Please, can someone explain how scenery add-on priorities (layers) work?

[Wise87 1,280]

Wish user would have been warned of this new change. If anything P3Dv3.4 user should have not been subject to this new change. Like many I was surprised when I installed KCLT. 

[vgbaron 3,604]

They *were* warned. LM started promoting the new method with Version 3. Most dev's completely ignored it and continued to put there stuff where they wanted. End result was tons of complaints about having to "reinstall all my stuff" every time there was an update. 

When this new system is in place fully, that will be a thing of the past. As more dev's  like Oliver and Umberto start utilizing it, things will fall in place.

 

Vic

[bthiago 8]

17 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

They *were* warned. LM started promoting the new method with Version 3. Most dev's completely ignored it and continued to put there stuff where they wanted. End result was tons of complaints about having to "reinstall all my stuff" every time there was an update. 

When this new system is in place fully, that will be a thing of the past. As more dev's  like Oliver and Umberto start utilizing it, things will fall in place.

 

Vic

Totally agree!

[FalconAF 213]

3 hours ago, vgbaron said:

As more dev's  like Oliver and Umberto start utilizing it, things will fall in place.

OK, I'll watch.  But they are gonna have to either make P3D "psychic" as to what scenery should go where in the "priority" of things, or give the user back control to move the stuff around itself without having to know how to "write code" like an XML file.  That "solution" is one of the most arcane things I have ever heard or seen in my 30 years of flight simming.

With only TWO developers using the new method right now, it doesn't even work.  Example?

I installed all my FSDT and Flightbeam airports.  THEN installed the two Drzewiecki Design sceneries that are much LARGER than any individual airports...New York X and Washington X.  All of them used the XML install method.  Guess what order they were placed in the Scenery Library list, with no way for me to change the priority of them using the GUI.  All the smaller airports BELOW the much, much larger geographic scenery area.  Well...at least ORBX's installers don't do that, or it would be a major fiasco with the sceneries.

I'll stay hopeful.  But right now it doesn't even work with only TWO developers using the XML addon system, depending on which order the customer installs the addons.  So I simply moved the Drzewiecki Design sceneries out of the default folders the installers put them in, deleted the XML file entries that got created, then manually added the sceneries back into the sim using the Scenery Library GUI.  Worked fine, and I could move them BELOW all those other airports, where they should be.

Here's a question...seriously...I'm not trying to be "funny" or anything.  Who's going to be "The Enforcer" to MAKE every developer use the new XML install method?  Will there eventually be a "forum lynching" for any developer who chooses not to do it?  As was mentioned, it was already available for P3Dv3, and most (all?) developers weren't doing it. So are we supposed to "Blacklist" any developers who choose not to do it for P3Dv4?

Or would it just make more sense to give the OPTION back to customers who have 30 years of experience managing there flight sims to do it using the DEFAULT Scenery Library GUI if they wanted to? (Yes, this is a question I'm aiming at LM, and not any particular third-party developer here.  Is LM going to now "blacklist" developers who don't use the XML install method for P3Dv4?).

I'm all for progress and new features.  But I simply cannot figure out the "why" of this.  IF the idea was to QUIT using the Scenery Library GUI because ALL developers would be using XML installers, why was the Scenery Library GUI even left IN the simulator?  Nobody would be able to do anything with it, other than just look at a convoluted list of greyed-out scenery addons that couldn't be edited, moved, etc.  THAT is what makes me want to slap my forehead and go "DUH!! What were they thinking???", because THAT is exactly what we will have IF all developers use(d) the XML install method.

Yes, there are people now supplying somewhat workable "work-around utilities" for the above already (but still beta in nature, so I'm a paying customer for P3D and now a beta tester for a utility to make it work right).  Thanks for the utility efforts...they ARE appreciated.  But it doesn't solve the DEFAULT problem contained in the P3Dv4 (and now v3) product itself.

 

And please...nobody was "warned" about what the P3Dv4 installers were going to do to P3Dv3 installations.  That's a pure rationalization of what happened.  You said it yourself...NOBODY was using the XML install method with P3Dv3.  So why in the heck would anybody EXPECT a v4 installer to "go back" and change a v3 installation?  That's like saying there has been a law in place for 100 years making it a crime to spit on the sidewalk, but it was never enforced.  Until yesterday, when the local police decided to start arresting people who did it without telling them they were going to start enforcing it.

