Bad staircase assignment - last update!

[crauds]

Hi folks!
    Loading the aircraft at a gate with a jetway results in no issues but this is parked with "No Jetway" checked in the GSX menu.  This is standard FSX small parking assignment--the same as always for PMDG NGX in FSX.  This only has occurred since last update.  I have latest version using "live update" icon 2 days ago.  How do I fix this?  Nothing in the menu allows me to specify stairways.   This is at reworked AFCAD updating  FBSK to latest Jepperson charts.  The position is "small" default setting with "no jetway" option.  Nothing else is specified and the parking has ample room on all sides.  I have attached an image showing a rickety stairway that does not even reach to the doorway at the rear left entrance.


Craig

[virtuali]

I'm not sure what you are reporting.

- If you just don't want the staircase, the GSX parking customization page has a specific option "Disable staircases"

- If, instead, you are reporting the wrong staircase type, that's a problem of the configuration of your airplane. The rear door is probably not set correctly.  If you are using a custom configuration for that airplane, try to Reset it, so GSX will use its own internal configuration instead of the one you made.

[crauds]

Sorry to be unclear.  I was reporting that GSX was sending wrong staircase to the rear door upon selecting the "deboarding" option after parking.  

The plane is the PMDG 737 NGX and it has been pre-configured by you.  I always use those settings (default) in GSX and have never before had an issue until yesterday.

I saved the situation with the same plane and position.  I reopened FSX and loaded up the same situation today and tested GSX "boarding" and "deboarding" options and the correct staircases were sent in both tests.  My experience yesterday must have been a fluke with FSX and not a fault of GSX.  Sorry!

BTW, will you ever configure GSX fueling protocol to work correctly with the FSL ConcordeX?  There must be a way that you can at least send the large tankers instead of the small 3000 gal trucks.  Not unusual to require over 90000 kg for an average flight which require 3 large tankers but about 9 small trucks!  

Craig  

[virtuali]

BTW, will you ever configure GSX fueling protocol to work correctly with the FSL ConcordeX?  There must be a way that you can at least send the large tankers instead of the small 3000 gal trucks.  Not unusual to require over 90000 kg for an average flight which require 3 large tankers but about 9 small trucks!  

I guess the main issue is the Concorde is not using the standard fuel tanks, or maybe is not using them entirely so, when reading such variables, the total fuel quantity on board is being read as being much less than the real one (for the simulator point of view, it is) and, since the fuel truck choice is driven by that quantity, we don't send the larger truck.

There's not much we can do without making a special case for the Concorde, meaning we should read whatever custom variables the Concord has to store the
 fuel.