HiI've some little questions to all developers and users of addons.1) If there would be an installer for addons (aircrafts, sceneries, ..) that's working like in your dreams... would you use it or would you in every case want to install addons by hand?2) If you would use this "dream-installer" ... how does it look like? What does it have to do? How does it have to look?... I'm just curious, since I'm working on setup technologies...thanks a lot for your answersMR - Rudolf Meier

dream installer = zip filePersonally I don't want an installer, a zip is fine, that way I can see where everything goes and what is being installed. If I can't point an installer to a temp folder, I usually don't install it.New users need to learn the file structure of FS and installers keep this from happening as well.I have read from some freeware guys that the installer has helped them with support and that is fine, but I just can't justify the trust placed on an installer from a freeware package that I know nothing about the author.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Hi. I agree 100%. I don't want installers either. I like to see what is installed and where it goes. If an installer is used it should be available as a zip format too. At least the installer should be designed so that it can be installed to a temp folder so the person using it can decide what to do with it himself. I also agree that new users need to understand the file structure of FS2004 or FSX. Too many users don't know this at all. Some of the new installers require Netframework 2.0 to be installed. Some of us either don't want to install it, or can't, as in my case. Regards, Bob.

>I also agree that new users need to understand the>file structure of FS2004 or FSX. Too many users don't know>this at all. Although it appears (mainly from forums such as this) than a majority of FS users are savvy enough to deal with this, in reality I find that at least 70% of my customers don't have the knowledge or interest to manually install my scenery. And some who over-ride the suggested installation don't even read the manual to find out why the install didn't work:)FSX will be a better proposition for me, because I can do most jobs without the default file hacks I've had to use for FS9. However I was hoping that MS would make manual activation a thing of the past, maybe next time around.

Personally, I agree. I hate auto-installers and like to install it all myself (for instance, does the plane install textures to the FS9texture directory?). But I also know that probably 90% of the people out there don't have the knowledge or desire to do this themselves, and really appreciate auto-installers.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Auto-installers themselves usually aren't the problem, but the generated DE-installers ARE :-)A lot of designers that use auto-install programs never seem to realise that "borrowed" files like gauges, sounds, effects etc. may already be present on a user's PC; and may overwrite newer versions of those files.Even worse, when you use their de-install program, they simply delete these "common" files, leaving you with other addons that suddenly don't work anymore :-(Rob

That's why I don't like either one! Regards, Bob.

OK, to all those who answered to this thread:Can I count on you as beta testers for an installer? I have to find some testers. (won't take long time to test it for you... and I'd like that those who don't like installers are testing it) ... then you can tell me what you think about this specific installer and... after I would ask you the same question again...send me a personal message ... because I don't like if you only tell me what's the problem with "installers" and you don't look at one that solves ALL your problems...

maybe you don't believe me... but what I'm talking about is this:- transactional installation / deinstallation- repair functionalities- panel/sound link-functions- gauge-conflict resolving (2 different gauges with the same name in the main gauges folder)it handles things like"... to make this panel work you have to add these values to the aircraft.cfg ..."even if you only use this panel for e.g. 3 of your 5 liveries installed for the same model and: I doesn't waste space on your harddisk to do this!!I really don't know any situation that can't be handled ...that's what is an installer for me! not those file copying things around ...if you want to see some samples... tell me... I'll send them... if not... tell me why you don't want to see them...

Rudolf,With all due respect: I DO know what a good Installer should do, and there are several products around that allready do what should be done.The problem is NOT these generic packages, but ignorant designers that don't know how to use the features of such an Installer package properly. See my examples above.Now, I'm still not sure what you are aiming for:- A generic package, which with a designer can create an .exe Installer for his addon, or - An AddonManager type-of-package, like Manfred's (forgot his name) package.Regards, Rob

