Hi Guys,First of all, let me clear up a definition of a certain term that I'm going to frequently use in this thread:Traffic Pack: An AI traffic package for a version of MSFS, such as FS2002 or FS2004, containing one or more of the following types of AI traffic: Airline traffic, military traffic, general aviation traffic, private aviation traffic. etc.Now, having said that....There really seems to be a double standard in the FS community with regards to traffic packs for FS2004. While people in the community praise payware traffic packs such as Ultimate Traffic, My Traffic and Traffic 2005, for some strange reason a lot of people in the community would claim that freeware traffic packs are a total waste of time to both develop and then download, claiming that users of freeware traffic packs are "lazy" and that they should either compile their very own traffic pack using Traffic Tools and all of the currently available freeware ai models, or download seperate airline traffic packs from groups such as Project AI or World Of AI. I have to note that people who discourage and dislike traffic packs which violate developers' copyrights are completely correct in there opinion and stance, since the discouragement and dislike of any work that violates other people's copyright is always the right thing to do. What I mean about the double standard is that a lot of people simply view freeware traffic packs as "un-necessary" and only for "lazy" people, yet they never say those things to describe payware traffic packs.Let's challenge this double standard!!My idea is that a dedicated group of flight simmers create a freeware traffic pack which is very similar in design and functionality to Ultimate Traffic or Traffic 2005. The traffic pack would contain different kinds of AI traffic (airline, military, GA, private aviation, etc.), and the flightplans and aircraft would be updated at intervals of 3 to 6 months. Dedicated team members for this traffic pack would handle different areas of the world, for instance one team member would handle the AI traffic for North America, another team member would handle the AI traffic for The Middle East, and so on.The very important thing about this traffic pack is that every file used in it, whether it's an aircraft model, repaint, afcad or flightplan, would require permission from the original authors of the files to be used in the traffic pack, making the traffic pack %100 legal, meaning that everyone would be happy with it.Guys, what do you think of my idea?? We seriously need something like this in our community.Regards,

Hi,I welcome this idea ! :-waveThere are something available already which is almost like you describe, if I understand you correct.For example, on Russian AVSIM, there are BGL files available with a lot of russian based AI, and on Thai flightsim there are ready made BGL files with almost all thai based AI. Those packages include all aircraft and BGL files.I don

It seems to me that there are plenty of freeware traffic packs available if you go look for them... If a group wants to start a team to fill in the gaps in existing freeware packs that would be fine. Isn't that what groups like PAI,Ultimate GA, and WOAI are already doing?DJ

I think the only way to do this would be to have a group set up some kind of framework (website that allows collection, organization and distribution of AI related files) which would allow the entire community of addon developers contribute work to. Right now, we have a few different groups working individually on releasing a small number of packages. The task is so large that small individual groups cannot do it alone. There must be someway to involve and organize the entire community around a common framework.I agree, would be great idea. Unfortunately, I don't think it would ever happen for two reasons. 1) Developer's egos which would get in the way of cooperation and 2) Pirates that would take advantage of such a system and try to profit from it somehow.We can always dream :)Matt

Project AI is doing this already, with nice installers, and a website. I dont see why another group is needed?JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE!HELP:http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=238882

>Project AI is doing this already, with nice installers, and a>website. I dont see why another group is needed?>Because the models used by PAI are not optimal for AI compared to many of the newer ones. If they would update all their models they would be an option.I agree this would be great but as noted, won't happen unless the group that makes the aircraft also makes the rest of the package. We have seen that developers don't wish to have their aircraft used for the main purpose they were designed for, even after the fact that someone put a package together and asked permission, oh well.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

>Project AI is doing this already, with nice installers, and a>website. I dont see why another group is needed?>PAI, or any other group for that matter, can only do so much. Keeping AI files up to date is a huge task that requires modelers, flight plan designers, AFCAD designers, texture painters, testers, packagers, programers, web designers, etc, etc, etc.Plus, everything needs to be updated 2-3 times per year and you have a huge administrative workload just to manage it all. Would take a group of at least 100-200 volunteers organized around a rigid schedule to keep such a project going. That's just not going to happen.Other option would be to rely on the entire "Community" of developers working on their own, but somehow together within a common framework. So you'd have several smaller groups that might specialize in flightplans or models, along with individual designers working on their own. Everyone would be creating a product that somehow is compatible with what everyone else is working on and fits into some kind of automatic distribution system. It really wouldn't be that hard to get going from a technical perspective. All that would be needed to start is server space, a simple online database and a set of standards for how every file is packaged. Make the database accessible and people will step up to create front ends.Hard part would be getting the different groups to get together to get the ball rolling and be willing to let go of their strict use restrictions.I think we all dream of the day, where we click a button and schedules, AFCADs, textures, models, etc, are all updated with the latest and greatest automatically.Matt Fox

It sounds like what you are suggesting is exactly what World of AI is doing - finding the best packages available, getting proper permissions form the authors, creating an easy to install package. So rather than re-ivent the wheel why not focus your good efforts towards helping them? I'm sure they would like the extra help.

