FS Dreamteam just released their ground service thingy (that's a scientific term!) GSX.

If you know AES (Airport Enhancement Services), you may already be familiar with that kind of software. However, I think this one really shows the benefit of a new development. The smoothly animated people alone are worth a look.
Find some videos here. http://youtu.be/5PrTvMocs_U Here's some catering action. http://youtu.be/dXLALZynwaU Or pushback with voice here. http://youtu.be/yxdx0ZOgoRE

Now the best part is that you can try it for free and that it offers native support for the CS 767 as from this list. http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=5481.0 I may add that AES also offers a set of free airports to explore the product. So you can compare them both of course.

Thank you for posting this, I wouldn't have found out otherwise. Great program, I'm using the demo version currently and it's so much better than AES.

Thanks indeed for that one!
Just what I needed!...and much more!
BTW..Funny how the workers move to the music on those videos..  Until now I I've used DBS Follow Me Car which is crab software with bad support.

GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!! and it is outstanding, flawless installation no problems and excellent product support. Easy on FPS.

It is awesome from what I have seen and done so far (as the demo allows) and I love that it updates from within FSX without the need to restart. EDIT: Resistance was futile. I bought it!

Has any one looked at the catering guys going into the 767 cabin from the Galley views? They are way out of sync with the exterior view. It's a bit sad.



Mark

Markoz wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 2:35am:


Had even worse experience with the B 767-200. I had 2 catering trucks show up at the same front service door side by side. One guy correctly walked through the service door with his cart, the other one walked right through the skin of the aircraft. I did contact FSDT and waiting a reply. I think the door paramters may not be correct.  The marshaller did inform me that I did a lousy job parking and I wonder if that might have something to do with it.

Yeah. CoolP is right! The CS767-200 is not supported yet.

My post was more about the misalignment of the CS767 interior with the exterior. Normally it doesn't bother me because there not much to compare the interior and exterior with (except the jetway). This changes it with at least one more object to show the discrepancy. I just wanted to see the guy come into the cabin with the cart!

Mark

EDIT: The pushback awesome! It always places the aircraft in the correct position on the taxiway after the turn. I can never get it right no matter how hard I try! Close, but not spot on like that.

Markoz wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 2:28am:


Yep, I have the same discrepancy from the inside galley view.  I don't think GSX is aware, jumping over to FSDT now:)

It is a misalignment of the 767's interior model with its exterior model as created by Captain Sim! It has nothing to do with GSX. GSX aligns with the exterior location of the doors (and everything else) perfectly. I was just pointing out how disappointing it is that the interior and exterior models don't align correctly.

Mark

ottoramsaig wrote on Feb 17^th, 2012 at 8:12pm:
It was just something I observed when I wanted to watch them, from the 767 galleys, bring the catering carts inside.
I'm still have great fun with GSX too. I love the different sized buses that come out depending on the size of the planes passenger capacity. A little bus, like a Toyota Tarago for the Cessna, compared with a big bus for 737-100/200.

Morten wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 1:44am:

I've had the767-300 parking problems too. Have you tried the parking editor? That might sort out the 767-300 parking problems. But I have my doubts.

I agree with the FollowMe Car TO runways as well.

Both of these should be added in the GSX support forum. I will +1 them if you do! Or I could do it myself.

Mark

Don't hesitate to post some wishes over at FSDT. I already saw that one with the 'to runway' car, but the one with the parking editor and the forced category of the plane might be new.

Morten wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 11:36pm:

OK. I added my +1 to them, so here's hoping!

Mark

You know, when i was using the another company AES program, it did the same thing. (looking at my plane from the top view) My wing was actually in back of the gate (that was connected to my plane) but when i went to my wing view, my wing was in front of the jetway. The wing looked normal sized but the gate looked huge so i think its just the airplane coordinates thingy majig.

Kalai wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 7:55am:


Interesting observation there, Kalai...!
Both Mark and I have contacted the GSX support, but here we where refused by the statement that GSX simply uses the airports AFCAD file in conjunction with the actual size of the airplane in order to determine the correct parking/gate ..!

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=5949.0
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=5941.0

So one way or the other, something is definitely wrong here...

Since I started flying the CS 767-300 I have had strange issues with building crashes and ATC directions to outskirted parking spots in all stock and addon airports. And now this issue with GSX..!
A time ago I complained to another company, telling them that something had to be wrong with their parking radius settings in their AFCAD files. They did their best to help me, but couldn't find any errors in that respect.

Then I finally ran into this statement from the GSX developer:

If the parking radius is smaller than half of your wingspan, GSX will say it's too small for your aircraft because it IS too small, at least this is what the AFCAD says.

With this important statement in mind I then did a little calculation this evening:

CS 767-300/Aircraft.cfg:
wing_span=156.083333 (feet) = 47.55 m. /2 = R23.78 m.

