SU10 (beta) abandoned content.xml?

[Nemo 1,305]

I've read that SU10 would not use the content.xml anymore. In contrast to this, I have also read that content.xml can now be used for priority settings only. Is this summarized somewhere, does it need a user input? I became aware of this, when I read an add-on description where the developer wrote that the add-on would be placed with "very low priority". I'm wondering how they would do this automatically? I have the current SUI10 beta active but the time stamp of my content.xml is early August - probably a date before I've joined the beta.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Nemo

[Cpt_Piett 4,630]

They removed the content.xml, that’s all I know. Apparently they manage content in a different way, but I can’t remember where I read it.

[Greazer 1,320]

So will this break any old airports?

[Cpt_Piett 4,630]

8 minutes ago, Greazer said:

So will this break any old airports?

I can’t see why it would. Old airports, like?

[vodka69 13]

and conflicts between asobo/microsoft airports and 3rd party airports are they managed?

[mpo910 2,112]

20 minutes ago, Greazer said:

So will this break any old airports?

I flew all the beta without the content xml. Only navigraph needs it for installation method (they will change it when su10 goes alive). 

I have had no issues without the content xml. Also I have tested using the content xml with only the fsbase and navigraph entrances, no issues at all

[mpo910 2,112]

1 minute ago, vodka69 said:

and conflicts between asobo/microsoft airports and 3rd party airports are they managed?

Yes. They are managed. No conflicts seen at my end were they where prior beta when not disabling the default airports from MS (Like Leco had conflicts, they have gone now even without content xml)

[vodka69 13]

ok thanks

[guenseli 1,580]

You will have problems with Fenix as it will overspeed.

You have to manually make an entry 

<Package name="fnx-aircraft-320" active="true"/>

 

to avoid this.

I have no knowledge if they will fix it when SU10 will be official

[Cpt_Piett 4,630]

12 minutes ago, vodka69 said:

and conflicts between asobo/microsoft airports and 3rd party airports are they managed?

I think it's a good idea to delete the Asobo version when you have a 3rd party. And btw, I haven't had any scenery conflicts during my nearly 2 month beta run. 

[Nemo 1,305]

I don't expect any problems with airports. But regional or global scenery may be more sensible to priority settings. I don't know how MSFS handles this. For example the developer of MAMUDESIGN MARINAS - Boats and Piers in the World writes: "The package is gonna be loaded in the sim hierarchy at low level, so any other package more advanced/manually created will be able to exclude mine in their area" . Just being curious, if the content.xml is obsolete where and how does MSFS decide which priority should be used for a specific add-on?

Edited September 10, 2022 by Nemo