Description
The GSX profile that came with the scenery by default did not include accurate VDGS placement, accurate stopping positions, and the Python script only functioned for the F and E concourses. This profile fixes all of those issues. Enjoy.
Commentaires(19)
Connectez-vous pour participer à la discussion
Se connecterM
MeesterCleanAuthor
13 days ago
You put them in \AppData\Roaming\Virtuali\GSX\MSFS
i
26 days ago
Great update to the default profile. However, can you please replace the VDGS screen with the actual VDGS? I don't like the look of Nool VDGS and I just want to remove them and replace them with GSX VDGS
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
25 days ago
Yes someone else requested the same, it's in progress.
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
26 days ago
I wanted to clarify something publicly after discussions privately with the AviationBro.
The original GSX profile included with the scenery placed every aircraft at the furthest back line.
For those unfamiliar with how GSX profiles work, the Python script serves as a method to offset different aircraft from the stopping position set in the profile. For example, you set the general stopping position (in this case, the A320 line) and then in the Python script you set offsets for different aircraft to then place them at their correct line.
I worked with another user to create the profile that is uploaded here. What we did was to overlay a GSX VDGS model on top of the Nool VDGS that is included with the Orbx scenery. As using GSX VDGS with the profile that was included with the scenery placed the GSX VDGS in a random position and didn't hide the Nool VDGS.
The creator of the original GSX profile had not created the Python script to work with anything other than the E and F concourses as there are some gates in the other concourses where the jetway is too long and thus accurate stopping positions cause the affected jetways to not function correctly. And there are some jetways that don't work with any of the stop lines. When I uploaded this profile, I edited the Python script to work at all concourses and modified it to place aircraft like the A321 and B737 at their stopping points using an offset value.
Matteo (creator of the scenery) has confirmed in the Orbx Discord that he will update the scenery to modify the affected jetways (which is a small number of gates) to be shorter so that they function as expected.
My intent was not to suggest that the original GSX profile was made incorrectly because it was not - it just worked within the limitations of the scenery and chose a middle ground - however it did not include GSX VDGS placement, as Nool was included with the scenery.
I hope this clears up any confusion :)
The original GSX profile included with the scenery placed every aircraft at the furthest back line.
For those unfamiliar with how GSX profiles work, the Python script serves as a method to offset different aircraft from the stopping position set in the profile. For example, you set the general stopping position (in this case, the A320 line) and then in the Python script you set offsets for different aircraft to then place them at their correct line.
I worked with another user to create the profile that is uploaded here. What we did was to overlay a GSX VDGS model on top of the Nool VDGS that is included with the Orbx scenery. As using GSX VDGS with the profile that was included with the scenery placed the GSX VDGS in a random position and didn't hide the Nool VDGS.
The creator of the original GSX profile had not created the Python script to work with anything other than the E and F concourses as there are some gates in the other concourses where the jetway is too long and thus accurate stopping positions cause the affected jetways to not function correctly. And there are some jetways that don't work with any of the stop lines. When I uploaded this profile, I edited the Python script to work at all concourses and modified it to place aircraft like the A321 and B737 at their stopping points using an offset value.
Matteo (creator of the scenery) has confirmed in the Orbx Discord that he will update the scenery to modify the affected jetways (which is a small number of gates) to be shorter so that they function as expected.
My intent was not to suggest that the original GSX profile was made incorrectly because it was not - it just worked within the limitations of the scenery and chose a middle ground - however it did not include GSX VDGS placement, as Nool was included with the scenery.
I hope this clears up any confusion :)
m
29 days ago
I don't think this is needed. The profile provided works just fine!
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
28 days ago
The profile provided has the GSX vdgs placed randomly, and no accurate stopping positions :)
Feedback on the Orbx Discord on this profile I shared has been positive. Once Orbx updates the profile to include accurate GSX VDGS positioning and stopping points, I'll remove this one.
Feedback on the Orbx Discord on this profile I shared has been positive. Once Orbx updates the profile to include accurate GSX VDGS positioning and stopping points, I'll remove this one.
A
27 days ago
We should have correct stop points? Every single gate was customized, from GSX's GSE to the stop position. For Concourses T, A, B, C, and D, there is only one stop position. That is for the furthest back marking so we could make sure there would be no conflicts with the jetways as mentioned before. For Concourse E and F, there is a .python that is for multiple stop positions and the custom naming. The only gates with stop positions not on any markings are the ones where jetways didn't allow for us to do so. VDGS wise, there is no changing for the actual models as far as I'm aware. We disabled all GSX VDGS, as we can't remove KATL's VDGS models, even if you don't use Nool the model should still be there.
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
about 1 month ago
Just pushed an update to correct the Southwest gates that were partially overlooked, I did not do a major version upgrade - so if you are having issues make sure you downloaded after this comment was made.
A
about 1 month ago
Hello! I was one of the people who worked on the default GSX profile.
