Traffic.bgl sharing and AI in FS9.

[Gridley 257]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will). With FS2k2, our clever community members created the utilities which were necessary to modify the traffic.bgl in FS2k2 to add AI. This was necessary because MS's traffic.bgl was copyrighted. Modified traffic.bgls could not be shared or distributed, so the tools to enable an owner to modify his/her own version were created. (EDIT - the tools are important for other reasons, of course, but a necessity in this case because the end product must be re-created by the end user)Enter FS2k4. Since this version can utilize multiple traffic.bgl files, when can we expect to get packages of AI planes and the traffic.bgl to go along with them in the avsim library? Are programs like ultimate traffic and my traffic going to fall by the wayside when folks realize the tools they have been selling are a bit superfluous for the average AI user? Granted, UT provides *REAL* airlines and schedules and a nice package to make the modifications to the traffic, but in the end, their utility is not creating anything that cannot be readily traded legally on the various boards now, referring to a unique traffic.bgl, which FS can use.Project AI should be very happy. No more installers. They can post a traffic-AirCanada.bgl along with the planes. No need for the end-user to compile. We should be able to share current AI schedules and frame rate friendly planes with ease, right?Thanks for reading.sg

[Gridley 257]

I hate to reply to myself, but...The more I think about this, I'm realizing that the problem is the aircraft.txt file. A convention could be established for numbering addon aircraft for AI, but in general, these numbers might not correlate to the same numbers referred to in flightplans on each individuals system, making recompilation of traffic.bgls a necessity for each person...food for thought.sg

[gosta 0]

Hi there,>This was necessary because MS's traffic.bgl was copyrighted.< Not really. Of course, FS is a copyrighted piece of software, and the copyright extends to all its constituent parts. However, MS does allow the creation of add-ons by independent developers, and thus allow for modifications of constituent parts to ensure compatibility. The PAI installer, for example, does contain the default traffic.bgl in decompiled form, to allow users to restore the default MS traffic.The more compelling reason for installing traffic files via a compiler, was that there was only one traffic.bgl, as you pointed out.Different users have different preferences, some like GA traffic, some don't, some prefer to have just a few airlines, others like to see every airport filled up to maximum capacity. But even if PAI had gone down that route, there would have been a lot of complaints from dial-up users, as every new airline that's released, you'd have to download the entire traffic.bgl again (mine is currently about 35MB in size). As far as the installer routine goes, maybe you'd save one or two mouse-clicks compared to the current PAI installer, but the downside outweighs that added convenience by far.However, it's a completely different story, if you're able to use multiple traffic.bgls. I agree with you that this would make it a lot easier for people to customize their traffic, and there will probably be more users trying to do that, who previously were a bit cautious and chose to go with the commercial add-ons instead.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest papaguss]

I find out my best bet is ti DeCompile my traffic030528.bgl,create multiple Flightplans.txt,Airplanes.txt and recompile them into ONE traffic030528.bglALL my AI trafvfic show upo just where they're suppose to be!

[Guest Captain Barfbag]

If modified Traffic.bgl files can be posted and swapped, how about modifed Voicepack.gvp files? Back in the earlier days of FS2002, everyone was OUTRAGED that MS had not provided the ATC name for Southwest Airlines. The SDK provided a cookbook, if timeconsuming, way to correct this oversight, but the conventional wisdom then was that the GVP files was NOT something one could post, partly because of copyright issues and partly because of size. One of the reasons we needed EditVoicepack was to get around this by posting and swapping only the non-copyrighted add-ons and then appending them to our existing file with this clever and useful tool.So, what's the current thinking? Are these files copyrighted, or not?And just my 2 cents - Microsoft would NEVER come down on anyone for simply posting these particular files, even if they're technically copyrighted. They are of no value by themselves, and all they do is increase the value of the base product without cutting into its sales or revenue. Of course, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer...