5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Not sure I understand, you want Umberto to generate GSX profiles for 47,000 or so airports?  Have you created even just one profile at a moderately complex airport?

He is asking for Umberto to include the profiles others have made, because he himself is too lazy to go to search and install them himself. 

Let alone try creating one. 

Which is now easier than ever with the map. 

I’m astonished at the lack of gratitude shown to a developer who has given us one of the most useful utility in many years. Criticism is unwarranted especially when no extra charge has been made.

Imagine a sim without GSX. Would anyone else step in and make something as good? That’s doubtful.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’m astonished at the lack of gratitude shown to a developer who has given us one of the most useful utility in many years. Criticism is unwarranted especially when no extra charge has been made.

Imagine a sim without GSX. Would anyone else step in and make something as good? That’s doubtful.

Agreed, GSX is such an immersive product. People just like to complain, plain and simple. Too many updates, too few updates, too much eye candy, too little eye candy etc. I for one am happy about the fact that there are so many available custom made profiles if you’re looking for something as realistic as possible. Some people just feel good about constantly complaining 

10 hours ago, GCBraun said:

I really wish there were a “GSX Lite” version that focused solely on pushback. Something simple, reliable, and effective, similar to Better Pushback in X-Plane.

I understand that platform limitations might make this difficult, but the rest of GSX’s features aren’t essential for me.

Because of various issues I’ve experienced over the years, I’ve kept GSX uninstalled from my sim for quite some time.

This has been my take now since uninstalling GSX 6 months ago.  I was really on the fence to do that because clearly there were elements that I enjoyed, but at that time, for me, it was more trouble than what I got out of it.  Just being honest.  Sorry most here can't appreciate that level of honesty.  I used it in P3D for ages and also in MSFS2020 until 6 months ago when I thought I'd give it a go w/o GSX.  There were features missed during that interval, enough to give it another try now and so far so good.

FF to today, and some very positive changes have happened:  integration with SLC seems much better now which of course is a testimony to both devs.  I've now had 3 flights and all went very well w/ regard to GSX w/ SLC.   

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

He is asking for Umberto to include the profiles others have made, because he himself is too lazy to go to search and install them himself. 

Yep, I'm too lazy to create my own planes and airports too--I buy them. I would far prefer profiles to be incorporated into GSX at least those already created as I stated above, over taking the coding time it took to develop PAX walking into a plane and sitting down if that's how that works, or cleaning crews, etc.  Why? It seems profiles are needed at some airports to make GSX work properly, so it's an ultra-basic element of the whole project, not a superfluous addition.  Think about this:  which makes more sense, to have 50,000 GSX users each individually search for all profiles available, download each, and then install them all.  Or, one person do this, and incorporate it in an update.  Seems like a massive no-brainer.  I'm really surprised this hasn't already happened.

Here's what I really appreciated today, moments ago at ENBR:  the fact airstairs auto connected to the Fenix 320:  I enjoy walking up the stairs since launching w/ airstair deployed stopped w/ Fenix' last big update.  It was a routine for me to walk up, open the front door and walk into the cockpit.  Now, I get to do that again so that is a nice plus.  And, the airstairs were beautiful w/ the Norwegian logo. I-Fly's MAX front door is openable from the outside as well.

Next, PAX and ground vehicle animations improved w/ re to stuttering.  Not perfect but better for sure, which is probably more a testament to my hardware setup now.  It was one of several annoyances that added up to a net negative previously.

1 hour ago, alex86 said:

Some people just feel good about constantly complaining 

I know you're referring to me here but I rarely complain about anything.  I just reported exactly why I stopped using GSX 6 months ago.  I'm always the one challenging the constant complaints by certain others about MSFS franchise.  My cup is always very full, but with GSX 6 months ago it became about 40% full hence decided to give it a go w/o it w/ plans to retry it again.

Sometimes it's useful to take a break from something and look at it anew with fresh eyes, and as said, it's looking very good right now.

Edited November 26, 2025Nov 26 by Noel

3 hours ago, Noel said:

Or, one person do this, and incorporate it in an update.  Seems like a massive no-brainer.  I'm really surprised this hasn't already happened.

Noel, you made your point on numerous times already and many of us have difficulties believing that you don't realise what you are asking for, or perhaps you are, but do not want to admit it and back down gracefully...

Ask Fenix, PMDG and other airplane developers to offer updates to their planes with all existing liveries available on Flightsim-to, simply because you don't want to waste your precious time doing it by yourself and see what their responses will be!

GSX profiles come in many flavors from different creators for the same airport: which one should be part of the update? They can eventually cover stock airports, or different developers versions (you may have three developers for one airport and it is not guaranteed that one profile may work well for the three versions), which airport would you like to have, all of them or only those you are using? For a trial type LSGG on the Flightsim-to GSX profiles, you will get 6 profiles.