The reason we didn't include VDGS was because it should've been included with ORBX's own system at release, never checked up on that but I guess it wasn't. We also encountered an issue with the jetways, where if we put planes like the A321 on the marking for the A321, the jetway would have to incorrectly tilt due to it's sizing (example in attached screenshot). That's why we didn't include a Python to make multiple stop positions across the whole airport, as most spots that only had narrowbodies would have the issue you see in the screenshot, so we just included a single stop position for all those gates. We also had to put some planes not on the correct stop positions at the E concourse because the same issue would happen in the screenshot. If this jetway issue has been fixed, we'll have to revisit. Thanks for your work
The reason we didn't include VDGS was because it should've been included with ORBX's own system at release, never checked up on that but I guess it wasn't. We also encountered an issue with the jetways, where if we put planes like the A321 on the marking for the A321, the jetway would have to incorrectly tilt due to it's sizing (example in attached screenshot). That's why we didn't include a Python to make multiple stop positions across the whole airport, as most spots that only had narrowbodies would have the issue you see in the screenshot, so we just included a single stop position for all those gates. We also had to put some planes not on the correct stop positions at the E concourse because the same issue would happen in the screenshot. If this jetway issue has been fixed, we'll have to revisit. Thanks for your work
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
about 1 month ago
Thanks for the insight! It seems Nool VDGS was included with the scenery by default, but there was no option to use GSX VDGS without it being placed somewhere random. That was the primary reason for creating this, with the stopping positions being a secondary point. We appreciate your work on this regardless! This just gives users an option to choose what they prefer :)
Edit: I may eventually go through and test the A321 at each gate to see which ones are affected (not all are) and add an override to make the jetways work correctly by changing the stopping point.
Edit: I may eventually go through and test the A321 at each gate to see which ones are affected (not all are) and add an override to make the jetways work correctly by changing the stopping point.
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
about 1 month ago
Some of the gates I have tested (like AviationBros mentioned) are affected by an issue where the jetways do not work if the aircraft are placed at the most forward line (A321, B73x). However, there are other gates (C36 and B17 for example) where no lines work with the jetway (not even the furthest one back). I can edit the Python file to have custom offsets for the gates that are "fixable" - but the fix is for the aircraft to stop at an incorrect spot to work with the jetway.
Let me know if there is interest in doing this, and I'll look further into it. But in it's current state, it prioritizes stopping/placing the aircraft at the correct stop line painted on the ground.
Let me know if there is interest in doing this, and I'll look further into it. But in it's current state, it prioritizes stopping/placing the aircraft at the correct stop line painted on the ground.
A
about 1 month ago
That is the issue. Some gates, like those you specifically mentioned simply don't work with jetways even on that furthest spot. That's why it seems like they are sort of "random" stop positions. We were told to work around this so jetways would work, as that is likely more important to people then being on the correct stop line. We didn't add multiple stop positions to those concourses for narrowbodies as we saw a lot of them had the issue with Jetways. I can take another look at the VDGS, though I believe we disabled all of them so KATL's/Nool's VGDS system was uninterupted. And as far as we are aware, all the gates with jetways that won't connect, even on the furthest back marking should have had corrected stop positions to align with jetway.
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
about 1 month ago
The vast majority of stop positions that I created (that stop at the correct point) work fine. It's just a handful of gates. I get why you/Orbx decided to not include GSX overlap/replacement of the Nool VDGS system, but many in the community prefer GSX. Which is the primary reason this was created. I'm just OCD about the stop positions so I went through and included that. I have corrected the ones on my local that were fixable.
A
about 1 month ago
Sounds good. We weren't sure what VDGS system was going to be there so we just decided to take the safe route and not include any, as they had a base VDGS model already there. I can take another look at it though and maybe make an official update if I find what you're seeing. Thank you 🙂
a
27 days ago
To both of you - thank you for this open discourse...
It demonstrates that we can see merit in more than one-viewpoint.
It demonstrates that we can see merit in more than one-viewpoint.
m
27 days ago
To your knowledge is there any plan to do a GSX profile that works without Nool and uses the GSX VDGS system instead?
M
26 days ago
Thanks for the insight into the problems. To be honest, the solution can't be to make any stoplines incorrect in the GSX profile. The scenery developer has to correct the jetway sizes in the scenery!
M
MeesterCleanAuthor
26 days ago
Masterhawk, Matteo confirmed that he does plan to correct the sizing of the affected jetways :)
MSFS 2020MSFS 2024
GSX Profile for Orbx KATL - Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport
This GSX profile for Orbx KATL updates gate configurations with accurate VDGS placement and correct stopping positions. It resolves limitations found in the default scenery profile, including Python script functionality across all concourses. The add-on ensures compatibility with the entire airport. Designed to improve ground services realism at Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport. The VDGS displays in this profile are specifically GSX displays to replace the default displays included with the scenery.
Téléchargements1K
Version1.2
Taille du fichier49.7 KB
PubliéIl y a 1 mois
Mis à jourIl y a 1 semaine
Avis des utilisateurs
5.0
1 avis
5
100%
4
0%
3
0%
2
0%
1
0%
More Information
Historique des versions
Updated offset values at T gates.
17 days ago