Scenery Gateway has Started

[Shack95 2,674]

2 minutes ago, bendead said:

And that's the major issue, a lot of cool freeware airport are made with customs assets, I hope Asobo will also incorporate freeware assets library, some extensive freeware are using shared library.

Agreed, there’s loads of amazing freeware airports out there using custom assets. However, I see several problems with allowing custom assets for the Scenery Gateway airports. First, it could quickly result in huge download sizes. Since it won‘t be optional, that would be a real problem for many of us. Moreover, the more complicated the system the more prone it would be to all sorts of complications (e.g. bugs) which might make the approval process a nightmare (they already struggle to cope with approving payware addons for their marketplace). Therefore I‘d rather they kept it simple. We will still be free to download as many freeware and payware airports as we want, so no need to take risks here.

 

[Tuskin38 6,709]

If it works like X-Plane's, then it will be good for the X-Box simmers as they can't use the community folder.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Tuskin38

[superspud 451]

49 minutes ago, bendead said:

And that's the major issue, a lot of cool freeware airport are made with customs assets, I hope Asobo will also incorporate freeware assets library, some extensive freeware are using shared library.

They'd be making a horrific rod for their own back opening up custom assets. Tons of them will be a performance mess, used nicked meshes and textures, or have a mountain of other flaws. 

For something you download yourself that's acceptable. Not acceptable if they're distributing it. 

And also for paid 3d models there'll be rights issues too. They also often have two prices and the non commercial price will likely have been paid. 

I assume developers who are interested will strip out the custom stuff and keep offering the original too. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by superspud

[irocx 293]

18 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

The MSFS project manager is unable to have its MSFS payware shop work properly after 16 months. It gives you an idea indeed how freeware would be managed.

It's doesn't seem to be a good indicator for future success.  I'm all for the advancement of 3rd party freeware to more users, if it's done correctly; it's what has brought me the most enjoyment and solved so many issues with this sim.

I have been watching this particular issue posted at the dev forum.  It seems the marketplace problems are affecting XBOX users, too.  Handcrafted Asobo Airport Conflicting With Marketplace Airport on Xbox

Can't be good for sales and if you read the response from an Asobo team member, it's even worse for the 3rd party devs.  If they are still having these types of problems.......................

Hopefully, they will get the current agenda cleaned up before moving on to other projects AND they never forget that the Community folder needs to override the base sim content - always.

 

[Greazer 1,354]

On 12/16/2021 at 12:30 AM, bendead said:

And that's the major issue, a lot of cool freeware airport are made with customs assets, I hope Asobo will also incorporate freeware assets library, some extensive freeware are using shared library.

Presumably there will be an asset library that Scenery Developers can submit to, for any other developer to use in their airports.  The asset library should allow for new versions, but not deletions for backwards compatibility.

Asobo / MSFS will assign admin users (from the community?) who will manage the asset library.

The admin users should also validate airport uploads and have a rating and comments. If better than default it will become the new default.

If two or more uploads for the same airport, then the one with the highest rating is the new default.

[Twenty6 694]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

Presumably there will be an asset library that Scenery Developers can submit to, for any other developer to use in their airports.  The asset library should allow for new versions, but not deletions for backwards compatibility.

It could be that these following permissions are automatically added to each submission on FlightSim.to but it doesn't look like a lot of freeware authors like the idea of their work getting changed and/or distributed out of their control. And I can't see MS/Asobo including an asset they don't have completely own, 100%

If you're familiar with FlightSim.to then you're noticed these permissions in the asset description. I looked at a ramdom sampling of airport sceneries only.

Upload Permission
You are not allowed to upload this file to other sites under any circumstances.

Modification Permission
You are not allowed to modify or improve my file under any circumstances.

Conversion Permission
You are not allowed to convert this file under any circumstances.

Asset Use Permission
You are not allowed to use assets of my file under any circumstances

[Greazer 1,354]

3 minutes ago, Twenty6 said:

Upload Permission
You are not allowed to upload this file to other sites under any circumstances.

Modification Permission
You are not allowed to modify or improve my file under any circumstances.

Conversion Permission
You are not allowed to convert this file under any circumstances.

Asset Use Permission
You are not allowed to use assets of my file under any circumstances

I think Scenery Gateway asset library can be used by any Developer, so there is no need for the permissions in this case.  And it keeps the system simple.

There won't be too many Library Developers, but there should be a namespace within the library for each Developer and version.

For instance, if the first two library developers are "mike" and "sally", then the asset library would start like:

Library/mike/v1
Library/sally/v1

etc etc.  Then there is no conflict of assets for all the Airport Developers.
 

[jrw4 626]

Just to refer once again to the X-Plane experience with its scenery gateway, curation is done by individuals who are employed by LR, not by users. The latter are invited to request airport updates, point out errors, etc., and the volunteer scenery artists can then respond. As far as I know, all gateway airports must be produced with the XP WorldEditor software, and must use the default scenery assets. While this is limiting in some regards, it does make tractable the job of curation and validation. As noted previously, freeware and payware airports are still supported, and those scenery developers can use whatever tools and assets they want/need.

