CoolP wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 12:16am:


Exactly the same thing crossed my mind, as I mentioned over at GSX:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=5949.new;topicseen#new

It's worth a try!

BTW, while at GSX, have you read this:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=5963.new;topicseen#new  

Morten wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 1:32am:

Drats! My parking is nearly always crappy according to that dancing fool marshaller, so I only get told I'm too far forward, back, left or right. Even when I am in the correct position (when looking from the outside).

Morten wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 12:55am:

Thank you for that Morten. I shall go and do that. I hope it doesn't affect the flight dynamics though.

Mark

Markoz wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 1:37am:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/size/starr-bumble-bee.jpg
'Erm, ok, perhaps you've reduced too much. Nice paint though.'

I know what you are speaking of, Mark. 
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1312159303/10#10
No problems with the turn radius, I guess. 

I must admit that I've wondered why you wanted to have the 767 on the medium spots. However, I couldn't see anything being wrong with that wish. From the sheer parking space, you may be very happy with the 767 at some medium parking. The heavy ones are often limited at the sim airports and aim for some larger planes I think.

That heavy on the callsigns is an ATC only value. It does not necessarily take the actual size of the plane into account, but only the caused wake turbulence. For instance, that's the reason for the smaller 757 being a heavy too. The ATC based stuff isn't looking for the weight or the size of the thing, but simply for the 'upset' air it causes for planes behind it. So the A380 whale e. g. comes with a 'super'.

To sum it up, your wish for parking a heavy plane at some medium spot is very reasonable. And since the heavy tag is for ATC only, it makes sense to park the small 767 (compared to e. g. the 747) at some medium spot.

On the second topic, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Since another company also sells the AES credits, their airports often come with static jetways and the 'need' to then buy some to get that default feature working.
To be fair, AES of course does a lot more than any default feature. However, if one is just up for working jetways, being available at every default 'gate' airport, he soon runs out of options. On big airports, those credits aren't cheap.

It's a true default feature by any means, but I think it fails or just causes extra work with really detailed jetway models. However, certain (good) devs always offered working models, FSDT being one of them.

I think that users may have tried to replace the custom jetways with some default ones, to gain the moving parts at otherwise nice addon airports. But I've never read about any success there.

A twofold problem. Addon devs spoiling the default FSX features and some jetway addon thingy (plus pushback and things) relying on a credit system, needing a huge amount of money to get all airports running. I personally hope that the GSX competition (which currently isn't happening on the jetway part) leads to a better business model. But I actually doubt that it will.

At the end of the day, everyone can decide if e. g. spending 5 credits on a single airport is worth the fun. That's some 7.50 Euros extra on some 25 Euros airports. I've done it that way, but not at all possible locations. It's just too much in my eyes. So a part of my airport arsenal remains static. 

Again, lets hope GSX expands the services. There is hope.

Morten wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

That refers to Wake Category and not necessarily aircraft size. Although the 757 is a "Heavy", according to the Wake Codes, the actual aircraft size is "Medium". Well that is what I thought it was anyway. I also thought it was the same the 767 as it is for the 757.

Mark