It works the same way as when you were to change things within GSX for pmdg or any other third party aircraft, witch you had to update GSX for right?
No, it doesn't. We don't need any support from PMDG or any other 3rd party airplane developer to support their airplane, and it only takes 10 minutes in the GSX editor to fix doors, and 5 minutes to figure it out possible custom variables so no, it's entirely different effort and it would be very wrong if we charged for it.
While, instead, it takes quite a bit of effort to transform a fake jetway into an animated one, it also requires cooperation from the original developer, and some sceneries CAN'T even adapted so they are not supported by AES either so, I can fully understand why AES is charging per-airport. But it's not a business model we are interested pursuing, doesn't make any sense with AES already on the market.
AES found a way to move the jet-ways why cant you.
You don't seem to understand: we HAVE moving jetways on ALL OUR AIRPORTS and this doesn't obviously require GSX, at all (which is free on our airports anyway).
But if we had to add them to 3rd party scenery, which is what you are probably asking, we would have to needlessly duplicate what AES already does and, of course, having you paying for every airport, which doesn't make any sense. Not in FSX, when there's already native support for animated jetways.
I for one don't want to spend another 40 bucks on something I already have purchased just for one feature
You got it backwards: why spending *any* extra money (AES credits or eventual GSX "credits") on a separate product to to have moving jetways, when they should be included with the scenery in the first place ?
Your mistake is to assume that jetways are a feature of the Ground Services program, but they aren't, they ARE part of the airport, and should be included with it.
Not making animated jetways is a legacy from FS9, when doing them was extremely hard and not supported by the base program, but doesn't make any sense on FSX, when even default airports have them, you would think a payware scenery advertised for FSX would AT LEAST offer everything a *default* airport has, wouldn't you ?
Im just simply make a suggestion to a developer and you basically told me if I want that I should go buy AES because we will never make it happen that is A. very unprofessional B
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. I've CLEARLY said that, IF we had to add moving jetways to 3rd party sceneries that don't have them already, we would have to charge for every airport, like AES. Since there's already AES for that, what sense it makes duplicating all that work ?
IF you really believe that jetways are not a feature you should ask to an airport developer and is right to spend extra money on another program to have what should have been included with the scenery in the first place, there's already a solution in the market for that.
Makes me think as a customer that my word don't mean jack when in all reality the customer is always right that's how businesses boom because they the give what the customer wants. SUPPLY AND DEMAND I might be the only one that wants this but thought I would try.
Exactly, you just made my point. Since GSX has been incredibly successful so far, and the only effect we saw after it was released, is that that some of the best scenery developers out there ARE making animated jetways now, it's quite obviouse that customers DEMAND has been exactly what we ARE SUPPLYING: a one-time purchase that works everywhere, instead of the pay-per-airport model.
