AnkH

Well, this so-called "longevity" was basically based on the fact that from FSX up to P3Dv3 (or whatever version prior switch to 64bit) was basically using the exact same base engine (ESP). Preventing real evolution. Or do you all forgot about this annoying OOM stories? Prior FSX, a new Microsoft Flight Simulator iteration every two years was default and gold standard... just to remind you of the glorified old days properly ;-)

I too stopped using it, the difference is just not worth the hassle and I already have enough addons to be started along my simming session, one less to care about.

Thank you, this all makes sense, sure, but it fails the moment one of those static planes sits at the very gate the FR24 based one should be injected. E.g. if the airport has only few gates and e.g. only one for this specific airline. What happens then? Will the static one be used instead by turning this active instead of static? Same if the plane from FR24 data is injected into final approach phase, but there is no matching AND free gate due to static planes, what happens with this plane after landing? Does it simply go to an unmatching gate and park there? Does it vanish?

Why again no one is answering my pretty simple questions? Already in the FSLTL thread this was ignored. Should I rephrase it? I would really like to know this...

I dont understand this static parked ac thing (FSLTL with FR24 offers the same). How does it work, e.g. if then an airplane leaves the gate? Does it spawn a new plane on the texiway? Does it pushback the matching static plane? And what happens with arriving traffic? Does it disappear just in front of the gate?

What I said above...

Well, the GSX video is obviously taken in the last days, the Ini variant of multiple jetways is not yet out. So what should be the conclusion of this?

It seems that both Ini AND GSX are suddenly on the verge of releasing something for multiple jetway support. The Ini version will initially be limited to IniBuilds airports (according to their discord), the GSX variant will work on every addon airport, given that the jetways are not modelled as static scenery components. While I look forward to this long-awaited feature, I fear that this double approach of two independent studios developing the exact same will result in a mess instead of a good solution for us simmers. Hope the ini version will not hamper the GSX one and vice versa.

Looks good, but as so many regions havent been touched by one single WU, it is still a slight disappointment.

Ok, forced symlink and account needed, I skip this one as well

has some really nice functions, but the symlink stuff kills it for me, I use AddonsLinker and I certainly do not want to be forced to use it. Can it be used without this? Otherwise I have to say no sadly...

I bet it will be coming with the same limitations as any other 3rd party weather addon: you only get one cloud coverage at a time and you need transitions. Whether they are smooth or not, they will never be able to depict the weather here in Switzerland correctly e.g.

Hope you are right.

Because I fear incompatibilities if it comes from Ini. And I have definitively no need for a jetway addon that doesnt work together with GSX.

Or a working jump ahead feature like the QWsim 787 had. Still miss this nice function in the long haul addons for MSFS2024

Pity if Ini develops and releases a SODE-like addon, this should be the work of GSX. Hopefully they talk at least with each other, multiple jetways addon that doesnt work with GSX is nothing to look forward to imho...

He was asking why Asobo does not open the API for it, not why jetways do work for the internally controlled AI traffic vs external AI traffic.

Because they think that it hampers performance. Like the landing gear culling idiotism...

With AIG TC, the jetways will dock to AI aircraft. Just not with BATC, FSHud etc...

So they are called "LC"? Just that? Fine, thanks.

How can I find this profile?

The reason is the marketplace (once again). Understandable, but they could simply provide a fix for all non-marketplace customers on their page, THAT would be customer care. Like now, it is just another point on the embarrassingly increasing list of no-go's for a former toptier dev group. Which disappeared into sub low standardism when MSFS came out. Bummer...

Well, if I am not mistaken, my Bijan Addon takes care of this, at least I never observed any trees where there shouldnt be any on my end. Might be able to test this update today, then I will report back.

Perfect, thanks for the heads up! Now I wonder if the guy in the off. forums having issues with CU14 installed is an exception or if it still needs the flightsim.to file to fix those issues...

Is it now listed in the MSFS2024 addons? Because if you happen to have MSFS2024 installed only on your rig (no 2020 copy anymore installed), ORBX Installer only shows products for MSFS2024. So far, EHAM was not listed (that is why I used the trick approach).