Hi,I'm wondering if there is any performance issue when comparing these two different methods of inserting 3d-objects into the simulator:1. Direct BGL-exportation from e.g. FSDS2's menu.2. An API of the object is inserted in Airport, from where it is then exported to BGL-format and into the sim.

I don't think there would be a difference, since these are both really the same thing. In both cases, the program generates SCASM code which it then sends to the compiler. You can take a look at the SCASM source in both cases, and see that the only real difference might be in the header. Also, AFW doesn't add the macro entirely, but instead uses a macro call to include it, but the result is going to be the same when you're done.Generally speaking, it might be more effecient to have one big BGL file rather than one for every object, since would be able to load this into memory quicker, but this is probably a minor improvement.Of course, if you are loading the same object many times, then the way to do it is with a library object, which can then be placed using AFW. You can not place library objects using FSDS2, so the only choice would be AFW for this. There are other benefits to using library objects, and sometimes I will include an object in a library even if I am only using it once.- Martin

Yes, Martin is correct. Using the API or a direct BGL makes no real difference if you place it once and don't use a library.The parameters in the API are just replaced during compilation (%1, %2, etc). So in the end you get the same BGL code if you make the BGL file direct or place the API. The only advantage of the API is that you can pass certain paramters like the position and the heading to it and that allows you to manipulate the object more.

Okay, thanks. Then I'll stick to the good old APIs. :()And Arno, I'm back after one year's break.

Good to see you back Sebastian :). Looking forward to some nice sceneries again.