Option to disable jetway PAX boarding visualization

[Copper]

Which is precisely why we ARE adding a way to set their heights in the airport profile, as I've said.

I'm not sure why you assume that height is the only issue. I have seen dozen of times issues where the pax were sticking out to the side of the dynamic part of a jetway or doing a shortcut just before the pivot point and floating through the air.

So just because you fear POSSIBLE issues with answering questions (which an FAQ and hint in manual would suffice), you decide to not help us profile creators to fix REAL issues we're facing with no solution, even not the one you are implementing right now.
If GSX renders pax to the side of the jetway, there is still no way to fix this.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this decision. I'm tired of seeing pax sticking to all sides of jetways that are totally opaque for no reason. There is not even a reason to render pax if there is no transparent part and no pax waypoints *at all*.
But yeah, let's ignore this and just stick to the fear of people asking support questions.
You don't want to know how often profile creators get asked why pax is sticking outside of the jetway despite using their profile...

[virtuali]

I'm not sure why you assume that height is the only issue. I have seen dozen of times issues where the pax were sticking out to the side of the dynamic part of a jetway or doing a shortcut just before the pivot point and floating through the air.

This has been explained so many times already, for example here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,28557.msg186411.html#msg186411

And most importantly, here:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,28527.msg186293.html#msg186293

You don't want to know how often profile creators get asked why pax is sticking outside of the jetway despite using their profile...

If you read and understood the above issue with jetways at large, it should be obvious that this won't be fixed by a profile, because I don't consider disabling passengers a "fix", it's just a temporary hack to what is really an MSFS issue that must be fixed by MSFS, because the SDK doesn't currently give us enough information to be sure IF a jetway docked completely and WHERE ( which door ), which as I understood from the Asobo streaming, should be added in the SU12 SDK.

If the issue will be fixed in SU12, you would find yourself with hundreds of useless profiles that disabled passengers for no reason other than deal with an SDK limitation that has been confirmed to go away that will have to be amended by then.

You are making an assumption that profile creators will only use it to disable passengers in solid jetways, which of course is not the case, since we have the "passengers in the air" issue so, we can expect profile creators will start to disable passengers everywhere, because you can never know WHEN or WHERE the issue might appear, because it depends on so many variables like the airplane used, where it's parked, where the jetway has docked, if the Drone camera is used, so you could possibly always face it in so many situations you might be tempted to disable passengers everywhere.

The mistake here is assuming GSX "renders pax to the side of the jetway" because GSX is crazy. It obviously isn't, the issue is ALWAYS caused by either the jetway not docking completely, docking on the wrong door, or snapping out of the docked position because of the known LOD bug, with no way for GSX to KNOW about any of these situation, because of the missing data from the SDK.

And no, about wanting to disable passengers to save fps, it's not something that should be decided by a profile creator: how you can possibly make a decision for the user, maybe he has no fps issue, or he doesn't care, or he likes using the Drone camera to peek inside, but then you created a profile with passengers disabled, so you are forcing your "fps decision" over users that might not want it.

Because of this, we would then go back to possibly having a "global" setting to disable passengers, which also doesn't make much sense, both because users set it , forget it and go here asking why they lost the passengers, but also because it would likely have to be

[ACSoft]

Your temporary solution is useless, because we'll release the feature in the next update, very likely taking even less than 10 days. Happy now ?

Yes, I am happy you gave finally a precise information and will be even more, the day we will have the possibility to call separately, crew and PAX, and why not, even baggage loading !

 

[Copper]

you might be tempted to disable passengers everywhere.

If a profile creator considers this to provide the best experience, why patronizing them (us) in that way by withholding a useful feature?

But I get it, it's your product and if the community is asking for a quite easy-to-implement feature that would save some headache for us you just say that you don't want to do it because you know best what the community needs

[virtuali]

If a profile creator considers this to provide the best experience, why patronizing them (us) in that way by withholding a useful feature?

Because the "best experience" is not hiding the passengers, for more than one reason:

- The problem might just be the lack of a a custom jetway height. This is going to be fixed in the next update with the ability to customize it, so it's no longer an issue.

- The problem might only appear with the airplane parked in a certain position, resulting in the jetway not docking correctly, so it would be wrong to take decision when making a profile, to fix a problem that might not always happen.

But I get it, it's your product and if the community is asking for a quite easy-to-implement feature that would save some headache for us you just say that you don't want to do it because you know best what the community needs

You obviously don't get it. I already make my case quite clearly, why this feature is not only useless, it's wrong and it's detrimental to the GSX as a whole, because it will spread the wrong impression that profiles are made to fix GSX "bugs", when in fact the real issue is a temporarily lack of features in the SDK that we are quite confident will be eventually sorted, which would make the "fix" completely useless in most of the case.

Even in the one and only case were you *might* have a point, that is saving fps in solid jetways, the custom profile is the wrong place for an fps-saving feature, because users have other means to save fps, like reducing the passengers density for example.

Without even mentioning that, the overlapped glass of the transparent jetways, are probably affecting fps more even when empty (because multiple overlapping glass surfaces are hard on fps), than a solid jetway full of people, because the hardware z-buffer occludes them, so they are not really completely drawn until you enter the jetway so, trying to "save" fps on the solid jetway, doesn't make much sense, considering the place were you might really want to save fps, is where you also want to see the passengers from the outside.