That's why I wish you would make a token charge for ADE, Jon. Even something as small as $5.00US (though it is worth much more), with all the 1,000's of d/ls that would put good seed money in the product so you "could" have the time for development. The program is that important I believe. I know, the minute you start asking for $$ that opens up other type issues but I hope the extra income would outweigh the negatives.Just my thoughts,Clutch

Just to say that as an example one piece of payware I purchased covering nearly 50 airports in Brazil had significant faults in over 25% of its AFD files. Most of these were major enough to prevent AI traffic from landing/parking/taking off - just because you pay for something, it doesn't mean it is perfect. So I personally do not hesitate (at my own risk, of course) in modifying such files.John

I am in complete agreeance with you on that one... but I fail to see the relevance. I think you misunderstand me and my earlier posts. I've been talking about non-traditional elements, vital elements such as excludes and whether or not it's a good idea to include those elements in Afcad files, where they are unnecessarily exposed to change and deletion.Why not make a habit out of it to export those elements to separate files? Easy enough to do from a developer's perspective and it ensures people are free to use whatever editor they prefer instead of being forced to use one specific editor, pay- or freeware. Again, this is not about the better editor, the more standards compliant editor... this is about freedom of choice. And about the current tendency that does more harm than good, see scenery releases such as ESSA and EHAM. See threads such as the one we're in now.:(

For ADE9 it is on the request list to have the program output two files - one that is AFCAD compatible and one with all the extras. I don't know when/if Jon will get to it, though.Hope this helps,

For ADE9 it is on the request list to have the program output two files - one that is AFCAD compatible and one with all the extras. I don't know when/if Jon will get to it, though.Hope this helps,

Hopefully in the next release Tom :(

ADE can compile scenery objects outside of the main airport bgl, and I think Ray Smith, for one, makes use of that feature. But I think arguments can be made both ways. If scenery objects are only meaningful in the context of the airport (such as a hanger, or windsock) is there really a benefit of moving them outside the main airport bgl file? I suppose it can be argued that there's a great deal of non-FS9 format objects (.mdls) out there that can't be handled in ADE, but I think that will always be a problem in FS9 (and there are tools for converting objects to mdl format which could help). scott s..

I am in complete agreeance with you on that one... but I fail to see the relevance. I think you misunderstand me and my earlier posts. I've been talking about non-traditional elements, vital elements such as excludes and whether or not it's a good idea to include those elements in Afcad files, where they are unnecessarily exposed to change and deletion.Why not make a habit out of it to export those elements to separate files? Easy enough to do from a developer's perspective and it ensures people are free to use whatever editor they prefer instead of being forced to use one specific editor, pay- or freeware. Again, this is not about the better editor, the more standards compliant editor... this is about freedom of choice. And about the current tendency that does more harm than good, see scenery releases such as ESSA and EHAM. See threads such as the one we're in now.

Thanks, and sorry - I thought you were saying that end-users should not modify files distributed with payware,As far as I know there is an easy solution for those stuck in the past with AFCAD2 - all you have to do is save the file modified with AFCAD at a higher scenery level, Flight Simulator will then read the supplied AFD first and only modify the items defined in the higher AFCAD. It certainly seems to work for users of my distributed (free) AFX files, anyway.John

Thanks, and sorry - I thought you were saying that end-users should not modify files distributed with payware,As far as I know there is an easy solution for those stuck in the past with AFCAD2 - all you have to do is save the file modified with AFCAD at a higher scenery level, Flight Simulator will then read the supplied AFD first and only modify the items defined in the higher AFCAD. It certainly seems to work for users of my distributed (free) AFX files, anyway.John

That is the whole idea behind creating modified AFD files. We should never directly modify a thrid party bgl file itself. Generally we should not replace it with another one but, as John says, create a new modified one which if placed at a higher priority level in scenery.cfg (so it loads last for that airport). This new bgl AFD file will 'delete' elements from the files below it in the heirarchy (stops the information loading but does not do anything to the files themselves) and replace them with whatever is in your new file. Irrespective of what editor you use the same principle applies.