54 minutes ago, JonathanC said:

Most of the better devs do so. Inibuilds does. MK does as well. It's just something that is best done by the developer of the airport as they can easily keep it updated. 

Good to know thank you.  

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

Possibly, but it would take considerable training effort

Makes sense, the market is too small presumably to offset the training piece, emphasis on presumably.  Can you imagine how the 'training' might go?  Because I'm not very sure about how it's all supposed to go it's hard to have a detailed clear vision about the steps to machine learn how to take a bad profile and turn it into a great profile.  If a human can learn it, and it's in the digital domain which it seems all parts involved are, it should def be doable, but as you say, today, might not be financially feasible.

 

On 11/27/2025 at 5:17 PM, Noel said:

  Very sad these marching animations can't track the actual jetway, instead of locators of where it's supposed to be or however it works.  Perhaps pax would have walked in the jetway were this a default airport? 

Of course the "marching animation" can track the actual jetway, that's what the Navdata API provides. But you should question: what is an "actual jetway" ? Even if to you, the whole "thing" seems an "actual jetway", jetways in MSFS can't be made by combining multiple structures like the one in your screenshot. What is allowed in the SDK is very rigid:

1) you MUST have an "actual jetway", which is the LAST moving part after the last junction. We get exact data about this from the Navdata API, so we can safely move passengers through THIS last part. 

2) you CAN have an optional "bridge" (Asobo calls it "link"), we CANNOT have this data from the Navdata API: it's just not there.

Point #2 can be even more nuanced, because lots of developers don't even use the "official" bridge, they just model the static part of the jetways to be simply part of the terminal so, from GSX point of view (what it get get from Navdata), they just don't exists.

Of course, GSX has "solved" this issue years ago, by allowing profile creators to define custom walking paths for the parts outside the "actual jetway" that are not readable, which is clearly the only way to solve it: if the data is missing *somebody* should fill it in some way, or are you expecting we'd manually create thousands of airport profiles to supplement with data that we just don't have ?

And of course, the manual has a complete explanation about all of this. Try reading Page 60 ( just look at the pictures ) and Pages from 79-84.

And the reason for the existence of these pages, is not "just" for actual profile creators (I'm sure your argument would be "am I supposed to do all that work?", no you aren't, profile creators do that), they are useful information for normal users that, even if they don't intend to create profiles, they won't assume something that doesn't look right is happening because of some GSX "bug", but has a precise reason and a solution.

Which for 99% of users is "search for a profile", exactly like you search for free liveries for your airplane, or anything else you might need that somebody shared.

 

1 hour ago, virtuali said:

Of course the "marching animation" can track the actual jetway

Oh of course eh.  Oh gee whiz I got fooled by what looked just like an actual jetway 🤔   

You've not followed my comments--I acknowledged I didn't understand the inanely difficult task it is to create a high quality profile and now have a much better sense of it.  I understand and I've made this comment a dozen times over the years here you've done the best you could given what you have to work with.  Since reinstalling GSX it's been working well I've done maybe six flights now and no startup issues as you stated would be the case.   It's just unfortunate profiles are needed and fortunate others create them, though I'm learning really good ones are hard to find.  I will aim to purchase only airports with GSX profiles included or at least exist.  

You've done a great job with an impossible task and thankfully you've been supported by profile builders.  If you were employed by Asobo or had strong influence over developing the SDK involved in this domain, could you have done any better, and by that of course I mean obviating the need for profiles?  

37 minutes ago, Noel said:

It's just unfortunate profiles are needed and fortunate others create them, though I'm learning really good ones are hard to find.

https://flightsim.to/others/gsx-pro/

lots of profiles in here just type the airport

4 hours ago, psolk said:

I wouldn't expect Umberto to know that at Gate 102 at KEWR you get pushed back then rotated 180 degrees then pulled forward to the hold designator and there are 3 depending on wing size...  777 uses the dashed lines for example. 

Agree, and I was really surprised when pushback did exactly (well almost, not 180 but 90 degrees, then pulled forward) that with my A340 at EGCC ... but I did download the GSX profile from iniBuilds.  Unfortunately the rest of the activity (fuel, service, etc.) was not lined up correctly and the aircraft was on it's designated A340 mark for the gate (heavy).

15 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

https://flightsim.to/others/gsx-pro/

lots of profiles in here just type the airport

Thanks for that I forgot we were using Pro and so just searched under GSX Profiles and got much smaller group.

Cheers

5 hours ago, Noel said:

If a human can learn it

That is AGI not Narrow AI.  No one has successfully create AGI ... so no need to worry about real AI taking over the world.   But for pushback (it's possible), however, it would take considerable amount of data from a variety of sources and for every gate and airport, I'm not sure such data exists.

The best approach is for the airport developer to provide pathways as per Umberto's comment:

Quote

 ...by allowing profile creators to define custom walking paths for the parts outside the "actual jetway" that are not readable, which is clearly the only way to solve it: if the data is missing

 

9 hours ago, SayAgain said:

That is AGI not Narrow AI

Right, I read the Coming Wave and it's changing rapidly.  Sit tight...

On 11/27/2025 at 10:57 AM, flyingscampi said:

Odd one, which aircraft? This doesn't happen on my A321, PMDG 738, 777F, the doors are shut as soon as the conveyors move away.

