Problem with pushback tugs

[ACSoft]

Umberto,

Nice addition, the medium size pushback tug TPX-200 ! Thanks a lot ! Now I can stop tweaking "sim.cfg" "condition" parameters, according to your kind instructions here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,27994.0.html

I had to do this at each GSX Pro update, to avoid having the TMX-150 tug and systematically have the Trepel-280 instead.

Now, I tested with this new version of GSX Pro and my Fenix A320 and had the good surprise to discover th nice TPX-200 tug instead of the Trepel-280. But, unfortunately, a few time later, after some more flight starts and misc tests, I had the very bad surprise to see that now, GSX Pro choose randomly between the new nice tug TPX-200 and the horrible tug TMX-150 with the yellow bar !

Please, make that the TPX-200 tug is ALWAYS choosed or almost, indicate to me again, a tweak which I can do to force this condition.

Not only this tug TMX-150 has a bad minimum draw distance (like the suitcases in luggage activities), which make the tug itself to disappear very quickly and you only see the yellow bar on the tarmak, but, most important, it occupy a different place than other tugs (much behind) ! As a result it may destroy some of your customizations (or even some default item locations) where you will see half of this tug inside a wall or in other obstacles which were normally just behind the tug (TPX-200 or Trepel-280). To my humble view, random choice must be avoided for this reason, except if you can garanty a placement compatibility between all tugs.


PS:
For the horrible disappearance of the tug (and the suitcases !) I know there is a MSFS graphic parameter which might minimize this problem, but sorry, I own a relatively old gamer PC. Therefore, in no cases I am going to do this, because I need to preserve my framerate. Unfortunately, changing this parameter will not only act on these specific problems !

[GGCH_BOOMer]

Hello All,

I have the same "issue" where the TMX-150 is usually prefered and chosed about 2/3 times over to the new Tug (TPX-200) which is great and perfectly adapted to the A320.
If it would be possible to make this Tug selected by the system over the TMX-150 that would be awesome.

Plus as ACSoft mentionned the TMX-150 have a very bad LOD and the truck dissapear before the tow bar and the placement is not centered compared to other tugs which makes it coliding with other objects on the scene in most cases.

Thanks for taking this into account.
Best,
BOOMer

[virtuali]

The TMX is not "horrible", it's just the TPX is much better, because it's a brand new model, and we try to improve with better methods each time we do a new model. That doesn't mean we should throw away a perfectly fine model just because it's not as good as the latest one.

The LOD issue has been explained several times: we are trying to be as efficient as possible and trying to reduce the chance of things randomly removed by the simulator, because if we intentionally ignored the LOD rules as suggested by the LOD Debug tool in the SDK, we risk the simulator removing the object altogether, which is what it does, when objects are not LOD compliant.

We need to have some Towbar trucks as well, since it's not realistic to always have a Towbarless vehicle everywhere so, you'll still see ( depending on airplane weight ) some overlap where you could have a random chance of getting either vehicle that matches the airplane weight. It's best to have some variety and vehicles that ARE used in real life for that kind of airplane class. Before, having only the big Douglas truck as a Towbarless option for A320s was not right.

If you don't agree with our choices of weight ranges, the post you referred to in your post is still valid.

[ACSoft]

Thanks for your answer, but...

The TMX is not "horrible", it's just the TPX is much better, because it's a brand new model, and we try to improve with better methods each time we do a new model. That doesn't mean we should throw away a perfectly fine model just because it's not as good as the latest one.

The LOD issue has been explained several times: we are trying to be as efficient as possible and trying to reduce the chance of things randomly removed by the simulator, because if we intentionally ignored the LOD rules as suggested by the LOD Debug tool in the SDK, we risk the simulator removing the object altogether, which is what it does, when objects are not LOD compliant.

We need to have some Towbar trucks as well, since it's not realistic to always have a Towbarless vehicle everywhere so, you'll still see ( depending on airplane weight ) some overlap where you could have a random chance of getting either vehicle that matches the airplane weight. It's best to have some variety and vehicles that ARE used in real life for that kind of airplane class. Before, having only the big Douglas truck as a Towbarless option for A320s was not right.

All your explanations, justifications does not change nothing to the facts we both exposed with Boomer and on which, of course, you do not say a single word (positioning problem, bar with no tug).

Yes, the LOD issue has been explained several times AND WE KNOW IT, THANKS !!! Read the post-scriptum of my message please ! It was totally unnecessary to repeat your explanations about this problem, which moreover do not explain why ONLY the tug disappear and not the yellow bar. Sorry Umberto, but this, the placement problem, plus the way this tug behave, especially during the pushback preparation, is the reason why I call it "horrible", not because of it look which, in fact I don't care. But of course, this is just my humble opinion !