I then checked the wing span of a real 767-300 and found that the 156 feet CS 767-300/Aircraft.cfg is correct.
Then I checked AFCAD files via ADE for both FSX stock airports and from several addon airports - it turned out that ALL the airports Medium parking radius are set to 23 m. Period!!!
In other words, 0,78 m too small in order to accept the CS 767-300  magnificent and true 47.55 m. wingspan!    

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

Markoz wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 3:32am:

A side note, in 2010 FAA decided to change the heavy weight from 255,000 lbs MTOW to 300,000 lbs (as in ICAO regulations) and 757 is no longer a 'heavy' in any way (special separation minimums apply though).
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.525.pdf

Markoz wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 3:32am:


Seems as we are dealing with a borderliner more than an airliner..!    

Anyways, yesterday I tried out a 767 flight from Copenhagen to Budapest with the 150.80 wing_span mod for the first time. Had no obstacles whatsoever - at least not what I was aware of. Nice indeed to be able to park on all the fancy sites, before main buildings and all!  

Markoz wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 1:34am:

Ok, CoolP now I've done my share of naughty business over at another company!

http://forum.another company.com/index.php?/topic/53053-fsx-jetways-hijacked-by-aerosoftaes/

So now I expect you to follow up as promised with your usually delicate and wide ranged thoughts as well!  

PS. It is indeed intentional, that I don't mention GSX at all over there!
They hate GSX and claim that they stole their "formula"!
So I'm only focusing on the animated Jetways, being a FSX standard feature that they obviously seem to have "stolen"!

http://forum.another company.com/index.php?/topic/52347-gsx/

CoolP wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:


Thanks for your contribution at the another company forum!
Especially by focusing on the ridiculous and unfair Credit system!  

Although I certainly managed to wake up the venerable manager of another company himself from sweet dreams about earning money from "credits" the rest of his life, it seems that I have a hard time to get through to all the Fritz'es, Herman and Adolf people over there, who tend to misunderstand everything!  

Too late to make any changes to this grumpy old man here! 
At the same time I'm not a chicken, so I'm mostly immune to harsh reactions.
Anyway, as it is, I kept my worst artillery away from the another company forum - so no worries, CoolP.

However it certainly seems as we have stepped into a minefield here! - a huge debate has launched and an avalanche of topic answers has completely drowned my mailbox..!       

CoolP wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:


Pass!  Didn't get that!...explain please.   ...Okay got it!, yes you're right!  

Tomorrow however, I intend to enter the battlefield again and have a little dialog with Mathijs, now when things hopefully has calmed down a bit there...

Whereas tonight I will take my Precious (CS767) from Budapest to Santorini. Something that I've looked forward to all day!  
....must just think of some kind of explanation to the passengers, not being aloud to use the jetways as it happens that both airports are hijacked by another company......hmmm

I read your post's Mort, and you have a valid point, but from a business perspective I can't knock another company! He say's it's the developers, so I say go after the developer's, and I'm willing to bet the developer's will blame another company for the jetway's. Anyway it goes no one over at another company or the developers is going to take the blame. One rule of business is never tell customers you are in it for the money, because it comes of cold, to the customer. I don't have GSX as of yet, but if you can use it at default airports for one price, the AES is gone this weekend, LOL! I to am tired of buying those credits! I'm an ol school guy I don't mind using the default airports. But I do like the effect of having ground service.

Unfortunately for another company, it was the credit system of buying for AES that stopped me from buying it in the first place. I did try the free trial and liked it. I just did not want to spend so much money to get them on only selected airports - looking at their list, AES is not available at any Aussie airports yet

GSX came to my rescue and it works at all the default airports I have tried it at (my ORBX airports are not installed at the moment) and it did not cost me lots of money. I think that is the real selling point for GSX over AES. AES might be better, but I don't have oodles of money to spend on expanding it to all the airports it's available for.

Mark

Yeah, that money aspect. That's the (dev's) elephant in the room over in the other thread, obviously.  

Well the sheer jetway movement currently is an AES special at the airports with the missing default feature. GSX can't help you on that so far. I hope this (GSX) aspect changes in the future since it does not look like the AES pricing system is about to change soon.
Do the maths, on a 25 or 26 Euros airport, some folks (like me) bought credits for some additional 7.50 Euros. That's a 30 percent plus on the cash flow. Can't complain about the actual quality of the services involved, but the price is too high in my eyes.
However, I think GSX offers a nice competition to that credit based payment system and I'm looking forward to any progress, at both dev's ends.

Side note. On the AES airports where you have your credits enabled, disable GSX via that ini file. So the features won't interfere in any way. I have PANC for example. And if I press the GSX key commands there, it tells me that is was disabled. So my slow brain remembers to use the fancy AES instead.