Jump to content

FSX Jetways hijacked by Aerosoft/AES


Stankelben
 Share

Recommended Posts

I happen to be a privileged and grateful owner of quite a few wonderful airports from Aerosoft!

However it took me a while to realize that Aerosoft actually crave cool cash - or rather so called credits - in order to make their jetways work because it happens to be a part of AES.

Animated jetways are, and has always been a free standard FSX feature! - So I really would appreciate if you please would exclude this feature from being locked through AES or any other application you might develop in the future.

Considering the fortune I've already spent on your superb, yet expensive airports, I have no intentions whatsoever to spend as much as a penny more on AES, or anything else regarding to these airports when my only purpose is to take advantage of a standard FSX feature that I've already payed for!

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

You're mistaken that having AES installed disables the standard FSX jetways at airports for which you have not installed AES. If that's true for your installation, experience tells me it's not AES causing it.

By definition, you choose to buy credits and then you select the airport for which you want AES. If you don't want AES at an airport, just don't install it there. I have no trouble whatsoever with standard FSX jetways at non-selected AES airports. Just tried it to make sure at KJFK gate A24 with the stock Airbus and the PMDG 737NGX.

Just to be sure, are you using the standard <Ctrl> + <J>?

post-17951-0-32397700-1330403472_thumb.j

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're mistaken that having AES installed disables the standard FSX jetways at airports for which you have not installed AES. If that's true for your installation, experience tells me it's not AES causing it.

By definition, you choose to buy credits and then you select the airport for which you want AES. If you don't want AES at an airport, just don't install it there. I have no trouble whatsoever with standard FSX jetways at non-selected AES airports. Just tried it to make sure at KJFK gate A24 with the stock Airbus and the PMDG 737NGX.

Just to be sure, are you using the standard <Ctrl> + <J>?

Herman! some how you managed to misunderstand the subject in any possible way!

Try and read again..

I'm referring to locked jetways at Aerosoft airports only!

I know all too well about <Ctrl> + <J> which works fine in any airport - except at Aerosofts airports if you refuse to buy AES "credits", and that is exactly my point here!

Totally rip off for Aerosoft customers who already has payed loads of money for Aerosofts airports!

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

I'm referring to locked jetways at Aerosoft airports only!

I know all too well about <Ctrl> + <J> which works fine in any airport - except at Aerosofts airports if you refuse to buy AES "credits", and that is exactly my point here! Totally rip off for Aerosoft customers who already has payed loads of money for Aerosofts airports!

Now that is libelous and above anything else totally nonsense.

AES is a addon that replaces the crummy gate animation of FSX with something that looks a lot better. A scenery designer can ask (keep that word in mind) Oliver to offer AES for their airport. Some of these scenery developers choose Aerosoft as their publisher. But we have never even discussed the obligation to use AES for those products. It is always the scenery developers (independent developers, not Aerosoft employees) who make that decision. Not Aerosoft. The developers decide not to animate the gates, what you call 'locked', because they got a better alternative. For the airports we make internally, this is a decision we make. And we choose AES for the animation because the default animation is just incredibly silly.

Your accusations are damaging to Aerosoft and simply not true. It is a simplification of what is actually not a complex topic.And you should speak to the people who decide to use AES. The scenery developers, not Aerosoft.

We would sincerely appreciate an apology..

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree Mathijs in fairness Aerosoft as a backer of AES should encorage the developers you distribute for to leave support for default Jetways, its hardly that much more work to add a default animated jetway. Even if the developer is not prepared to make a couple of custom 3d jetways for reuse in their scenery into the future, they could use true default bridges as an alternative in the installer and offer those customers who dont want or need AES the default features that have been with us for over 6 years. But business is business and you are in it for the money.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to be a privileged and grateful owner of quite a few wonderful airports from Aerosoft!

However it took me a while to realize that Aerosoft actually crave cool cash - or rather so called credits - in order to make their jetways work because it happens to be a part of AES.

Animated jetways are, and has always been a free standard FSX feature! - So I really would appreciate if you please would exclude this feature from being locked through AES or any other application you might develop in the future.

Considering the fortune I've already spent on your superb, yet expensive airports, I have no intentions whatsoever to spend as much as a penny more on AES, or anything else regarding to these airports when my only purpose is to take advantage of a standard FSX feature that I've already payed for!

Not implementing a feature is most certainly not 'blocking'.

The default jetways just look like ############### and the bit of animation it has (to end up with a gate through a cockpit or where there is no door) simply have no place in high end scenery. Even most freeware avoids it these days for good reason.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

I totally disagree Mathijs in fairness Aerosoft as a backer of AES should encorage the developers you distribute for to leave support for default Jetways, its hardly that much more work to add a default animated jetway. Even if the developer is not prepared to make a couple of custom 3d jetways for reuse in their scenery into the future, they could use true default bridges as an alternative in the installer and offer those customers who dont want or need AES the default features that have been with us for over 6 years. But business is business and you are in it for the money.

