Another Object Placer oddity

[Guest cwright]

It seems to be well established that the Object Placer tool is seriously flawed (when re-loading a scenery file on a later session, the tool often fails to load many of the objects). I've now found something else which is surprising.The SDK includes a long list of object GUID's. I have tried quite a few now, but I was surprised to find that possibly none of the GUID's actually work.While working on object placement in my AutoAsm program, I found soumething very strange. When you place an object, the Object Placer tool lists object data including the GUID (both for the specific object and this instance). When I looked in the scenery xml file that the tool saved, the GUID's are completely different! The GUID's shown by the tool are the same as the list in the SDK (and these do not work).Fortunately all the GUID's that the tool saves in the scenery files seem to work fine: every time I compiled the scenery files there were no problems.So, it seems the tool uses the SDK list GUID numbers to display in the information slot, but uses a different set of GUID's when saving the xml scenery file.An example: agn_religiousk_3 (I'll just show the last 6 GUID characters)GUID shown by the tool: B983FBGUID given in SDK list: B983FB (does not work)GUID in scenery file: 2460DD (this works)I've looked through the SDK, but the only list that seems to have any *working* GUID numbers is default.xml, and this does not have all the objects available in the tool.So my question is: what GUID number data source or file does the tool use when actually saving the scenery files? It would be nice to identify a comprehensive library object list that actually works!Best regards, Chris

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Hello Chris,GUID ordering has changed since FS 9 and the documentation does not always reflect this.Previously, GUIDs were represented in some in-memory format; now, they seem to be in Intel ordering (Least Significant Byte) and in "Registry" Format, that is, {8-4-4-4-12}.I had found, and it has since been noticed by others, that the braces are not always essential, although the developers insist that they are.In your particular example, the religious building, here is the old-style format:ecf855db4de1bd88e8eb94a8fb83b90aand here is the new LSB Registry format:{ecf855db-bd88-4de1-a894-ebe80ab983fb}If you look carefully, you will see that they are the same, just ordered differently.There has since been a new list of all objects in the autogen S.D.K.; it is in an html document called "Global Library Objects", or something, and that should have the right values (I hope!) Unfortunately, it no longer includes the geo-limited landmark buildings, so good luck trying to move the Millenium Dome around to the correct location!As for your comment regarding the GUIDs in the tool, I have not found the same as you. For example, this is what the Object Placement Tool displays when that object is added:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165651.jpgHere is the code for a mission file with that object as created by the tool:agn_religiousk_3 {ECF855DB-BD88-4DE1-A894-EBE80AB983FB} N18

[Guest cwright]

Luis, thank you very much, you've done it again! The Global Library Objects.html file in the SDK is wrong. Here are three examples: (as spaces don't work on the forum I added the dots to make them line up) agn_religiousk_3 ECF855DB 4DE1 BD88 E8 EB 94 A8 FB 83 B9 0A.......................ecf855db bd88 4de1 a8 94 eb e8 0a b9 83 fb ag_eurbuilding01 FA7430CE 4181 B1C3 41 3D E8 9A 04 DE D0 65........................fa7430ce b1c3 4181 9a e8 3d 41 65 d0 de 04 ag_lightpole 47C97CED 4E4B C4E6 10 B1 9F 8E 62 EA 9E 98...................47c97ced c4e6 4e4b 8e 9f b1 10 98 9e ea 62The upper case GUID's are correct and the lower case GUID's are from Global Library Objects, which do not work. You can see the pattern. It seems that Microsoft provided a list of GUID's that cannot work with bglcomp. I suspect that the tool displays the raw GUID's that it reads from the file, but re-sorts them when saving the scenery file.Anyway, this is good news. For importing GUID's from the file I can easily add code to do the necessary swapping. I could also easily save a new text file with the correct (swapped) list of GUID's. Maybe people could find that useful.Ironically, I didn't notice that the first 8 characters are the same, because in my comparisons I always used the last 6 characters. If I had used the first 6 characters I might have spotted it.Once again, you've saved my bacon. Many thanks!Best regards, Chris

[Guest bustervk]

hi Luis,According to Mr Bill Leaming at FlightSim.comFSXForumACES , FSX and Train Sim their is nothing wrong with the Object Placement Tool!Please read the thread here:http://forums.flightsim.com/dc/dcboard.php...304&page=#18328"It would all be very amusing, except that it is not!"Kind regardsBert

[Guest reignman40]

Do you guys know if there is a way to select more flightsim objects? In the Object Placer Tool scenery I have yet to find many objects that you see in flight sim that are not geo-limited or landmarks like radio towers.

[Guest cwright]

You should see lots of usable objects in the list. For example, look at the objects beginning with 'brussels'. These include many nice historic buildings. There are also animated flocks of birds, and many 'ordinary' buildings - look under 'agn'.Of course, due to some serious defect in this tool, it's hit-or-miss whether you will see your objects the next time you load the scenery file!Best regards, Chris

[Guest reignman40]

The only problems I have run into are ometimes you cant move the objects and some wont show up(while using the tool) so you have to restart the OPT before you can get any of them to show up. (kinda hard to explain)

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Thank you for that reference, Bert. As a general rule, I do not take part in controversial posts. There is no point to it because, for me, Flight Simulator is a computer game, it is meant to be enjoyable, to be fun, and not a source of unpleasant discussion or conflict.Overall, I am very happy with FS X, it runs well on my deficient computer, and except for some minor problems like the shader issue, I have only small complaints.And I am very happy to have the Object Placement Tool. We did not have this before, and it is quite useful, even if it is not yet perfected. But, then there have always been elements in FS with problems and there always will be, as in life in general.I never criticize or think ill of the developers of the game. They are my heros, men that I admire. I love Flight Simulator, it is the only game I play, my principal pastime. So, I am very grateful to them for sacrificing their time, their sleep, their family and social life to make this so that I can enjoy it.By the way, Bert, my "amusing but not" comment was meant in a lighthearted, even amusing way. It was supposed to be taken as a joke and make everyone laugh, I hope. We are different in this forum from others, more easy-going, relaxed, civil, and even friendly, so I don't expect anybody here to get upset.Best regards.Luis

[Guest bustervk]

Hi Luis,Thanks for your reply.>Overall, I am very happy with FS X, it runs well on my>deficient computer, and except for some minor problems like>the shader issue, I have only small complaints.>In general I am happy too, but i still cann't get FS9 out of my mind...i shared to many hours with her :-)>And I am very happy to have the Object Placement Tool. We did>not have this before, and it is quite useful, even if it is>not yet perfected. But, then there have always been elements>in FS with problems and there always will be, as in life in>general.I hope i used it the wrong way...but i will give it another try!>I never criticize or think ill of the developers of the game.Sometimes i might have some criticism, but I certainly never think ill of any developer.>They are my heros, men that I admire. I love Flight Simulator,>it is the only game I play, my principal pastime. So, I am>very grateful to them for sacrificing their time, their sleep,>their family and social life to make this so that I can enjoy>it.Say no more!I get to fly Flightsim most days of my life.. the rest of my time I simply waste.>By the way, Bert, my "amusing but not" comment was meant in a>lighthearted, even amusing way. It was supposed to be taken as>a joke and make everyone laugh, I hope. We are different in>this forum from others, more easy-going, relaxed, civil, and>even friendly, so I don't expect anybody here to get upset.I do understand Luis and i have learned from itI hope to meet you very often at these FS forums; i gain very much from your contributions.Thanks againand till next time.Kind regards.Bert