If you don't agree with our choices of weight ranges, the post you referred to in your post is still valid.

I fear that with the new 4 tugs configuration, your solution didn't work anymore.

I made already several tests and it didn't worked as expected. But, in fact, with the previous configuration, the final tweak I adopted was not exactly the one you recommended. I was able to obtain the result I wanted (always getting the Trepel280) with a single modification of Trepel-280 "sim.cfg".

//condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 120000
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g < 85000

But this one seem to not work anymore.

Anyway, I will continue to test, starting by doing what you explain previously "to the letter" and come back here to report.

[ACSoft]

Umberto,

I have done to the letter the modification you proposed here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,27994.0.html

Without to forget to delete the cache, but as you can see in the two printscreen here after, it does not work. With this tweak, there is simply no more available tug !

[virtuali]

All your explanations, justifications does not change nothing to the facts we both exposed with Boomer and on which, of course, you do not say a single word (positioning problem, bar with no tug).

Now you are putting two completely different things in the same sentence:

- the "bar with no tug" ( after some distance ) IT IS A LOD ISSUE, the one you said "we know it" so, how you could possibly said I didn't said "a single word" about an issue that you know it because it HAS been explained countless of times ?

- if the the "positioning problem" you are referring to the fact that, some airplane profiles might have been made for an Towbarless tug, others for a Towbar tug and, if there's limited space, it might be possible the position carefully selected for one type of tug might not work with the other, that's a completely different thing, which is not as easy to solve and surely won't be solved by removing a vehicle entirely, as you were trying to do: since you cannot be sure the profile you are using was made for the type of tug you like more, that is unless you did the profile yourself, with the vehicle choice limited as you are trying to do.

We are thinking of a solution that wouldn't affect too much existing profiles, but it would still some kind of correction to the placement when a Towbar tug is used.

I fear that with the new 4 tugs configuration, your solution didn't work anymore. I made already several tests and it didn't worked as expected. But, in fact, with the previous configuration, the final tweak I adopted was not exactly the one you recommended. I was able to obtain the result I wanted (always getting the Trepel280) with a single modification of Trepel-280 "sim.cfg".

Of course the same, identical, solution won't work now, I never suggested you should have used it "literally", if you understand how the constraints work, you'll surely need a NEW set of constraints that would works with the new set of vehicles, I only suggest to look and understand the principle behind them.

Assuming your goal is to stop getting the TMX and you are ok with the Trepel, which suggests your real issue is with the LOD, not with the fact that, using both Towbarless and Towbar vehicles would get you "positioning problems" because their different center point ( unless you want to get rid of the TPX as well ? ), considering the latest default rules are:

M1A = aircraftWeight <= 50000
TMX = aircraftWeight >= 50000 <= 120000
TPX = aircraftWeight >= 90000 <= 180000
Trepel 280 = aircraftWeight >= 120000
Pushback_3 ( Douglas ) aircraftWeight >= 180000 and doorHeight > 3.30

If you JUST want to get rid of the "horrible TMX", you can just change ITS OWN condition to this one:

condition = %(aircraftWeight)g < 0

Is the SIM.CFG located in Addon Manager\MSFS\fsdreamteam-gsx-pro\SimObjects\GroundVehicles\FSDT_Pushback_TMX_150\sim.cfg

This will ensure you'll never see the TMX again, but is not enough because, as you can see by looking at all the conditions together, you now have an "hole" in the range from 50.000 to 120.000 lbs, with no vehicle matching it, which means you must DECIDE if you prefer the M1A going UP to 120.000 lbs, like this:

condition = %(aircraftWeight)g <= 50000

In Addon Manager\MSFS\fsdreamteam-gsx-pro\SimObjects\GroundVehicles\FSDT_Pushback_M1A\sim.cfg

Or, if you'd rather have the TPX going DOWN to 50k, by changing its condition to:

condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000


Or, maybe you want the MIA to going a bit higher but not 120k, and the TPX a bit lower, but not as low as 50k ? In this case, you can set the threshold to perhaps 90k lbs, by changing the M1A AND the TPX files, as follows:

M1A
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g <= 90000

TPX
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 90000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000


Assuming you want to go for the last solution, you final result will be:

- Airplanes with a weight lower than 90k lbs will use only the M1A
- Airplanes with a weight between 90k lbs and 120k lsbs will use only the TPX
- Airplanes with a weight between 120k lbs and 180l lbs will use a RANDOM selection between the TPX and the Trepel, because this range is covered by both
- Airplanes heavier than 180k lbs will use only the Douglas, assuming their passengers door is higher than 3.30.