Then Umberto would have to vet them one by one to ensure that he won't get complaints about something he appears to endorse...

This is so unreasonable and unrealistic, open this link: https://flightsim.to/others/gsx-pro/ and select what you need for your flight (two downloads of 1 second each and another one minute to paste them into the Virtuali > MSFS > GSX, how much faster does it need to be? If you use Flightsim.to smartly, you can even be made aware of updates of your downloaded profiles automatically.

If you have IniBuilds airport sceneries, you may have noticed that they have a GSX profile file that can be downloaded on the product page and easily installed. Not all airport developers do it of course, but if there is a solution to your request, this is it, scenery developers could provide a GSX profile with their product.

Edited November 26, 2025Nov 26 by Bernard Ducret

4 hours ago, Bernard Ducret said:

Noel, you made your point on numerous times already and many of us have difficulties believing that you don't realise what you are asking for, or perhaps you are, but do not want to admit it and back down gracefully...

Ask Fenix, PMDG and other airplane developers to offer updates to their planes with all existing liveries available on Flightsim-to, simply because you don't want to waste your precious time doing it by yourself and see what their responses will be!

GSX profiles come in many flavors from different creators for the same airport: which one should be part of the update? They can eventually cover stock airports, or different developers versions (you may have three developers for one airport and it is not guaranteed that one profile may work well for the three versions), which airport would you like to have, all of them or only those you are using? For a trial type LSGG on the Flightsim-to GSX profiles, you will get 6 profiles.

Then Umberto would have to vet them one by one to ensure that he won't get complaints about something he appears to endorse...

This is so unreasonable and unrealistic, open this link: https://flightsim.to/others/gsx-pro/ and select what you need for your flight (two downloads of 1 second each and another one minute to paste them into the Virtuali > MSFS > GSX, how much faster does it need to be? If you use Flightsim.to smartly, you can even be made aware of updates of your downloaded profiles automatically.

If you have IniBuilds airport sceneries, you may have noticed that they have a GSX profile file that can be downloaded on the product page and easily installed. Not all airport developers do it of course, but if there is a solution to your request, this is it, scenery developers could provide a GSX profile with their product.

Thank you Bernard for the insights.  To follow up on some of the points made, when someone creates a profile for an airport, would the goal be the same amongst different peoples' tries at creating that profile, such that the different versions of the same profile *should* perform decently?  Do you believe it's sort of an art, or is it mechanical in nature, IOW easy enough to follow the recipe?  Or is there a lot of judgement involved?  Is it possible airports with multiple profiles created by different people really will function essentially similarly enough to be useful?  If this idea is valid, then absolutely it would be a welcome service for Umberto to add, unless profiles in the end aren't that critical to use.  

I think Umberto could do this if he chose to w/ the disclaimer that they were obtained from public sources and are therefore not vetted as it were by him--IOW, exactly as is the case for all of users who go in search of profiles.   I think I have about 6 installed over the years of use of GSX.  I have no idea how many unique by airport profiles there are, but it's easy to imagine 100 of them popping into the folder they need to go during an update of GSX.   I just did one quick search on FS.to and roughly 72 individual entries but some have multiple airports in one package.

Edited November 26, 2025Nov 26 by Noel

7 hours ago, Bernard Ducret said:

many of us have difficulties believing that you don't realise what you are asking for

That's right, I didn't, just guessed.  Per the Oracle there are somewhere around 300 to 800 unique profiles out there.  And the bottom line is what you explained as you know.   I wonder if anyone has created a site yet to allow users to vote on a profile they've used?  Not that it can really be vetted fully but at least a 1-5 score or what have you.  I guess this all stems ultimately from limitations in the SDK which I assumed must be the case.   It is remarkable the project was taken on with so much criticality missing.  And as well, that people take the time to produce a good quality profile.   GSX has been working well so far again and has become a net plus so for now will need to look into more profiles.

🧠 How to tell a good GSX profile from a mediocre one

A great profile has:

1. Accurate pushback routes

2. Doors and jetways aligned properly for most aircraft

3. Correct VDGS/marshaller positions

4. Clean vehicle spawn positions

5. Airline codes assigned properly

6. Smooth taxi-in stopping positions

7. Works with multiple aircraft sizes (A320/B738, heavies, and regionals)

Most profiles only meet 2–4 of those criteria.

---

🎯 Bottom line

• Multiple profiles exist for the same airport because airport design complexity varies and profile accuracy depends heavily on the skill and effort of the creator.

• Creating a fully accurate GSX profile is tedious and highly manual, especially for large hubs.

• A “pretty good” profile is easy; a nearly perfect one is genuinely difficult and time-consuming.

