but now i wouldn't do without it. 

[Alvega 2,126]

3 hours ago, Alaska738 said:

If i had to recommend it the answer is yes. It's essential software, IF YOU FLY AIRLINERS. 

I corrected that for you. But even then I don't think it's essential.

[Noel 4,563]

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Looks like GSX is getting better and better. IMO, MSFS is lucky to have GSX.

It is improving, especially the animations.  I use it but avoid using GSX at the arrival gate as I prefer default ground crew to guide me in.  After that I do use the Deboarding procedure in GSX.

[vonduck 99]

If you intend to fly VR, using GSX will not allow the use of the toolbar... which can cripple a flight from the get go... im still not sure there is a cure or methodology to fixing this?

[Noel 4,563]

29 minutes ago, vonduck said:

If you intend to fly VR, using GSX will not allow the use of the toolbar... which can cripple a flight from the get go... im still not sure there is a cure or methodology to fixing this?

That must only apply to VR users, yes?  Toolbar is there for me, flat screen user.

[WestAir 2,530]

GSX is such a fantastic product. The only issue is that MSFS has an object limit, and using GSX along with lots of AI can really push you over the limit; So i have to limit what GSX is capable of until Asobo gets their **** together and removes the object limit.

[Farlis 2,319]

59 minutes ago, Noel said:

That must only apply to VR users, yes?  Toolbar is there for me, flat screen user.

VR user here. Does not cripple the toolbar at all. I have no clue what he was talking about.

[sonny147 585]

if you fly airliners yes for sure , if not maybe not worth it 

[Alaska738 8,506]

2 hours ago, Alvega said:

I corrected that for you. But even then I don't think it's essential.

It depends on what you're flying. Indeed, if you fly airliners as you have corrected yes.