Orbx YMML jetways

[StevenD]

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this already, just wanting to be sure - I just got YMML from Orbx. Since the jetways are .BGL and I use GSX, I have turned the file YMML_Lib_Aero.bgl to .bgl.off (these are most of the jetways) and within in GSX, have marked the parking positions for jetway exclusion. This allows GSX to place the customizable SODE jetways in. However, here is the issue - in about 8 parking positions scattered about, there are still jetways built into the terminal building model that would be for gate D20A if such was a usable parking position, but it is not. Therefore, I wanted to replace these jetways to allow for double gates at those positions for the heavy aircraft like B777 at for example gate D20. But since these jetways are built into the terminal model itself and share a model part with some pylons and roofs, I cannot find out how to disable these jetways without also disabling the scenery that shares the same model parts. Does anyone have any ideas?

 

If it is not possible, then I will have to deal with the eyesore of having a GSX SODE jetway over the existing static model jetway. I guess that it is also a bit sad that this scenery does not come with SODE jetways to begin with, granted it is a fairly old product now.

Edited May 6, 2022 by StevenD
adding tags to clarify sim version and more specific topic tags

[RayProudfoot]

Hi @StevenD, just came across your post having found the same unsatisfactory default jetways at YMML.

 

I would also add the terminal buildings leave a lot to be desired. I'll follow what you've done to get GSX jetways running. As for the static jetways it just shows how old this package is. I'll avoid those and hopefully after the GSX ones are in use I can live with the airport.

 

You'd think an Australian company producing an airport for one of their major cities would have more pride in their work.

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

YMML is a product that is now six years old and clearly the developers did not use SODE for the jetways.

It is rather late in the day to be posting such disparaging messages for its developers.

 

[RayProudfoot]

34 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

YMML is a product that is now six years old and clearly the developers did not use SODE for the jetways.

It is rather late in the day to be posting such disparaging messages for its developers.

 

 

Nick, I can accept Ctrl+J jetways because those can be disabled but what is not acceptable is static ones built into a terminal building. Those cannot be removed without the developer modifying his design. That was my point which I consider valid.

[John Heaton]

1 hour ago, RayProudfoot said:

 

Nick, I can accept Ctrl+J jetways because those can be disabled but what is not acceptable is static ones built into a terminal building. Those cannot be removed without the developer modifying his design. That was my point which I consider valid.

Are you complaining about some software designed 6 years ago as Nick suggests - was this software designed for P3D version ?3? - or XP 9

 

I think that airports around that time designed by other than Orbx probably wouldn't even have jetways that weren't attached to buildings

Was SODE thought of back then?

[RayProudfoot]

17 minutes ago, John Heaton said:

Are you complaining about some software designed 6 years ago as Nick suggests - was this software designed for P3D version ?3? - or XP 9

 

I think that airports around that time designed by other than Orbx probably wouldn't even have jetways that weren't attached to buildings

Was SODE thought of back then?

 

Are you a customer like me? Are you saying I don't have the right to complain about jetways embedded in terminal buildings? No one is complaining about SODE. Default moving jetways are fine.

 

As a customer of UK2000 airports those never had embedded jetways. Just Ctrl+j ones which are fine because they can be removed. I've only known of one other airport with embedded jetways. Lisbon by Aerosoft. All others - and I have a lot - are moveable.