... that's right. So the goal should be an installer that even works if the designers do everything as wrong as it gets. And that's exactely what my product does. And if everything fails, it's possible to remove a product without leaving any trace on the system!! Really... even if they try to overwrite files or whatever... at the end of the deinstallation of this product, you won't see any remainings on the computer. The only thing a designer can destroy is his product or old versions of his product.And... I don't like those exe-Installers... you never know what they do. It's too risky to use them... that's why my idea is to use an installer that will be installed on every computer and then you can install setup packages, created with my product.Now you say... that's rubbish, like this everyone has to buy the installer... no, that's not true... the part used on client machines can be downloaded for free!!! And the download size is not even 1 MB!! It's installed within 30 seconds and you don't need .NET packages or whatever...well... I know, it's difficult to convince someone, because of the problems you all had with other products... but... I make you an offer... next week we will have our next release ... we will put the product on the Web for download and I bet, you can't build a package that destroys an other package or a previousely installed addon...

Now I see what you mean.So there is a "Client-Installer" package, running on the end-user's PC, and a "Developer-Installer" package, that is used to create addon packages to be installed by the "Client-Installer" . Right ?** Assuming my assumption is correct **:Now, your remark: "the part used on client machines can be downloaded for free!!! " implies that the developpers package isn't free, right ?Because, for me being a freeware gauge designer, that would be the first reason not to be interested.Secondly, as a freeware designer, I learnt my lesson NOT to be become dependant again on other peoples packages, since I never know how long they will exist or how long they will support their product.Because if they stop support (or decide to go payware), I'm in trouble. That I am dependant on MS' un-announced and hidden changes everytime with a new FS release, is worse enough :-(Thirdly, you mentioned .Net installation (required for some addon's).For the exact same reason, I don't believe your approach will work. Automated installers are typically intended for "dummies" (no insult intented: I just mean people that don't have the time to learn c.q. the knowledge to install addons manually). And I, as a designer using of your Installer, prefer not to be confronted with addional installation problems because such a "dummy" forgets to install your Client-part, or forgets to download a new version (yes, there will be bugs or un-anticipated things in your package).Moreover, there's just a whole category of flightsimmers that won't use automated installers (like me), apart from the reason of possible problems: they just want to do manual installs, so they know and are forced to understand exactly what happens. Without that knowledge, users would never have been able to port e.g. aircraft from FS9 to FSX.Forthly, I simply don't believe in "forced" standards like your Installer, unless forced upon us by MS themselves. Simply because it's another potential source of problems. I've seen too many bad examples in the past, and I have no reason at all to assume that your's (are you new in this Flightsim world ??) will be any better in that respect.Yes, you will be facing a lot of cynicisme, NOT caused by your initiative, but by some of the crap packages with simular functionality released in the past by others. And whereas you started this thread with a question on what we feel an AutoInstaller should do, it now appears you try to promote a package that you've allready created. Nothing wrong with that IMO, just an observation :-)Fifthly, with all the configuration possibilities and lack of embedded version control in FS itself, you will always be "behind the facts" with your package.To give you just two example's that I'm convinced your Installer package (or ANY Installer package available) cannot handle now.1.I have several gauges, that, in the panel.cfg gauge definition, require a "fifth" parameter that specifies the location of a certain config file. Now, if your Installer decides for whatever reason to rename pathnames or filenames during installation (e.g. because on a particular end-user PC that path/filename allready exists), this "path" parameter in the panel.cfg should be changed automatically as well.Now, if you KNOW this feature, you can anticipate on it and build it into your Installer code. But I'm sure it isn't right now.2. Suppose a to-be-installed .fx Effect filename allready exists in another version (for another addon) in the Effects folder on the end-users PC.What can your Installer do ?? Rename the .fx file ?? And if so, does it change the corresponding definition in the aircraft.cfg file as well ??Because if it can't handle these two examples properly, I fail to see the added value of your product compared to other products.And I can give you numerous other examples that IMO can NEVER be handled properly by any external, automated Installer package. I do appologise for my cynical attitude and playing the role of devil's advocate, but I am truly convinced that without very rigid restrictions in FS itself (like get rid of all that great, but very complex configuration flexibility, or use very rigid filename conventions and built-in version control), ANY attempt to make the "perfect" auto-Installer is a no-go.Yes, it might work OK technically in 95% of all Installs and addons, but it's the other 5% that worries me.Because if it isn't "perfect", Auto-Installers IMO potentially create bigger problems than they solve. And WHEN they create a problem, then everyone (both the designer, that designed for that auto-installer, and the end-user that used it) is completely lost because no-one it able to pinpoint what went wrong anymore.I'm NOT trying to explain what's wrong with current Install products; I'm trying to argue why IMHO it's simply impossible to create a "perfect and trouble-free" Installer in the FS environment.And on a personal note: I would be very reluctant to promote a product as an "Installer that solves all problems" without the user-base to substantiate that. Because such wording alone will raise lots of cynicism in this flightsim world. But I guess that your chick-and-egg problem :-)Again, I'm not trying to spoil your enthousiasm for your "product"; but I truely believe you're fighting a lost battle with yet another Install product. For the reasons explained above.Regards, Rob Barendregt

Hi. You can't count on me. It sounds like it is a forerunner of a commercial "product". Sorry but I am not at all interested in installers. Regards, Bob.

Hi... long answer... really :-)>So there is a "Client-Installer" package, running on the>end-user's PC, and a "Developer-Installer" package, that is>used to create addon packages to be installed by the>"Client-Installer" . Right ?Yes, correct.>Now, your remark: "the part used on client machines can be>downloaded for free!!! " implies that the developpers package>isn't free, right ?No. Everything is free, until you don't sell setup packages created with our product. If you want to sell them, you have to buy a license. So for freeware developer it's completely free.>Secondly, as a freeware designer, I learnt my lesson NOT to be>become dependant again on other peoples packages, since I>never know how long they will exist or how long they will>support their product.>Because if they stop support (or decide to go payware), I'm in>trouble. That I am dependant on MS' un-announced and hidden>changes everytime with a new FS release, is worse enough :-(That's right. But I'm not a single person. This is a product of a whole company and it's planed to support it until Microsoft stops developing flight simulators. We are even interested in selling this system to Microsoft so that it could be integrated into the simulator.>Thirdly, you mentioned .Net installation (required for some>addon's).>For the exact same reason, I don't believe your approach will>work. >Automated installers are typically intended for "dummies" (no>insult intented: I just mean people that don't have the time>to learn c.q. the knowledge to install addons manually). And>I, as a designer using of your Installer, prefer not to be>confronted with addional installation problems because such a>"dummy" forgets to install your Client-part, or forgets to>download a new version (yes, there will be bugs or>un-anticipated things in your package).Of course there could be bugs. But I believe that it solves more problems than it creates. And by the way: The problem of the old-client version is already solved. First of all there wouldn't be new versions every week (so it won't be to much work to maintain the system) and then every package contains the information of the minimum required installer version... so, no problem.>Moreover, there's just a whole category of flightsimmers that>won't use automated installers (like me), apart from the>reason of possible problems: they just want to do manual>installs, so they know and are forced to understand exactly>what happens. Without that knowledge, users would never have>been able to port e.g. aircraft from FS9 to FSX.Ok, but you have to see the other part also. Today you have a lot of work until those planes are installed. And many instructions are not usable... so many times you don't get the planes working.It's simply horrible sometimes and often it takes hours to complete it.>Forthly, I simply don't believe in "forced" standards like>your Installer, unless forced upon us by MS themselves. Simply>because it's another potential source of problems. I've seen>too many bad examples in the past, and I have no reason at all>to assume that your's (are you new in this Flightsim world ??)>will be any better in that respect.No, I'm not new. You know, it doesn't work without standards. And there are things nobody can handle, if e.g. gauges are built wrongly (let's say you have 2 gauges and they want to store their settings to "Q:mygaugeimaloneontheworldsettings.ini" .. this can't work... never, not even when installing it by hand).But I think you should let the market decide. Why don't you make a test? Build a package and distribute it as zip file and as setup package for our installer. And then ask them, what they think... all I want is that someone is trying it. But to say that it's not good without even trying it is nothing I can accept.>Yes, you will be facing a lot of cynicisme, NOT caused by your>initiative, but by some of the crap packages with simular>functionality released in the past by others. >And whereas you started this thread with a question on what we>feel an AutoInstaller should do, it now appears you try to>promote a package that you've allready created. >Nothing wrong with that IMO, just an observation :-)We have a first version... but we're building a new one.>Fifthly, with all the configuration possibilities and lack of>embedded version control in FS itself, you will always be>"behind the facts" with your package.>To give you just two example's that I'm convinced your>Installer package (or ANY Installer package available) cannot>handle now.