Tens of GB of Orbx texture duplicates found across product line

[louisdecoolste 12]

GaryGB

 

The OP made a request for information that has been fully met by a number of posters. It's his attitude to the advice offered that is really in question.

 

What's your advice on the subject then ? 

[GaryGB 10]

GaryGB

 

The OP made a request for information that has been fully met by a number of posters. It's his attitude to the advice offered that is really in question.

 

What's your advice on the subject then ?

* Accept the fact that people now have (and IMHO, should always have) the right to ask questions on- and discuss- issues related to OrbX products in the AVSIM "Unofficial FTX | ORBX Support Forum" (or anywhere else on the 'inter-web') ...in addition to- or instead of- any "Official FTX | ORBX Support Forum".

 

 

* Recognize that the manner in which authorized Orbx representatives and/or "FTX fan-boys" reply to threads in the AVSIM "Unofficial FTX | ORBX Support Forum" (or anywhere else on the 'inter-web' including any "Official FTX | ORBX Support Forum") ...may have a greater impact on potential future OrbX FTX product sales, than any questions raised / opinions expressed / aspersions cast / rumors spread etc. ...in posts by existing or prospective end users of such products.

 

 

My reply in this thread is (thus far) not intended to address issues involving the very real, and IIUC, in most cases "purposeful" logistical and methodological complexities involved with how OrbX FTX products are distributed / configured / updated on an end users system, and only has to do with the ongoing issues cited above. :wink:

 

GaryGB

[louisdecoolste 12]

Then one must ask, while you are so busy critiquing the critiques - all of which are completely correct - are you not prepared to offer advice of your own ?

 

There are no fan-boys here, only those with experience and knowledge of the FTX product range, and what complications can and do arise from a non-standard approach to installation and operation. 

 

Your latest reply still contributes nothing to the OP's original question, neither in support nor contradiction, so I am reporting your offensive post about forum members to the mods.

 

Hopefully the topic stays alive.

[GaryGB 10]

While I do believe it would be a good idea for MSFS / P3D add-on developers to include their own "Do's and Don'ts" document within their product manuals, I am further compelled by what I have read thus far in this thread to now:

"...address issues involving the very real, and IIUC, in most cases 'purposeful' logistical and methodological complexities involved with how (ex OrbX FTX products are distributed / configured / updated on an end users system".



I believe that the best course of action for the OP and others similarly concerned about installing / maintaining / updating MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX, is simply to use a hard drive / SSD which is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the existing MSFS / P3D folder chain, and to allow for future expansion of installed add-on content etc..


Backups of any files which are not intended to be subject to changes by configuration / update procedures of any MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX, certainly may be kept on separate physical or logical storage drives formatted with the NTFS file system.


In theory, 'certain' files and/or folders kept on such separate physical or logical storage drives formatted with the NTFS file system may be "linked" to nested ex: "OrbX" sub-folder locations in one's ex: MSFS / P3D folder chain.


However, I would caution against using "link" technology for any files / folders which are- or which in the future "may be"- subject to changes ...by configuration / update procedures of any such MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX.


When files and/or folders kept on separate physical or logical storage drives formatted with the NTFS file system are "linked" to folder locations in one's ex: MSFS / P3D folder chain, without 'proper' Windows NTFS security permissions, those 'remote' files may- or may not- be accessible ...to allow intended configuration / update procedures of any such MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX.


And when proper Windows NTFS security permissions are in place, while those "linked" 'remote' files may then be accessible to allow intended configuration / update procedures of any such MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX, they may also be vulnerable to mishaps of un-intended file management ...as recently discussed in this thread:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/windows-10.434667/page-2#post-717285

 

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/windows-10.434667/page-2#post-717302


For those who feel they 'must' utilize linked files / folders (hopefully on either a very carefully considered and/or IMHO, "temporary" basis ex: while saving up for a larger storage drive), use of "Symbolic Link Clones " via the excellent Link Shell Extension (aka "LSE") utility by Hermann Schinagl, rather than more commonly used link technology, might be a 'comparatively safer' option to consider ...as also discussed in the above thread.

 

http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/linkshellextension.html
 

 

However, even this latter 'comparatively safer' method would subsequently involve additional very carefully considered manual maintenance by the end user, to copy and/or move files from the ex: OrbX nested sub-folder chain following intended configuration / update procedures of any such MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX.


IMHO, this latter scenario would be a process fraught with risk of error, and would likely be a time-consuming and redundant task.


Thus, I would again advise 'most' end users to not attempt using "link" technology for any files / folders which are- or which in the future "may be"- subject to changes ...by configuration / update procedures of any such MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX.



Another concern which I am compelled to address is the (well-intended) use of a utility such as "DupeGuru - Picture Edition" with MSFS / P3D to analyze / identify "duplicate" image files among the multiple legacy, current (and future ?) FS image file formats, which in many cases are either completely- or semi- proprietary, and may have unique internal attributes and data structures.

 

I would advise against attempting to use such a utility with MSFS / P3D image file formats, as it may not be able to properly identify the numerous 'unique attributes and data structures' required / utilized in MSFS / P3D image files.


Even if one used a utility which was 'fully-compatible' with all the multiple legacy, current (and future ?) image file formats of MSFS / P3D (ex: some utilities by Martin Wright) to identify "true duplicates", all those image files are located in specific locations under specific file names, for reasons of implementing scenery display according to the developers' intended method of file utilization, to allow proper rendering at run time in MSFS / P3D.

Thus, one would risk disrupting operation of the MSFS / P3D rendering engine by changing / moving / deleting certain files. :wink:


For the same reasons, IMHO, one should not attempt to combine "all your scenery files into one scenery folder and all your texture files into another texture folder" as suggested earlier in this thread: :excl:

http://www.avsim.com/topic/472281-tens-of-gb-of-orbx-texture-duplicates-found-across-product-line/#entry3277419.


Again, AFAIK, the configuration / update procedures of any such MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX may not be able to perform their intended functions, and one would risk disrupting operation of the MSFS / P3D rendering engine by changing / moving / deleting certain files.


I hope this info may prove helpful to all the boys (and girls) who are "fans" of MSFS / P3D add-on products such as OrbX FTX. :smile:

GaryGB

[hesynergy 67]

While I do believe it would be a good idea for MSFS / P3D add-on developers to include their own "Do's and Don'ts" document within their product manuals, I am further compelled by what I have read thus far in this thread to now: [\quote]

 

Terrific response and well researched as well.

 

If I didn't mention it, I used further comparison by using DXTBMT by Martin Wright.

 

Regards to all,

 

Chas