 

[CaptBmckay 22]

5 hours ago, FalconAF said:

OK, I'll watch.  But they are gonna have to either make P3D "psychic" as to what scenery should go where in the "priority" of things, or give the user back control to move the stuff around itself without having to know how to "write code" like an XML file.  That "solution" is one of the most arcane things I have ever heard or seen in my 30 years of flight simming.

With only TWO developers using the new method right now, it doesn't even work.  Example?

I installed all my FSDT and Flightbeam airports.  THEN installed the two Drzewiecki Design sceneries that are much LARGER than any individual airports...New York X and Washington X.  All of them used the XML install method.  Guess what order they were placed in the Scenery Library list, with no way for me to change the priority of them using the GUI.  All the smaller airports BELOW the much, much larger geographic scenery area.  Well...at least ORBX's installers don't do that, or it would be a major fiasco with the sceneries.

I'll stay hopeful.  But right now it doesn't even work with only TWO developers using the XML addon system, depending on which order the customer installs the addons.  So I simply moved the Drzewiecki Design sceneries out of the default folders the installers put them in, deleted the XML file entries that got created, then manually added the sceneries back into the sim using the Scenery Library GUI.  Worked fine, and I could move them BELOW all those other airports, where they should be.

Here's a question...seriously...I'm not trying to be "funny" or anything.  Who's going to be "The Enforcer" to MAKE every developer use the new XML install method?  Will there eventually be a "forum lynching" for any developer who chooses not to do it?  As was mentioned, it was already available for P3Dv3, and most (all?) developers weren't doing it. So are we supposed to "Blacklist" any developers who choose not to do it for P3Dv4?

Or would it just make more sense to give the OPTION back to customers who have 30 years of experience managing there flight sims to do it using the DEFAULT Scenery Library GUI if they wanted to? (Yes, this is a question I'm aiming at LM, and not any particular third-party developer here.  Is LM going to now "blacklist" developers who don't use the XML install method for P3Dv4?).

I'm all for progress and new features.  But I simply cannot figure out the "why" of this.  IF the idea was to QUIT using the Scenery Library GUI because ALL developers would be using XML installers, why was the Scenery Library GUI even left IN the simulator?  Nobody would be able to do anything with it, other than just look at a convoluted list of greyed-out scenery addons that couldn't be edited, moved, etc.  THAT is what makes me want to slap my forehead and go "DUH!! What were they thinking???", because THAT is exactly what we will have IF all developers use(d) the XML install method.

Yes, there are people now supplying somewhat workable "work-around utilities" for the above already (but still beta in nature, so I'm a paying customer for P3D and now a beta tester for a utility to make it work right).  Thanks for the utility efforts...they ARE appreciated.  But it doesn't solve the DEFAULT problem contained in the P3Dv4 (and now v3) product itself.

 

And please...nobody was "warned" about what the P3Dv4 installers were going to do to P3Dv3 installations.  That's a pure rationalization of what happened.  You said it yourself...NOBODY was using the XML install method with P3Dv3.  So why in the heck would anybody EXPECT a v4 installer to "go back" and change a v3 installation?  That's like saying there has been a law in place for 100 years making it a crime to spit on the sidewalk, but it was never enforced.  Until yesterday, when the local police decided to start arresting people who did it without telling them they were going to start enforcing it.

 

I agree. I noticed that too. I fixed the situation myself. I don't care for the XML add-on feature. Since New York X is a city scape, I like to have my scenery library in a special order. Like you, I just deleted the Add on XML file in the folder and manually added Washington X and New York X so I can control the scenery library order. I did this with all of my P3dV4 add-ons. I moved all of my add ons to a folder out side of P3d and manually added them all the scenery library. So far I've had no hiccups. 

[Pease_W 6]

1 hour ago, CaptBmckay said:

I agree. I noticed that too. I fixed the situation myself. I don't care for the XML add-on feature.

The method of using the "XML concept", at least for scenery, is good and I hope to see the fruits of my labor later today. I've undertaken a "monster" that likes to overwrite/replace default files and place everything in the default folder structure. Makes updating P3D difficult.

