Modifying AFCAD for GSX

[SoloWing]

I work as a scenery designer for a small FSX community, and the members have been brow beating me over making KBDL compatible with GSX in the multiplayer environment. Broken hearted, I have finally agreed to investigate that possibility. The issue is, we decided years ago to sacrifice SDK-compliant code in favor of maing the markings, runways, taxiways, etc. more realistic and less rigid. The result is outstanding for using default tools, but because our parking isn't connected to the taxiway network  (to allow for custom parking lines), GSX won't work with our current steups no matter what gate codes are used.

I wish not to sacrifice what looks more realistic, and at the same neck, I don't have the time to spend making custom ground polys for all of our scenery. Just not worth it for something I do as a volunteer. That being said, FSDeveloper has briefly considered that the same "piping" associated with "drive through parking" plumbing in ADE could allow GSX to work. Does this theory hold any water, or is there any other direction I can go to get GSX working with our afcads without connecting our current parking to the taxiway networks?

[virtuali]

GSX won't see any parkings not connected with the taxiway layout, there's no way around it. Also, many services in GSX rely on finding the most efficient route along the AFCAD taxiway layout, and if something like the "plumbing" technique is used, that would entirely confuse what is an "efficient" routing, people will have to wait a long time for the vehicles to show up, because they are lost in the plumbings...

There is a reason why every commercial scenery developer remakes the ground layout from scratch not using any of the AFCAD lines/markings: not just because they look much better and of course there's complete flexibility on their layouts, but also because you don't tie the visual appearance of the markings with the airport operations.

[data63]

I work as a scenery designer for a small FSX community, and the members have been brow beating me over making KBDL compatible with GSX in the multiplayer environment. Broken hearted, I have finally agreed to investigate that possibility. The issue is, we decided years ago to sacrifice SDK-compliant code in favor of maing the markings, runways, taxiways, etc. more realistic and less rigid. The result is outstanding for using default tools, but because our parking isn't connected to the taxiway network  (to allow for custom parking lines), GSX won't work with our current steups no matter what gate codes are used.

I wish not to sacrifice what looks more realistic, and at the same neck, I don't have the time to spend making custom ground polys for all of our scenery. Just not worth it for something I do as a volunteer. That being said, FSDeveloper has briefly considered that the same "piping" associated with "drive through parking" plumbing in ADE could allow GSX to work. Does this theory hold any water, or is there any other direction I can go to get GSX working with our afcads without connecting our current parking to the taxiway networks?

can't you just use the "no lines" option of ADE? to make the taxilines of the AFCAD just invisible? (sorry if I'm wrong - I'm no scenery designer but just a "AFCAD tweaker")

Happy landings

Juergen

[SoloWing]

I understand the whole idea behind making custom ground polygons for markings. A few projects I have worked on incorporates that just fine. But I was looking for a more practical solution to adapt about 150 AFCADs created just using ADE. Because I update about an airport per week with ADE for our MP community, I do not have the luxury of being able to make photoreal everything just to accommodate the GSX requirements. I don't have the time nor the patience to make custom polys for all those airports we use on our MP server. GSX works fine with our more comprehensive works which do use ground polys specifically for the reasons mentioned above.

Short story then: looks like it is unachievable without making ground polys. The guys will just have to do without then. Thanks.