12 hours ago, Noel said:

I think Umberto could do this if he chose to w/ the disclaimer that they were obtained from public sources and are therefore not vetted as it were by him

But which one should he choose? for instance Scenery for EGCC has a default ASOBO, Maccosims, Inibuilds and Taimodels. You would think they would/should all be the same....but they're not so your suggestion is that he should have to create one for each, when another Dev releases a version should he create one for that as well?
In the perfect world the scenery dev would create one with all the attributes you mention above. Unfortunately we don't live in that world and so rely on others to create them for us or we learn how to do it ourselves.
I for one am passed learning computer language in any form and so am greatful to those on FS.to who create and freely distrubute their efforts.

Since I got GSX for the A321, I prefer to buy airports that include an 'official' GSX profile. This can be found in the 'Packages' folder or preferably the distributor app includes the option to install the profile (Contrail, iniBuilds, etc.) For other airports, I'll use a profile from flightsim.to and find/setup 2 or 3 gates that work perfectly and only use those. GSX works well for me under these circumstances.

Kudos to the developer for the new map feature.

21 hours ago, Noel said:

It seems profiles are needed at some airports to make GSX work properly, so it's an ultra-basic element of the whole project, not a superfluous addition.  Think about this:  which makes more sense, to have 50,000 GSX users each individually search for all profiles available, download each, and then install them all.  Or, one person do this, and incorporate it in an update.  Seems like a massive no-brainer. 

Your "massive no-brainer" simply lacks basic understanding of how things work.

- First of all, Umberto has no right to include all those profiles into his payware product without asking and I bet a few of those profile creators would want financial reimbursment if Umberto would include their profile into GSX. So it is for sure not a "free" solution. He cant just take them and include them into GSX...

- for many, many airports, not only a single scenery addon exists, but sometimes two or even three. All slightly different. Would you then want Umberto to include a profile for each possible addon plus default scenery? GSX could handle it, if the profile is done right, but it might end up in a mess. 

- speaking of a mess: if Umberto includes all those profiles, it is the responsability of FSDT that they DO work as intended. Means all fixing and adjusting is then up to FSDT and not the creator of the profile anymore. How the heck do you think Umberto can potentially manage all those profiles and coordinate all bugfixes etc. with several hundred of devs of airport profiles?

- often, updates of the scenery need adjustments in the GSX profile. Umberto/FSDT would then be responsible for updating all adjusted profiles all the time. Simply an impossible task. 

Last, your statement about "GSX work properly" is just plain wrong. Default straight pushback always works. Quick edit always works. Jetways always work. Catering and serivces always work. All without a specific profile. THE thing those profile do is simply fine-tuning GSX for all those variances per airport, e.g. the position of the ground service vehicles prior service, the position of the plane at the gate and of course fully customized pushback paths. But it does NOT decide about whether or not GSX working properly, as it always does (as long as it works at all 😉 )

Edited November 27, 2025Nov 27 by AnkH

15 hours ago, Noel said:

I think Umberto could do this if he chose to w/ the disclaimer that they were obtained from public sources and are therefore not vetted as it were by him--IOW, exactly as is the case for all of users who go in search of profiles.

If there's one thing I've learned, no one in this community likes to read disclaimers. This won't go over well at all and all the anger and blame will be direct at GSX.

I mean years later Ini is still getting flack for the default aircraft in MSFS who's fidelity is entirely decided by Microsoft/Asobo. Or how GSX is entirely data driven and if the airport data is bad, GSX will do bad things but even now people describe GSX as buggy when it's doing exactly it should be with the data it's given.

First time since the update, I used the cabin cleaners.   Nice but I'm one and done, they'll never be used again.   Thanks anyway.  

Whilst on the subject of GSX, is there any reason why they can't modify the baggage conveyors to remain in place until just prior to pushback?   Currently, GSX loads baggage in record time and then the conveyors drive off leaving the cargo doors gaping open for the rest of the process.  In RL, both (or at least the forward one) remain in place until just prior to pushback so that any late transfers or gate checked bags can be loaded.   

I gotta say, thank you to the GSX team for continuing to update and not charge for major updates!

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Your "massive no-brainer" simply lacks basic understanding of how things work.

I discussed my lack of basic understanding above.

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

First time since the update, I used the cabin cleaners.   Nice but I'm one and done, they'll never be used again.   Thanks anyway.  

Whilst on the subject of GSX, is there any reason why they can't modify the baggage conveyors to remain in place until just prior to pushback?   Currently, GSX loads baggage in record time and then the conveyors drive off leaving the cargo doors gaping open for the rest of the process.  In RL, both (or at least the forward one) remain in place until just prior to pushback so that any late transfers or gate checked bags can be loaded.   

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 😉