All the add on stuff is now 'coded' via the XML routine, so that the default files are snug in their folders and the replacement files are off in another set of folders, called up through the XML. It's suppose to work that way and once I get some areas and airports activated through the scenery library, I'll go check. Ah, the Scenery Library. That thing that's been around for ever and even survived into P3D4!

Lest anyone think I am not willing to evolve, as recommended by LM, I'll answer that after they offer a good, reasonable explanation about why evolution hasn't taken full effect at LM dev. HQ, as I chuckled when I saw the default Oshkosh scenery is still in FS2004 format...

[vgbaron 3,604]

I've been using the tool that Oliver created and have had NO problem moving my sceneries around. Once you wrap your head around the concept it becomes much easier. My system is set up in the same order that I had in V3. I use GEX, FTX, UTX, SceneryTech, Toposim, JustSim and some freeware stuff. And it's all in the order that I want. I respectfully suggest that rather than complain about being a beta tester you use the tool, get familiar with the method and set up your sim the way YOU want. 

As to WHY - I can't speak for LM but at least one of the ultimate benefits would be NOT having to reinstall your add ons when you update the sim. I also believe that before any major work be done to the "scenery system", it must be standardized.

As to the "scenery police" -  - I would venture a guess that down the road it will be "my way or the highway". Either comply t the platform requirements or we don't use your scenery.

There are more that two dev's using the method - Oliver and Umberto were the two that came to mind.

Like any change, we all are going to resist - that's the way of things. t took years getting used to one way and now someone comes along and changes it, I get it, but if we want to go into the next levels of flight sim - we can NOT do it with the old FSX system.

Vic

[reecemj 146]

35 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

I've been using the tool that Oliver created and have had NO problem moving my sceneries around. Once you wrap your head around the concept it becomes much easier. My system is set up in the same order that I had in V3. I use GEX, FTX, UTX, SceneryTech, Toposim, JustSim and some freeware stuff. And it's all in the order that I want. I respectfully suggest that rather than complain about being a beta tester you use the tool, get familiar with the method and set up your sim the way YOU want. 

As to WHY - I can't speak for LM but at least one of the ultimate benefits would be NOT having to reinstall your add ons when you update the sim. I also believe that before any major work be done to the "scenery system", it must be standardized.

As to the "scenery police" -  - I would venture a guess that down the road it will be "my way or the highway". Either comply t the platform requirements or we don't use your scenery.

There are more that two dev's using the method - Oliver and Umberto were the two that came to mind.

Like any change, we all are going to resist - that's the way of things. t took years getting used to one way and now someone comes along and changes it, I get it, but if we want to go into the next levels of flight sim - we can NOT do it with the old FSX system.

Vic

Is there a link to this tool Vic? Thanks.

[Lorby_SI 2,038]

17 hours ago, FalconAF said:

OK, thanks.  I hadn't seen that download yet.  I had seen the start of the thread, but after reading the first 3 pages that basically contained copy/pastes of XML editing examples, I never went any farther.  If that thread is going to be a "sticky" for your download, may I recommend the "most current" download gets moved to the first post in the thread and continually updated there (instead of it currently being 8 pages into the thread)?

I get it and give it a try.  Thanks

 

 

I am sorry, but I can't edit my posts if they are older than 2 hours.

You can always find the latest version in my Lorby-SI support forum here on AVSIM.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/788-lorby-si-support-forum/

Best regards

 

[vgbaron 3,604]

Oliver - I just added the link in your first post in the sticky thread at the top.

Vic

[virtuali 4,421]

On 11/6/2017 at 4:35 AM, A340Bangla said:

Fully agree. Bought KLAS and installed it in P3D3.4 and found that the installer had moved all of my older FSDT airports - without warning, with nothing working any more of course.

 

What do you mean with "of course" ?

Of course, the migration WORKS. That's how is for most of the users. If didn't worked for you, it means some of your files (the scenery.cfg, most likely), already had some kind of problem before installing, so the installer didn't complete the migration correctly. But this is not the place for troubleshooting, and I don't see anyone with your nickname registered on our forum, asking for help.

The reason for the migration is made, was to not force you to:

- Uninstall everything from FSDT before doing anything else.

