1 minute ago, BWBriscoe said:

I'm not using the A350...I'm using the PMDG 777

Do you use the EFB+ Mod? That has a GSX integration as well.

8 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

I'm not using the A350...I'm using the PMDG 777

Your first post stated "I'm currently at iniBuilds VHHH using the iniBuilds A350." 🤷

-delete-

Edited yesterday at 02:14 AM1 day by Tuskin38

14 hours ago, 3catcircus said:

Your first post stated "I'm currently at iniBuilds VHHH using the iniBuilds A350." 🤷

Sorry, was using that when originally posted, but since I've been using the 777. I'll check in the A350 if this works.

Such a shame that iniBuilds advertise GSX integration but really what they mean is...only when using our own aircraft at our own airports.

20 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

Such a shame that iniBuilds advertise GSX integration but really what they mean is...only when using our own aircraft at our own airports.

Not entirely correct, as long as you do not use the boarding option from GSX, GSX will work as advertised. Means every other function of GSX is unaffected, you simply cant board the plane with the visble passengers walking through the jetway. Personally, I anyway do never use those integrated GSX functions, I always request everything manually via GSX menue. Less prone for errors.

What I really do not like here is that Ini insists in having contacted Umberto but to no avail while Umberto doesnt say any word on this, not even if the statement is true (which most probably is, because why should ini lie on such a thing). What I also do not like is that Ini harshly defends their own proprietary solution and declares themselves as the one who listened to the community because multijetway was a long time wish from this community. Which is true, but certainly not like this. Heck, I even got the reply on my cricism that not everyone is using GSX and that multijetways by GSX will be an equally proprietary solution. Which makes me nothing but laugh...

5 hours ago, AnkH said:

What I really do not like here is that Ini insists in having contacted Umberto but to no avail while Umberto doesnt say any word on this, not even if the statement is true (which most probably is, because why should ini lie on such a thing)

Well, in order to "say something about", I would need to know that iniBuilds contacted me. And, until a couple of days ago, I didn't knew because yes, when you received 500 emails per day, of which 400 are spam, 50-60 support, it IS possible to miss an email I received from iniBuilds in mid-July.

It was an user on Discord that told me "iniBuilds said they contacted you but you didn't answer", which prompted me to search all emails coming from iniBuilds and, sure enough, there was one I missed.

I already apologized to iniBuilds for having missed their email, and I suggested some ideas how their system could possibly integrate with GSX PROPERLY.

With "properly" meaning GSX recognizing their jetways entirely, and sending passengers along multiple-jetways at once, in a way that would work seamlessly the same as with our upcoming solution so, for the end user, the result would be the same no matter which multi-system jetway method is used.

This will require work from both sides to exchange data so, at this time, I'm waiting for their reply.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by virtuali

THAT sounds very promising, thanks for the heads up Umberto. And it was by no means any accusation, we all are in the same boat regarding tons of useless mails per day 🤣