The door requirement on the Douglas was to prevent it to appear on a 737, but it's probably redundant here, since we now have the TPX covering the 737 range of weight, so there's no risk touching the fuselage with the tug cabin, which would happen when the only Towbarless tug was the Douglas, so we had to ban it from planes with a lower height.

[ACSoft]

Umberto, you are incredible !

What was my only demand in my initial message ?

"Please, make that the TPX-200 tug is ALWAYS choosed or almost, indicate to me again, a tweak which I can do to force this condition."

Do-you have the felling you answered to this ?

No, you started, as usually, a totally useless polemic. "Always choosed" does not mean I asked you to suppress this tug !

And now, you say "Of course the same, identical, solution won't work now",

but in your initial answer you wrote:

"... the post you referred to in your post is still valid."

STILL VALID is clear enough !!! but no Sir, it is NOT still valid !

I am not totally stupid and as I said already, I made already numerous tests, very similar to what you suggest here now and that, even before to write my initial message. I even asked to my friend Boomer to test on his much more powerful PC than mine, to be sure it was not a particular problem to my relatively old PC.

I tested your old solution in a very skeptical mood, just because you said it was "still valid" and I just wanted to clarify if it was really the case or not. Sorry, Umberto, but with you, it is always better to put the dot on the "i" letter !

Now, thanks to have written what you believe is your own solution. This should have been your initial answer to my first message and you and me would have not lost all this time in sterile writing exchanges !!!

I just hope it will work, because the tests I made were very similar (changing all conditions ranges) but in my case, I still had the TMX-150 coming randomly sometimes, like if the code used some other criteria elsewhere. Maybe I made something wrong !

Let see now what happen with your solution !

[ACSoft]

Umberto,

OK, I tested, according to your indications. I made the following modification:

FSDT_Pushback_TMX_150>sim.cfg
//condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 120000
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g < 0

FSDT_Pushback_TPX_200>sim.cfg
//condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 90000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000

But, as expected, it DOES NOT WORK !!!

I still get randomly the tug TMX_150 and the tug TPX_200. This seem to confirm that the code does not respect to the letter these "conditions" in vehicles sim.cfg files. See included screenshots.

By the way, the default conditions are actually:

M1A         =>  condition = %(aircraftWeight)g <= 50000
TMX_150     =>  condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 120000
TPX_200     =>  condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 90000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000
Trepel_280  =>  condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 120000

As the A320 empty weight is 87000 lbs, like you mentionned here:  https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,27994.0.html

Normally, if these default conditions settings were respected,  the tug TPX_200 should NEVER appear and it is the tug TMX_150 which should be always chosen. Effectively, 87000 lsb belong ONLY to the condition range of the TMX_150 and is BELOW the range of the TPX_200, which goes from 90000 to 180000 !

Personally, I give up. I have enough of all this.

I will NOT modify anymore these config's files. Instead, I will just use the "restart couatl", when the tug TMX_150 is chosen, until I get the TPX_200 instead.

Now, if you change something about all this, please let me know.

Thanks in forward.


PS:
I you want to improve TMX_150, add a serviceman holding the bar just beside the tug and let him walk to the aircraft, in parallel of the tug. Then the guy fix the bar to the aircraft and after the tug will couple with the other side of the bar, to be ready to push. As far as I know and have see on youtube, this is how it is done in the reality. This configuration with the bar hold by a guy, beside the tug, will probably also resolve the positioning problem I mentioned before.

[HeicoH]

@ACSoft:

In this forum, complaining about Umberto's way to handle customer questions, does not make any sense.

I think that Umberto never will change his attitude that the costumer is stupid.

I have a lot of questions about the pushback tugs, because this was the initial reason to buy GSX.

In almost all my posts in this forum I did not get a specific answer to a specific question. So, ACSoft, take Umberto's answer as it is, or leave it.
By the way: this is the reason why I do not use GSX anymore on my productive system. I will be patient until 20xx, when FSDT finally manages to fix the hundreds of bugs of GSX. (Yes, Umberto, I know: your opinoin is that there are no bugs in GSX, the bugs are in the other additional apps for MSFS, or in MSFS itself.)

[virtuali]

Umberto, you are incredible !

I could say the same to you.