- Re-download all the FSDT updated installers

- Reinstall all of them

No reason for force everybody to do this, just because in SOME cases, the migration might fail. If it does, you can always do the above...

And note that, since you haven't reported this on our forum, we'll never know the real reason of why "nothing worked". Because, you are just assuming here that it was the migration that caused your problem in the first place, which is not certain.

There's a known bug in P3D4 (LM is aware of it too), that, if you had a corrupted EXE.XML file in the %PROGRAMDATA% folder, even if now .EXE can be loaded from the add-on.xml file, a corrupted EXE.XML will prevent ALL executables from running, even those started from the add-on.xml.

This would result in our software not being loaded which, from your own point of view, resulted in "nothing working", so you might have been mislead the problem was caused because we migrated you to the new system, when it was something else entirely.

[virtuali 4,421]

On 11/6/2017 at 5:01 AM, Wise87 said:

Wish user would have been warned of this new change. If anything P3Dv3.4 user should have not been subject to this new change. Like many I was surprised when I installed KCLT. 

Since the new installation system exists since V3, and it's fully supported in 3.4, I don't see why we should have restricted it to V4, denying 3.4 users the convenience of unisntalling/reinstalling the sim without reinstalling the addons.

[A340Bangla 40]

17 hours ago, virtuali said:

 

And note that, since you haven't reported this on our forum, we'll never know the real reason of why "nothing worked". Because, you are just assuming here that it was the migration that caused your problem in the first place, which is not certain.

This would result in our software not being loaded which, from your own point of view, resulted in "nothing working", so you might have been mislead the problem was caused because we migrated you to the new system, when it was something else entirely.

Umberto,

I did not really want to get into this and it is also off-topic to Pete's original request.

But, hmmm, lets see...

My answer to the post I quoted was intended to express my agreement to the posters opinion that an installation routine should not go and make fundamental changes to the customers file system without at least first informing the customer about such changes. An opinion that is - obviously - shared by others.

If I would have known about the changes a simple install of a new (refreshed old) scenery was going to make not only to the FSDT but also the Flightbeam sceneries, I would for sure have thought twice about going ahead. KLAS was not really that important to me and I would have waited for the other version.

I did express an opinion and mentioned that things were not working for me after that install and migration. I did not ask for help and omitted that I solved my problems by reinstalling everything and ending up with a "twitter" setup.

Of course I know that it is "siempre solamente colpa mia"

[virtuali 4,421]

4 hours ago, A340Bangla said:

My answer to the post I quoted was intended to express my agreement to the posters opinion that an installation routine should not go and make fundamental changes to the customers file system without at least first informing the customer about such changes. An opinion that is - obviously - shared by others.

You are making my point here. That's one of the main benefit of the new installation system!

Previously, all FSDT/Flightbeam installations did exactly what you say they shouldn't, because they forced you to install into the root of the sim, without giving you any choice, and they made "fundamental changes to the customer file system", which were obviously fare more invasive, since we weren't just limited to installing our own files there, but we also had to change the core scenery.cfg of the sim, the core DLL/EXE.XML file, and we placed lots of stuff in your simulator folder, without asking and without giving you any choice.

So yes, I agree with you that we could make a better installer but, with some file types and in FSX and P3D before 3.4, we didn't had much choices, because some type of files *had* to be installed in the root of the sim and with those sims, there was no way to install a module without changing the DLL/EXE.XML files.

Now, the installer does exactly what you suggests:

- It offers you a CHOICE where to install the files, so you can now install everywhere, leaving your sim folder intact

- On P3D 3.4 and 4.0, it doesn't touch the scenery.cfg, it doesn't touch the DLL.XML or the EXE.XML and it doesn't touch the prepar3d.cfg file. None of the core files of the sim are touched, except the add-ons.cfg, which we don't really touch, but ask P3D to do it for us. This will obviously result in a far more reliable installer.

- On FSX and P3D 3.3 and below, we still must use the shared XML files and the scenery.cfg but, at least, since the whole installation has been improved to the latest standard and to work outside the sim folder, we don't install the scenery into the simulator at least.

[bean_sprout 1,201]

The layering system is spelled out nicely in the SDK.

 

Cheers

bs