Maybe a future option could make the handlers jump up and down on the luggage before placing it in the hold 😉

Fenix.   I like the idea for that future option.  Or maybe they could have simulated a baggage handler blowing out his virtual back trying to lift a 90lb suitcase into the baggage hold because the conveyor drove away 20 minutes ago?  

On 11/28/2025 at 7:25 PM, virtuali said:

1) you MUST have an "actual jetway", which is the LAST moving part after the last junction. We get exact data about this from the Navdata API, so we can safely move passengers through THIS last part. 

2) you CAN have an optional "bridge" (Asobo calls it "link"), we CANNOT have this data from the Navdata API: it's just not there.

I installed Propair's KGSU and found a GSX profile for it specifically, the Propair version.  Sadly, passengers marched on top of the jetway once again.  So I assume this is because Propair did not follow the correct format to create its one jetway at this small airport?  I wonder how maybe I can fix the .ini file installed into the GSX profiles folder.  It's only one gate there, the one I will always use.  Is it possible to fix it?

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I installed Propair's KGSU and found a GSX profile for it specifically, the Propair version.  Sadly, passengers marched on top of the jetway once again.  So I assume this is because Propair did not follow the correct format to create its one jetway at this small airport?  I wonder how maybe I can fix the .ini file installed into the GSX profiles folder.  It's only one gate there, the one I will always use.  Is it possible to fix it?

Yes just edit the airport profile, this is all discussed in very granular detail in the manual

2 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Yes just edit the airport profile, this is all discussed in very granular detail in the manual

Here's what that profile's creator said:  

Hi! Thanks for the comment and support. Unfortunately there is no fix on my end for this issue, it has something to do with the GSX jetway animation and the airports SDK...

I think this fits w/ Umberto's comment again,"

1) you MUST have an "actual jetway", which is the LAST moving part after the last junction. We get exact data about this from the Navdata API, so we can safely move passengers through THIS last part. 

2) you CAN have an optional "bridge" (Asobo calls it "link"), we CANNOT have this data from the Navdata API: it's just not there.

I think the bottom line is the jetway doesn't meet spec to work with GSX properly and that airport was created by Propair which implies they didn't conform to spec in their design.  Further, they were clear they would not be providing GSX profiles with their airports like some devs do.

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Noel said:

I think the bottom line is the jetway doesn't meet spec to work with GSX properly and that airport was created by Propair which implies they didn't conform to spec in their design.  Further, they were clear they would not be providing GSX profiles with their airports like some devs do.

 

I guess that answers that, though I could’ve sworn there was something regarding jetway heights in GSX

20 hours ago, Noel said:

Hi! Thanks for the comment and support. Unfortunately there is no fix on my end for this issue, it has something to do with the GSX jetway animation and the airports SDK...

Somebody developing airport profiles using the sentence "GSX jetway animation" makes me wonder how much he understood not just of GSX (which might be excusable), but of the SDK itself (which is less excusable, although jetway are still not entirely understood by many and are still somewhat bugged).

There's no such thing as a "GSX jetway animation", this is a fundamental concept that should be clear to everybody making airports. There's ONE and ONLY one method to animate jetways, which is the "MSFS jetway animation", and using GSX or not won't change anything, the jetway would still move (or not) in the same, exact, way. 

There are some kind of real world jetway types that cannot be represented with the MSFS Jetway animation, and some developers used some unusual method to trick the MSFS jetway animation to make those work in some way.

And of course, GSX supports this as well, and the manual clearly explains how to add the data MISSING from the sim, with pictures showing various different out of standard types and how they can be adapted to GSX. We covered several common unusual types, but it's possible there might be types that just can't be covered (we don't support the unique compass type WE used in KCLT, which is the reason why those jetways are static in the MSFS version of the scenery), so it would be interesting to see if this airport uses a non-standard type that is NOT one of the non-standard ones explained in the GSX Manual.

The reason why these need to be adapted, is because these are still standard jetways (all jetways are "standard" in MSFS) but if they are used in a not standard way to trick the MSFS (MSFS!!) animation system to do what it's not designed to do, they are reporting weird data from Simconnect TO GSX, so GSX cannot rely on that data, so it must use extra data provided by whoever made the GSX profile, to make even those non-standard types work with GSX Passengers. 

EDIT:

I looked at some screenshots of that airport on Simmarket, and the picture showing the Jetway shows a very plain standard Apron-drive jetway not unlike the standard ones, so there's no need anything fancy, it would work with GSX, it's LIKELY it needs the floor height to be adjusted, that's it. Pages 79-80 in the GSX Manual.

Edited December 8, 2025Dec 8 by virtuali

4 hours ago, virtuali said:

I looked at some screenshots of that airport on Simmarket, and the picture showing the Jetway shows a very plain standard Apron-drive jetway not unlike the standard ones, so there's no need anything fancy, it would work with GSX, it's LIKELY it needs the floor height to be adjusted, that's it. Pages 79-80 in the GSX Manual.

Thanks for those details.  I'll have a look and see if there is anything I can do with it myself or convey your comments to the creator of that profile.   Don't know if it matters but the passage out of the building into the jetway is angled upward then passengers as they exit descend downward until they reach the aircraft entry.  One on the correct initial height will passengers follow the slopes in the ramp, in other words?