>>1.I have several gauges, that, in the panel.cfg gauge>definition, require a "fifth" parameter that specifies the>location of a certain config file. Now, if your Installer>decides for whatever reason to rename pathnames or filenames>during installation (e.g. because on a particular end-user PC>that path/filename allready exists), this "path" parameter in>the panel.cfg should be changed automatically as well.>Now, if you KNOW this feature, you can anticipate on it and>build it into your Installer code. But I'm sure it isn't right>now.There are always such problems. If everyone would install gauges directly to the panel folder we wouldn't have such problems. Or if they use the installer technology to modify those values during install.Of course, if you have to do with a complete idiot who creates such a package and is not aware of the fact, that he has to tell the installer, that some values do have to be changed during installation, then it could be that HIS product won't work on some computers... but as I sayed... the installer can't prevent that an installed product doesn't work. But it does not destroy something that's already installed.>2. Suppose a to-be-installed .fx Effect filename allready>exists in another version (for another addon) in the Effects>folder on the end-users PC.>What can your Installer do ?? Rename the .fx file ?? And if>so, does it change the corresponding definition in the>aircraft.cfg file as well ??Yes it does...>Because if it can't handle these two examples properly, I fail>to see the added value of your product compared to other>products.>And I can give you numerous other examples that IMO can NEVER>be handled properly by any external, automated Installer>package. Nothing is impossible... everything can be handled! Maybe we have to extend our product or someone has to change its files a little bit... but it is possible to install every addon with an installer.>I do appologise for my cynical attitude and playing the role>of devil's advocate, but I am truly convinced that without>very rigid restrictions in FS itself (like get rid of all that>great, but very complex configuration flexibility, or use very>rigid filename conventions and built-in version control), ANY>attempt to make the "perfect" auto-Installer is a no-go.>Yes, it might work OK technically in 95% of all Installs and>addons, but it's the other 5% that worries me.>Because if it isn't "perfect", Auto-Installers IMO potentially>create bigger problems than they solve. And WHEN they create a>problem, then everyone (both the designer, that designed for>that auto-installer, and the end-user that used it) is>completely lost because no-one it able to pinpoint what went>wrong anymore.... our logfiles are not so bad. :-)>I'm NOT trying to explain what's wrong with current Install>products; I'm trying to argue why IMHO it's simply impossible>to create a "perfect and trouble-free" Installer in the FS>environment.>And on a personal note: I would be very reluctant to promote a>product as an "Installer that solves all problems" without the>user-base to substantiate that. Because such wording alone>will raise lots of cynicism in this flightsim world. >But I guess that your chick-and-egg problem :-)>>Again, I'm not trying to spoil your enthousiasm for your>"product"; but I truely believe you're fighting a lost battle>with yet another Install product. For the reasons explained>above.OK, I see what you mean... but, again. I'll offer you this: I send you a copy of the installer (the new version... before anybody get's it). And you create me an example of what it can't handle. And then we can talk about it, if this is a problem or not (and if it's our problem or if it's the problem of the designer). Would you do this? I'd really like to work with you... what would you say? I don't want that you have a lot of work because of this... but you see... we try to solve a problem and it took a long time to develop this program... and now all we need is someone who has a little bit time to tell us what's not good...And by the way... we have also other ideas. Since the installer always installs a product the same way, we could e.g. introduce a "Designed for Microsoft Flight Simulator ..." Logo... you could build up a network of some testers and if they say it's ok, you'll get the logo... everything is possible... but we should start solving the problems and installing it by hand is not solving it!

We thought, that we could help somebody by developing an installer... but it seemes that nobody want's one...Maybe we should stop the project...