Do-you have the felling you answered to this ?

Absolutely. Even more than it was reasonable to expect for any kind of normal support.

No, you started, as usually, a totally useless polemic. "Always choosed" does not mean I asked you to suppress this tug !

I haven't started any "polemic", let alone a "useless" one. I spent my time giving you an thorough and accurate reply that would give you the means to achieve what you wanted to achieve.

STILL VALID is clear enough !!! but no Sir, it is NOT still valid !

What I tried to say you should have taken the PRINCIPLE behind that post, not take it literally.

Since this wasn't clear for you, I had to make that "useless" long post which you dismissed as usual as "polemic" (instead, it was very informative and took lot of my time), trying to make you UNDERSTAND how the system works.

[virtuali]

So now, let's try to reproduce your issue:

As the A320 empty weight is 87000 lbs, like you mentionned here:  https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,27994.0.html

This was the only thing I wrote wrong in my previous post. I just googled "A320 empty weight" and the preview of the first result showed 87,100 lbs, which in fact is the empty weight for the A318, the result pointed to this site, where's a table of the entire A320 family is shown:

https://www.modernairliners.com/airbus-a320

And there, you can see the A320 empty weight is instead 93,900 lbs, this also explains why you were assuming the default conditions won't work:

Normally, if these default conditions settings were respected,  the tug TPX_200 should NEVER appear and it is the tug TMX_150 which should be always chosen. Effectively, 87000 lsb belong ONLY to the condition range of the TMX_150 and is BELOW the range of the TPX_200, which goes from 90000 to 180000 !

When in fact they worked perfectly fine as written, because as they were, you should get exactly what you said you were getting: a random chance of TMX/TPX, with the Trepel appearing when the airplane is heavier.

That is using the DEFAULT conditions. Now let's see your modifications. I tried doing what I suggested to do, and you said you did:

FSDT_Pushback_TMX_150>sim.cfg
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g < 0

FSDT_Pushback_TPX_200>sim.cfg
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000

And sure enough, after these changes and of course "Without to forget to delete the cache", I ALWAYS get the TPX ( as expected ), with a weight lower than 120.000 lbs. I tried selecting Pushback for 10 times in a row, always the TPX.

To confirm this, I reverted the changes back and, sure enough, I got the TMX again at the 3rd try. So yes, the conditions DO WORK.

Also, it seems you added C++ style // comments in the .CFG file, which are not exactly legal in .INI files.

While there isn't any accepted standard on comments because the .INI file format is not structured, but the most widely accepted is the semicolon, the standard .INI parsing routine we use that comes with the Python language, considers that as a proper character for comments, and we had to add extra custom code to handle // comments too. I don't think this should be the issue but, it's probably best to not use comments or, if you really want them, use the semicolon.

And, again, remember to remove the model cache ( %PROGRAMDATA%\Virtuali\MSFS ) after you do even a single smallest change, then restart Couatl.

Those are the only possible reasons I can think of why you think your modifications are not working. Which lead you to assume that conditions were not working at all, because you thought even the default rules didn't work, but that was JUST caused by the misunderstanding about the A320 empty weight, which is really 93.900 lbs, not 87,100.

Now, there's an EXTRA Fenix-specific issue that might lead to further confusion. Try the following:

1) Open the Fenix EFB Mass and Balance page, and press "Reset All". On the Fenix EFB, it defaults to 0 passengers, 0 cargo loaded, 6615 lbs of fuel in Tanks. The GW, according to the EFB is now 103700 lbs.

2) Open the MSFS Weight and Balance page, just to confirm the weights, and there's already an issue: the gross weight is about 137.000 lbs, instead of 103700 as the EFB says. While the fuel weight in MSFS matches the EFB ( 6615 lbs ), the Payload on the MSFS page is 68%, instead of 0% as indicated in the Fenix EFB.

3) If you set the Payload to 0% in the MSFS page, the Fenix EFB *reacts* on it, and it will now show about 100.000 lbs of GW, and now the two would be in agreement.

4) If you change the Payload in the EFB, the Payload on MSFS W/B page is not updated, the Fuel is, instead.

So, it seems the Payload synchronization between Fenix and MSFS is going only in one direction: MSFS->Fenix, that is the Fenix reacts to changes in the MSFS Payload, but doesn't change it back to MSFS when you change it from the EFB. The Fuel quantity, instead, seems to work by-directionally as it should.

GSX can only possibly know about the MSFS SDK variables (which is what the default MSFS W/B page shows), if the Fenix has a separate set of internal weights, which for any reason are not kept in sync with its own internal values, you can be easily mislead about the *actual* airplane weight, because what you see on the EFB is not what we get from the MSFS standard SDK variables.