We are sure in it for the money, we are a commercial company. But to encourage external scenery developers to invest time and effort in something they (not us) do not like would be rather strange. And if I would ask most of our developers to use the default low polygon jetways instead of the ones they created they would laugh at me and start looking for a new publisher. They (and us) would always prefer non animated yet correct jetways over the default ones because of the realism.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree Mathijs in fairness Aerosoft as a backer of AES should encorage the developers you distribute for to leave support for default Jetways, its hardly that much more work to add a default animated jetway. Even if the developer is not prepared to make a couple of custom 3d jetways for reuse in their scenery into the future, they could use true default bridges as an alternative in the installer and offer those customers who dont want or need AES the default features that have been with us for over 6 years. But business is business and you are in it for the money.

Andy, I would never buy an Aerosoft airport scenery if it would be using default jetways and not ones that look as they should.

Just look at this image, can you imagine this replaced with the default jetway? Or more to the point, would you buy it if it was? I would not and I can fully understand Aerosoft not wanting to sell it like that. I never believe you would buy that.

megaairport_san_francisco_11.jpg

stavangerx_14.jpg

eham_16.jpg

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Andy, I would never buy an Aerosoft airport scenery if it would be using default jetways and not ones that look as they should.

Just look at this image, can you imagine this replaced with the default jetway? Or more to the point, would you buy it if it was? I would not and I can fully understand Aerosoft not wanting to sell it like that. I never believe you would buy that.

Btw, this type of Jetways, which are not following the "normal" Operation or which operates as secondary or third (A380) jetway will not be possible to animate with the FSX Features:

stavangerx_14.jpg

eham_16.jpg

Microsoft only support one Jetway at a gate, don't support a bone for the Stairs and has a buggy non functional Bone for the Gear:

But, Jetway with individual Jetway Numbers, like that from Flightbeam, will only by possible by makeing Models for each single jetways with all the animation data, which will kill any performance and memorylimits of such an airport scenery. FSDT will use always the same model (have luck, that they mostly look the same at US Airports) and will only change the Texture related to the airport. But they will not implement Features like Gatenumbers, even when they exists in real.

All this bugs, limitations and visual issues will stand in no relation to the benefit of the animation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that there are default airports in FSX which can be replaced by e. g. an Aerosoft one and then get rendered beautifully, but without any moving parts on the jetways. So you've gained optics and atmosphere but lost that default FSX feature.

Now AES would enable that one in more detail plus some additional features, but all of the above at extra costs which range up to 5 credits at large hubs. Translated into Euros that's up to 7.50. If one was just looking for moving jetways, that may be a lot of money.

Now some other devs did manage to offer their customers a variant of moving jetways and, additionally, allow for AES to work if the folks are up for the extra features. Proof of concept, not?

So I think the OP has set up a valid point on the Aerosoft airport renditions, sort of enforcing the purchase of some extra AES credits by design. Reasonable point from Mr. Pabst of course, on the specially designed jetways, but we shouldn't talk about the issue as if all the things in FSX would be that special.

So why not offer the default moving feature and FSX SDK compatible structures by design and then allow for some AES refinements if somebody wants to get the extra kicks? Best and fairest of both worlds. :)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer

So I think the OP has set up a valid point on the Aerosoft airport renditions, sort of enforcing the purchase of some extra AES credits by design. Reasonable point from Mr. Pabst of course, on the specially designed jetways, but we shouldn't talk about the issue as if all the things in FSX would be that special.

This is absolut not true, as the discussions and decision against the FSX animated Jetways was done by the most developers far before AES was released for FSX and before it was clear that it will ever be released.

And, there are Airports in the portfolio of Aerosoft, where developer have implemented the Jetway, like LFPG, LEPA, LEMH of simwings. So there is no policy or definion or contract, that developers don't "have to" implement this feature and all statements in this direction only hypothetically.

(btw, its much more simpler to replace the AFX placed jetways for AES)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at this image, can you imagine this replaced with the default jetway? Or more to the point, would you buy it if it was? I would not and I can fully understand Aerosoft not wanting to sell it like that.

Without AES, the custom jetways at SFO are static. I don't like default jetways any more than you, but I would rather see a default that moves over a custom that doesn't. Buying those AES credits should be the customer's decision, not the developers.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, there are Airports in the portfolio of Aerosoft, where developer have implemented the Jetway, like LFPG, LEPA, LEMH of simwings.

I have not doubt that there are exceptions of that rule. But looking at the latest releases for example, which of them does not rely on AES to get the jetways moving? I'm having a hard time finding some more. :unsure:

As said, the fairest way would be to offer the default FSX feature and then some extra bells and whistles through AES. I find it reasonable if a customer asks for such an option if he's not up for 7.50 Euros extra and may not need more than the jetways. I also find it reasonable that the guy actually selling the credits does not like the idea at all.

However, a discussion should be possible and maybe even helps the business. Not? :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer
I find it reasonable if a customer asks for such an option if he's not up for 7.50 Euros extra and may not need more than the jetways.