>It sounds like what you are suggesting is exactly what World>of AI is doing - They are definately on the right track, but it's still a lot of work for a relatively few number of volunteers. Even if they could double, or triple the rate at which they currently release packages, it would still be very difficult to release updated packages once per year for every airline. And what happens when the World of AI guys get burnt out? Or what happens when another group pops up with another installer??What I'm talking about is taking away the middleman and the whole idea of "Packages". A designer designs an AFCAD, or new texture, or new flightplans, or new aircraft model....and the moment the designer uploads it to the "system", it would be available to be automatically installed in users computers throughout the world.Matt

how about a software where you have a one button update. This would ensure that everyone has the latest packages and updates. World of AI is fantastic. But i sometimes lose track of which packages and updates i have gotten. Quite confusing at times. By having a way to check how dated our update are. We can be sure that everyone has the same, best, and most updated package. How about setting up a site like AVSIM. Where every AI author contributes and automatically allow the distribution of their work through that website and system/network when they upload it. It would save the team the trouble of trying to send out millions of e-mails trying to get clearances for their work. The team will select the best files to add into the package. This will certainly contribute to reducing the work load.

what like an auto update like virus definitions?? well this would be great, however, as previous comments the workload would be too much. The companies that provide the updated virus definitions have paid employees whereas these seperate groups are all part of a volunteer network. What we really need is Microsoft to provide the logistics in the new flight sim i.e. download center that everyone has to create addons to fit in with rather than all these different methods used. Microsoft being at the forefront of computer technology should really be thinking of features like this and i bet they have brain stormed the idea. This was a really good point brought up by the original poster and my conclusion to it would be that perhaps we as a "community" need to get microsoft to implement as it is afterall the creator of flight sim.

>what like an auto update like virus definitions?? well this>would be great, however, as previous comments the workload>would be too much. >groups are all part of a volunteer network. What we really>need is Microsoft to provide the logistics in the new flight>sim i.e. download center that everyone has to create addons toThe workload wouldn't be too much if the whole system was designed from the beginning so that the entire community of developers would contribute. Imagine the AVSIM file library on steroids where every file was accurately cataloged and formatted to be compatible with some sort of installer.I don't think MS would do something like this because they would need to pay people a salary to maintain and monitor it. Which means, even if they did do something like this, it wouldn't be free :)Matt

I have been considering it but have been busy with other things, and I have not really felt like dealing with all the political stuff.I was considering something like this:AFCAD:Use specific binary signatures (filenames and CRCs) to identify addon scenery (and version) - hence automatic support for default and addon scenery. Automatic install with opt-out (the user select the airports where he or she wants to control the AFCAD's manually. Initial run could default to opt out where custom AFCADs are installed). Any airport not under opt-out would simply be updated as better AFCADs become available.Aircrafts:Besides the actual model, a list of other models the aircraft could "double" for (with a weight determining how good the match is). Notice several models of the same aircraft can be in place so new versions can be fased in as new repaints for it becomes available.Liveries:Link to airline (ICAO code? what with stuff having no code?) and possible groups of registration numbers to allow special liveries.Flight Plans:Needs a standardized way to identify aircraft, livery, and registration numbers to allow hookup to model and aircraft. An extended feature might be to allow multiple flight plans for the same plane - for each update a random plan would be selected. This could give some variation in GA and military traffic.The user selects the flight plans by opt-in, and the required aircrafts and liveries are automatically installed. It should probably be possible to override models etc, but for a start this is hardly needed - people can do there own flightplans where they want improvementsThe infrastructure is pretty simple (unless someone is stupid enough to use VB, C++ or something like that) - yes, it is a bit more complex than what I have in place for EditVoicepack, but not that much. Possible something has to be done to minimize bandwidth - but as it would be driven by a database anyway distributing it would not be too hard. It is also possible to use something like BitTorrent to do the bulk file transfers, though the implementations I saw of BitTorrent did not impress me, and I would hate having to do it myself.Obviously it would be a combined "do it all GUI" that would include updating EditVoicepack.An important thing to work out is - who determines WHICH model, , afcad, repaint, or flight plan is the best. For EditVoicepack I decide everything (oh man for a power trip), but the work load here would be much much bigger. I thought of three possible solutions:1) A group decides (so like EditVoicepack, except it is not a single person - and certainly not me) :)2) A voting system3) Allow several versions in the database. Let the server track when people change from one to the other. The default is then what the majority of those selecting manually decided to use. Anyone could basically release by entering it into the database, but they would have to lobby for it to be selected. A group might still be needed to remove vandalism (either after it happens or review before the package is public)Obviously I like option 3 the best as it requires the least amount of maintenance, but the infrastructure load is bigger here.So if anyone can get something started up I won't rule out I would be able to help on the infrastructure - but I certainly do not have the time to drive a project like this.

.

>3) Allow several versions in the database. Let the server>track when people change from one to the other. The default is>then what the majority of those selecting manually decided to>use. Anyone could basically release by entering it into the>database, but they would have to lobby for it to be selected.>A group might still be needed to remove vandalism (either>after it happens or review before the package is public)>>Obviously I like option 3 the best as it requires the least>amount of maintenance, but the infrastructure load is bigger>here.>Option 3 is probably the best. There would be too much controversy with option 1, and option 2 could be subject to fraud.>So if anyone can get something started up I won't rule out I>would be able to help on the infrastructure - but I certainly>do not have the time to drive a project like this.Ya, it's a big project. I think if someone could get the ball rolling, help would follow. One option would be to start small and just set up the database and file infrastructure. If the database and files were open to the outside for read only, then could have different 3rd party developers design front ends later.Could be as simple as defining metadata for each file type. The metadata would be stored in a small text file that goes along with every zip file, so that the front end would simply have to scan the metadata files and would know exactly what files were available and how to install them. So might have different front ends that do different things with the files. One might just automate everything , whereas another might let the user have more control.Matt