[Twenty6 694]

58 minutes ago, Greazer said:

I think Scenery Gateway asset library can be used by any Developer, so there is no need for the permissions in this case.  And it keeps the system simple.

This asset library you're talking about has to have models, textures, etc put into it. I don't see the likes of Lorby signing on. Superspud is definitely against this idea. Windhover requires his permission to use or change any of his sceneries and makes no mention of whether he'd allow a changed asset to be included in the Scenery Gateway asset library.

There's a reason a lot of airports are nothing more than a runway. Not every person's home airport needs to be fulfilled for every other simmer out there. O'Hare and JFK get 3rd party love cuz they're huge international hubs. People buy these airports because they're an accurate representation of the real deal. 49C (Camp Lake, WI) would probably only get a handful of D/Ls even if it had custom buildings, hangars, bells and whistles. Think of the performance hit with a couple hundred 49Cs put into the core of the Official MSFS folder.

3+ minutes load time to the main menu is not looking for ways to get longer. I like using FlightSim.to and choosing what I want to add to MSFS. I like using Addon Linker to activate only those sceneries, airports, POIs in the area I intend to fly. Making this Scenery Gateway mandatory only makes it harder to get rid of things I don't want.

[Greazer 1,354]

56 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Just to refer once again to the X-Plane experience with its scenery gateway, curation is done by individuals who are employed by LR, not by users. 

There's no reason why Asobo/MS must follow XP scenery gateway model exactly, especially considering much of the core sim development is done essentially by community developers (working title). They may choose admin users to be internal or be selected community users. Whatever works and saves development costs.

1 hour ago, jrw4 said:

As far as I know, all gateway airports must be produced with the XP WorldEditor software, and must use the default scenery assets. 

There's no reason why the system could not accept library assets from community developers and then be validated by Admin users.  While the concept was sound, the XP gateway was a poor implementation. If you look at all those boring and repetitive grey terminals, you would realize that asset libraries from third parties could have saved it.   Or they could have at least had a 'paint' feature to change terminal colors on the fly.

47 minutes ago, Twenty6 said:

Making this Scenery Gateway mandatory only makes it harder to get rid of things I don't want.

It does not make it any harder. It improves the default airports with user submitted content and it makes it available automatically. You may choose a flight from some random airport and find it's actually very good, because someone submitted it via the Gateway.    When you have about 36,000 airports in the world you need to have a system and community help to improve them. There is nothing stopping you from making your own airports or downloading airports from a website and installing them into the Community folder as you do now.

[superspud 451]

1 hour ago, Twenty6 said:

This asset library you're talking about has to have models, textures, etc put into it. I don't see the likes of Lorby signing on. Superspud is definitely against this idea. Windhover requires his permission to use or change any of his sceneries and makes no mention of whether he'd allow a changed asset to be included in the Scenery Gateway asset library.

I'm not against it at all. I think it would be very cool to upload full fat airports. 

I will bet Asobo will be jolly very extremely against it. 

I remember someone talking about submitting a scenery file to the marketplace and saying they needed to supply every texture's original PSD file to prove they'd created it. I barely even know what a PSD file is, let alone be able to supply one. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by superspud

[jrw4 626]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

much of the core sim development is done essentially by community developers (working title)

How are you defining "community developers" here? My understanding (perhaps erroneous) is that WT has signed on basically as a subcontractor like Blackshark.ai. Once people start making changes to the sim core (loosely defined to include default airports), I'm guessing that the usual freeware arrangements wouldn't suffice. Deadlines need to be met, policies defined and followed, etc.

BTW, I think the default assets/airports in MSFS are fine for their purpose. It's not such a big deal for me that they don't look customized, but I'm much more interested in accurate taxiway depictions, lighting installations, etc. Others no doubt feel differently. I agree that initially I thought that the gateway concept wouldn't work in XP, but I was wrong. It does.

[Twenty6 694]

2 hours ago, superspud said:

I'm not against it at all. I think it would be very cool to upload full fat airports. 

Sorry then, my error. One of your posts gave me the impression you were not in favor of this idea.

[superspud 451]

21 minutes ago, Twenty6 said:

Sorry then, my error. One of your posts gave me the impression you were not in favor of this idea.

I think it's a fine idea. I know full well They will feel the total opposite. And I totally get why. I certainly wouldn't open the floodgates in that way. It would be a right old mess. 

[Greazer 1,354]

17 hours ago, superspud said:

I'm not against it at all. I think it would be very cool to upload full fat airports. 

You will never be uploading full fat airports.

You will upload small file airports that make use of asset libraries.

That's the whole point to reuse library assets and keep the size of gateway airports to a minimum.