When you want a discussion, you should keep your arguments fair: AES includes much more the only the jetways for 7.50 and I don't provide a Jetways service simulare to what the developer will be able to implement. And as the implementation of the Bone based Animation is not something done in 5 minutes, specially when you have to make more models for an airport in europe, as they not all use the same type, I don't think that it is "cost free" in the calulation of the project.

And even when the developers will include it, the above explained limitations will stay.

AES will povide a detailed and well moving jetways "optional" service for the users, who want it as real as possible, beside much more features. The rest is outside of my responsibility and can be discussed with all the developers using static jetways, as Flytampa, LatinVfr, Tropicalsim ....

I have and will be accept there desicions, what ever they do, as it does not effect AES in any form.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

So why not offer the default moving feature and FSX SDK compatible structures by design and then allow for some AES refinements if somebody wants to get the extra kicks? Best and fairest of both worlds. :)

But I explained why most developers and where applicable (for the airports we do internally) Aerosoft do not do that. I still feel those arguments are valid. Just think of Schiphol with default jetways. It would look like a joke. It would also make the files a lot bigger, the development longer, the installer more complex, require more testing, would increase support etc. In other words it would raise the price for all users, the few that would be willing to have very unrealistic gates and crummy animation and the much larger group who rather have realistic gates with the option to have them animated for a few Euro. Keep in mind most airports only need 1 or 2 credits, so for 12 Euro you can have many airports upgraded. I would make the products more expensive, Buying the version we sell now with AES would most likely be cheaper!

And again, we hardly have any say in that, the independent developers make that decision. But they know that the vast majority of users will either already be AES users or will be willing to spend the few Euro's to use AES. It's not only the animated gates after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Without AES, the custom jetways at SFO are static. I don't like default jetways any more than you, but I would rather see a default that moves over a custom that doesn't. Buying those AES credits should be the customer's decision, not the developers.

Sorry, but it is the decision of the developer how and with which features he build a AIrport and the customer is always free to buy or not buy this products. :glare_s:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Sorry, but it is the decision of the developer how and with which features he build a AIrport and the customer is always free to buy or not buy this products. :glare_s:

Funny though how much influence you and Aerosoft have according to some posters, lol. If they only knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think of Schiphol with default jetways. It would look like a joke.

Valid point, but I'm thinking of some American airports of example, where the tweaked default feature is working and they don't look like a joke at all. So it may default down to the will and, then, skill of the devs involved. Me says the first part is on priority. :)

As said, I have no problem with the folks actually selling AES credits trying to defend their viewpoints. Protection of vested rights. Perfectly reasonable!

But please accept that the credit system of AES plus the lack of default jetway features on Aerosoft airports (not on all, a few do support it, as Mr. Pabst has shown) raise the wish to see a policy change. And that's what the thread is about in my eyes. It may even help the business.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Without AES, the custom jetways at SFO are static. I don't like default jetways any more than you, but I would rather see a default that moves over a custom that doesn't. Buying those AES credits should be the customer's decision, not the developers.

I do not agree but then again that is irrelevant. It is not our decision, we only offer AES, we do not block/remove or prevent any functionality, we only offer a better alternative. How can that be bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

But please accept that the credit system of AES plus the lack of default jetway features on Aerosoft airports (not on all, a few do support it, as Mr. Pabst has shown) raise the wish to see a policy change. And that's what the thread is about in my eyes. It may even help the business.

Yes but we are repeating ourselves now. There is no Aerosoft or AES policy to change. It's not our decision. This is the wrong forum. I have no problem with the discussion but it still seems the facts are not see for what they are.

Of course for our own airports we will not use default jetways for reasons I have now repeated a few times.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not our decision, we only offer AES, we do not block/remove or prevent any functionality, we only offer a better alternative. How can that be bad?

I may state that an alternative between nothing (FSX default feature loss) and something for e. g. 7.50 Euros is not a thing to be called alternative. At least not if competitors actually show that default features and AES payment services can work together and in regard to the customer's preferences and wallet. As Bruce said, that's where the customers have a choice. You just have to allow it to them.

By the way, but big thumbs up on the rhetorical skill with that 'How can that be bad?' one, Mathijs. ^_^

There is no Aerosoft or AES policy to change. It's not our decision.

Again, thumbs up. True that is. It's up to the customers to support or not support that.. viewpoint of course. Some of them tried to state their view on certain items in this very thread and I assume that they've hit a spot. At the end, it's money talks, right? That's up to the devs itself of course.

Thanks for staying open and fair on that surely not too comfortable topic. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

It is the uncomfortable topics that make most sense and are the most fun to attend to. It started out with a post that I really could not agree with (mostly because of the tone and the intonation) but after that it went uphill. But it is a strange topic. Let me try to make my point one more time to show why I think it is a bit silly. Click the images to see the silliness bigger.

Some posters in this topic buy this:

post-43-0-30451500-1330448918_thumb.jpg

But they prefer this jetway (same location):

post-43-0-72906000-1330448914_thumb.jpg

So it can do this (and again I had to giggle at the ridiculous jerky animation and the way it looks like it is eating the aircraft):

post-43-0-51669300-1330448916_thumb.jpg

Not a perfect parking job but still, think it makes my point.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...