UNVAILABLE PARKING AND GROUND SERVICES

[raghav]

Hi! when I fly a 767 or a 747, I have this strange problem of GSX saying that parking and Ground services not available. This happens in all big airports.  Is there anything I need to know to get things working.
Raghav

[virtuali]

It's possible you haven't noticed it's rebuilding the scenery cache, in that period the ground services are not available. The scenery cache is rebuild every time you add or modify a scenery.

[raghav]

O.K. Will check this out. But to quote an example - when I fly KBOS - KJFK, I take off from KBOS and Land at KJFK. As soon as I land in KJFK, and initiate the COUTAL GSK key, I get this message saying parking too small in all the gates. If I do select a gate designated as too small, the ground services are not available. Any inputs from your end?  Infact I own FSDT KJFK, KORD, KLAS. Great airports. Great work. I have the GSX problem in these ariports.
Thanks.

[virtuali]

The parking it's too small it's an ENTIRELY different issue, and of course doesn't mean GSX is not working correctly. It simply means the parking you selected IS too small for your airplane.

GSX simply compares the parking radius in the airport AFCAD vs half of your airplane wingspan and, if the parking radius is smaller, it will give that message so, either the problem is the AFCAD that set a too small radius for the parking, or you are trying to park in a place that is not really suited to your airplane.

[raghav]

I am encountering this problem when I fly the 757 too. I guess it is a smaller aircraft compared to the 767/747. But still the message says, parking. too small. And also for a huge airport like jfk, it throws up very few options for parking. This is certainly not got to do anything with me doing anything wrong.

[virtuali]

I don't know why you keep labeling as a "problem", when it's clearly isn't. As I've, GSX looks at the size indicated in the AFCAD, and it will compare against your airplane half-wingspan ( the AFCAD it's a *radius* so it HAS to be compared against *half* of the wingspan ), the message will say the parking is too small, if the wingspan is larger, there's really nothing to argue about this.

In any case, taking the example for KLAX, it's not true that "every" parking is listed as too small for a 767/747/757. The 747 needs a parking stop 33 meters large, and there are 33 of them at KLAX even not counting the Cargo Area. Most of the larger parking spots are in the Tom Bradley International Terminal, or the in the West parking areas, but there are additional 1-2 per terminal in the other terminals too.

[jackharpenden]

This is really becoming quite annoying now.  For example with the UK2000 scenery for Heathrow it's telling me that stand 508 isn't large enough for a 767-300, when I can park there with plenty of space at either side and it's used for 763s in the real world.

Why does it disable use of the stand if it 'thinks' it is too small for the aircraft?  A lot of time those stands are a perfect fit for the airframe.

Flying to Stockholm earlier the controller assigned me stand F37, which is also used in the real world for 763s in the real world.  When I request to use that position to disembark on GSX I get the dreaded "too small" message.  The whole of that particular terminal at ARL which BA uses insisted that all the positions were too small.  I arrived at the stand and once again there was plenty of room at either side, an there was even a 767 next to me with quite a distance between our wingtips.

I'm very impressed with the program as a whole and can see that a lot of effort has been put into it, but it'd be nice if this gremlin could be sorted.

Thanks,
Jack

[XCLTM3]

This is really becoming quite annoying now.  For example with the UK2000 scenery for Heathrow it's telling me that stand 508 isn't large enough for a 767-300, when I can park there with plenty of space at either side and it's used for 763s in the real world.

Why does it disable use of the stand if it 'thinks' it is too small for the aircraft?  A lot of time those stands are a perfect fit for the airframe.

Flying to Stockholm earlier the controller assigned me stand F37, which is also used in the real world for 763s in the real world.  When I request to use that position to disembark on GSX I get the dreaded "too small" message.  The whole of that particular terminal at ARL which BA uses insisted that all the positions were too small.  I arrived at the stand and once again there was plenty of room at either side, an there was even a 767 next to me with quite a distance between our wingtips.

I'm very impressed with the program as a whole and can see that a lot of effort has been put into it, but it'd be nice if this gremlin could be sorted.

Thanks,
Jack

Hi Jack,

I think what Umberto is saying here is that this is an issue with the actual developers of the 3rd party airport. For some reason, when they developed the afcad parking spots  they edited the spots radius' way too small. In reality, as you pointed out these specific spots are actually utilized by larger aircraft. Therefore, FSX tells GSX "can't park that beast here...it's too big for the spot".

The solution is either:

1. The airport developers create more realistic afcad parking for their airports (or release a patch/upgrade)
2. You may have to locate an afcad editor and do it yourself, or
3. Umberto may provide some kind of patch in the future within GSX that will allow end users to edit/manipulate the afcad appropriately.

Hope this helps.

Rgds,

[virtuali]

For example with the UK2000 scenery for Heathrow it's telling me that stand 508 isn't large enough for a 767-300, when I can park there with plenty of space at either side and it's used for 763s in the real world

That doesn't happen here. GSX at UK2000 doesn't label the Gate 508 as being to small, tried with the Level-D 767-300.

You taken a very borderline example, since in the AFCAD I have (coming from the Trial version for UK2000 EGLL, named egll_AFX_UK2xTRM.bgl), Gate 508 is labeled as "Small" with a radius of 24 mt. The Level-D 767-300 wingspan divided by 2 is 23.7870999492 mt so, if you are using another 767-300 model that has been defined a bit larger than 24 meters, or you modified the AFCAD to set, let's say, 23 meters, GSX will say the parking is too small.

I'm very impressed with the program as a whole and can see that a lot of effort has been put into it, but it'd be nice if this gremlin could be sorted.