So, to be sure if your rules are working, always check the Total Weight on the MSFS default Weight and Balance page, because that value, read at the time when GSX vehicles are created on a gate, is what drives the vehicle selection constraints.

[ACSoft]

This is what I have done:

1) Deleted the cache (%PROGRAMDATA%\Virtuali\MSFS)

2) Modified sim.cfg of all tug vehicles this way:

FSDT_Pushback_M1A > unchanged
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g <= 50000

FSDT_Pushback_TMX_150 > modified with no "//"
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g > 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g < 90000

FSDT_Pushback_TPX_200 > unchanged
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 90000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000

FSDT_Pushback_Trepel_280 > unchanged
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 120000

With an A320 which now we know, at last, its correct empty weight of 93900 lb, the TMX_150 should NEVER be chosen. But just see the result on attached print screens !!!

I also really doubt the problem has something to do with MSFS default Weight and Balance page, as I can obtain this random choice on a single aircraft load, by simply using you "restart Couatl" feature.

By the way, I also tried with both Asobo & FBW A320Neo which are even heavier and the problem occur the same !!!

So, there is a problem about these tugs selection. Effectively, if it would be still be a weight problem, in ANY CASES, we should NOT see a random choice between TMX_150 and the new TPX_200, as there is no common range to TMX_150 & TPX_200 in the ranges setup I have used.

[ACSoft]

Do-you have the felling you answered to this ?

Absolutely. Even more than it was reasonable to expect for any kind of normal support.

When I read this, I have the same impression as if we were both in front of the Tower of Pisa and you told me that this tower is absolutely not leaning and, on the contrary, that it is perfectly straight!

[virtuali]

When I read this, I have the same impression as if we were both in front of the Tower of Pisa and you told me that this tower is absolutely not leaning and, on the contrary, that it is perfectly straight!

That's exactly the same, identical feeling I have about many things you say. To me, you are saying the leaning tower is in fact straight.

1) Deleted the cache (%PROGRAMDATA%\Virtuali\MSFS)

2) Modified sim.cfg of all tug vehicles this way:

With an A320 which now we know, at last, its correct empty weight of 93900 lb, the TMX_150 should NEVER be chosen. But just see the result on attached print screens !!!

Since, as I've said, I already TRIED the proposed modifications, I can only repeat and confirm those are the changes required to get rid of the TMX and they work.

If they are not working for you, either you haven't done all exactly as you said you have, or the airplane weight is not what you are expecting.

Posting screenshot is not very useful, it's not that I don't "believe you" this is happening to you.

It's not possible telling what's really happening unless I could check all files in your installation, be sure the model cache is erased each time, be sure of the airplane weight as it happens on your system.

[ACSoft]

Since, as I've said, I already TRIED the proposed modifications, I can only repeat and confirm those are the changes required to get rid of the TMX and they work.

No Sir, I persist and sign. The fault is on your side and all what you proposed to solve the problem didn't work.

It didn't work with Fenix A320, it didn't work with Asobo A320Neo, it didn't work with FBW A320Neo.

Again, for the last time, if your logic was working in your sim.cfg set, as you pretend, the following configurations should NEVER choose the tug TMX_150, unless the aircraft empty weight would be between 50000 & 90000 lb, which we know, is not the case for Fenix A320 or A320Neo of Asobo or FBW.

FSDT_Pushback_M1A > unchanged
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g <= 50000

FSDT_Pushback_TMX_150 > modified with no "//"
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g > 50000 and %(aircraftWeight)g < 90000

FSDT_Pushback_TPX_200 > unchanged
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 90000 and %(aircraftWeight)g <= 180000

FSDT_Pushback_Trepel_280 > unchanged
condition = %(aircraftWeight)g >= 120000

Sorry but your discussion about  MSFS Weight and Balance page, or "//" comment markers, etc... etc... Are just inacceptable, as it is YOUR DUTY to make your program to work properly, !!! Whatever, cause the settings I mentioned here to not work, is your FAULT.

I even tested to set the condition for the tug TMX_150 to:

condition = %(aircraftWeight)g > 500000

Or like you proposed:

condition = %(aircraftWeight)g < 0

Which obviously should NEVER be good for ANY aircraft of the MSFS world, and even in this case IT DOES NOT WORK !!! Your TMX_150 continue to be randomly chosen.

Now, I am tired to loose my time with a person like you.

Bye.