There's no "gremlin" and nothing to be fixed in GSX. You are asking for a different thing, which is allowing GSX to just ignore the parking size, on the assumption it might have been set too small by mistake.

But, of course, GSX can't possibly know if that was really a mistake, and there's plenty of space at such parking, or it IS really a parking too small, GSX really need to trust what's inside the AFCAD, and if the AFCAD it's wrong, it's the AFCAD that must be fixed.

Try to post the question in a different way: why an airport designer specified a parking radius smaller than it really is ? It's possible there are sceneries around from pre-FSX times, when it was difficult to assign airlines to parkings, and some designers tweaked the parking radius to direct airline assignment, and there might be AI models with non realistic parking radius set on purpose to allow this technique, but is something that shouldn't be done in FSX anymore.

The parking radius is used also to place vehicles and calculate their approach paths to the airplane, if the parking is REALLY cramped, if we allowed vehicles meant for larger airplanes (the larger catering and pushback vehicles, that are used for larger airplanes, for example, can't turn very well in a small parking) in a parking that we don't KNOW it's really larger than what the AFCAD is saying, all sort of troubles will start, and users will of course blame GSX, when the problem was clearly the AFCAD.

So, we might add an option to set a different parking radius that GSX will use to accept the airplane, but it can't be a global option, it must be something related to customizing an airport, so you can set a larger radius only after you have checked it IS larger indeed.

[raghav]

Even though Umberto says it has got nothing to do with GSX design, I would still insist that it is a problem for me as an end user. What a developer needs to understand is the add on is being used by people  who will not understand the nitty gritty of programming. For an end user after having paid a  good sum of money without bargain, I expect the add on to work. It would be better for umberto to fix the problem rather than telling us not to address this as a problem. I would still insist on this.  Hope they would be able to do this. As of now this add on is just useless.

[Andrew737]

So, we might add an option to set a different parking radius that GSX will use to accept the airplane, but it can't be a global option, it must be something related to customizing an airport, so you can set a larger radius only after you have checked it IS larger indeed.

I would definitely appreciate this option and it not being global is NOT a problem for me so to have the option is great.

Umberto as a programer, a very good programer, I am sure your mind works in a different way to most of us mere mortals who are just the end users of your brilliant products.

Please don't get annoyed with us when we define an issue as a problem for GSX. We only mean the issues arose after the install of GSX or that GSX is not working as we expect, it is much more productive for you to offer a brief explanation so we understand the issues better, and then a solution like the one above - that for the end users is a lot easier than trying to understand the whole in depth process especially when we only want a solution to the issues we encounter. You should empathise with us a bit more as after all we are your customers. I own ALL your products

I hope you understand this?

Thank you

Andrew

[raghav]

I completely agree with Andrew. GSX is probably the best ground services add on I have come across.  In fact I use most of FSDT addons and do appreciate the hard work thats gone behind to deliver such wonderful products.  But at the end of the day, ordinary mortals as rightly said would like our add ons to work and and enjoy our investment and time on it. I am sure Team Unmberto would deliver the missing plugs and complete the loop.

[virtuali]

Even though Umberto says it has got nothing to do with GSX design, I would still insist that it is a problem for me as an end user.

These two are not mutually exclusive. I understand it might be a problem for you, but it's NOT a GSX "problem", it's a problem of the AFCADs which, as explained many times, is the only thing GSX can rely on.

For an end user after having paid a  good sum of money without bargain, I expect the add on to work

GSX is obviously working. In fact, all the examples that were posted as to point out a supposed GSX "problem", simply proven that IS working, I still haven't seen a case were the AFCAD radius was specified correctly, and GSX refused the airplane for being too large for that spot.

It would be better for umberto to fix the problem rather than telling us not to address this as a problem. I would still insist on this.  Hope they would be able to do this

I'll repeat again, there's no GSX problem to be fixed. Instead, we'll might add a feature that will allow GSX to override an AFCAD problem, which is why it will be a customization option specific to the parking and the scenery, since will have to verify if that specific parking was specified too small because of a mistake of the scenery developer, or it's REALLY too small, in that case it shouldn't be changed.

As of now this add on is just useless.

That's obviously wrong. GSX is perfectly usable as it is, provided the AFCAD is made correctly.

Some examples:

KJFK DEFAULT has 24 heavy gates 36 meters large so they can accept a 747, not counting the cargo area.
FSDT KJFK has 80 heavy gates!
EGLL DEFAULT has 31 heavy gates
UK2000 EGLL has 108 heavy gates!

So, it's just wrong saying that GSX can't be used, if you have a large airport that doesn't have even a single parking spot for a large airport, then sorry, it's your AFCAD that is "useless", and I really wonder how it was made, and why.

But that's really not the issue, I was just pointing out, GSX is perfectly fine, but it WILL include an option so you can fix such AFCAD mistakes.

[raghav]

I landed in JFK  of FSDT three times in 767 and once in 757. On all the four occasions the parking indicated by coutall was small for my airplane. I have posted my experience only after trying it out both in a 767 and 757. I havent tried  747 so far.

[virtuali]

I have posted my experience only after trying it out both in a 767 and 757. I havent tried  747 so far.

On FSDT KFJK, in addition to the 80 gates that are at least 33 meters wide, there are other 48 that range from 25 to 31 meters, which should also accept a 767 that are usually listed with a wingspan of 23-24 meters, plus other 44 that are exactly 24 meters wide, which will surely accept the Level-D which is 23.8 meters so no, there's plenty of parking spots for a 767 at FSDT KJFK.

Just as an example, in the Level-D 767-300, at FSDT KJFK, if I select Terminal 1, only 2 out of 11 gates are labeled as "Too small" by GSX.

If you had a different experience, please post exactly which gate you selected and which exact airplane type you used.