3D modelers: Can the regions be made self-contained?

[Guest Quaxo]

I just discovered that some new UK packages need the presence of some files from the Seattle region. This forces us to keep the Seattle region (or at least part of it) installed. I was wondering, is it possible to make the UK region self-contained? I mean, so that we can totally remove the other regions? I would very much like to have the regions independent from each other...Is it possible to just copy all the needed files from the Seattle to the Uk folder?Cristian

[Guest glidernut]

The short anser from me is no.I think the Seattle files and folders hav to be where thy are.I think there paths are hard wiyered in FU3, and can not be moovedto sumwhere els.The best I can cum up with is to rename the Seattle folder tosumthing like UK_Other_models.In theary, we could hav hundreds of folders in the REGIONS folder,And eech one named after an individual model it contanes.One folder for every model there is.glidernut.

[Hans_Petter 1]

I'm a bit confused here,When Glidernut told me that I needed Seattle I copied it from my main FU3 installation. This one has the outer terrain installed while my stand-alone UK South version of FU3 doesn't have the outer terrain. Keep this in mind since it may explain something.Issue: With Seattle in the regions folder any flight from Lundy crashes to the desktop. Then I deleted the Seattle folder and tried Lundy again. I see the Glidernut cabin, another building and microlights cruising along the cliffs. There are ships next to the island. So, I seem to get it all without a Seattle folder in "regions" while the sim crashes to the desktop if Seattle is present. Mindboggling! Hans Petter

[Guest Quaxo]

Hans, I just checked again. I tried Lundy with and without the Seattle folder: I get the same models. Even without the Seattle folders, I can see the barracks, sheds, cars, boats, galleons and microlights. I also get the "CLEAR!" sound when I start the engine. I really couldn't find any difference... And anyway, I don't get crashes from lundy, in either way.(btw, I don't have outer terrain in any of my installs).CristianCorrection: After further checking :-roll I found that there are two houses, to the right of the "airstrip", which disappear if I remove Seattle... So, back to the original question: Is it possible to include, in the UK region, all the needed models, so Seattle isn't needed anymore?

[Guest glidernut]

Hans PetterI dont think it has anything to do with the outer terrain.I hav just dun the sam as you,I copied the Seattle in REGIONS from my main FU3 installation. This one has the outer terrain installed while my stand-alone UK South version of FU3 doesn't have the outer terrain.And it works OK, I dont crash to the desktop. So I dont know why yours dus.Im sory I carnt help you there.I can also see the microlights without Seattel. I dont know why. this is the odd one out.But all other models that I know of that hav the Seattle palet can not be seenwithout Seattle in regions. Without Seattle in regions, you will not see any trees, there is a tree just infrunt ofGlidernut cabin.And you will not see the houses and sum tipes of ships and other bits and bobs Iv forgotenabout.glidernut

[Guest R_Driscoll]

See my comments on the previous post on the same topic.The models can be remapped to the correct palette. I remapped many of the models from Seattle to San Fran palette some time ago and put them on AVSIM. Just copy them to the UK-SouthGEN directory and you will eliminate the need to keep the Seattle directory unless you want to FLY there! In general, it is easy to convert the models required to the correct palette so that we don't need the SeattleGEN at all (for example using FIXMIP) - a bit of understanding of the folder structures used is all that is required.RobD.

[Guest glidernut]

To RobD, you rote,>But to the current problem, the best solution would be to re-release >GliderNut's package remipped into the correct palette.>If John has no objections, I would be happy to do this for him, and>then no-one could complain about having to keep the Seattle directory!I hav no objections. I would be happy what ever you do.But I dont think its nesesery to re-release the package for the fuweextra models that only a fuwe peopl carnt see.Theres so fuwe models Peopl would not notes the diferans.Im sory I carnt get on with FIXMIP and Mr DOS hates me. To Cristian, you rote,>I think the best solution, would be that every package developers includes >all the needed models with the package. So, there's no need to have the Seattle >folder, or to download other packages... Not everyone has installed every >available add-on package...You dont know what you ask. Its resanabl to ask package developers to includ models thy hav made or altred insum way. But its not practicabl to includ models that peopl may or may not hav.It takes me longer to find the bin & mip fils for one model than it dus to do a hole package.This is bicous the bin & mip fils for one model are not named the same,and you dont know how meny bin & mip fils there are for that one model.I tel you its a nightmear in the GEN folders.if the odd person carnt see the odd model, then so be it. its not important.It would be good if all the models in FU3 was dun in bothe palets, but I carntdo one, let alown hundreds.john :-wave

[Guest R_Driscoll]

I was very careful to list all models I used in the big airport sceneries, and then provide every single one of those models in the correct palettes for the release package. As a result, the release packages were completely stand-alone but were much larger than they would have been if I could have assumed people already had the models. The scenery packages themselves were only about 100k, the models were about 5000k. The effort took me a whole evening and I made a mistake with Glidernut's hangar (to my immense disappointment!), despite checking and rechecking. I can't justify doing this for all scenery packages, and certainly not everyone will be able to list all objects used and find the required parts (as Glidernut says). The reason why I did a mass conversion of the Seattle objects to SanFran palette and put it on AVSIM was to avoid this need to include every model with every package.For myself, I will try and include every model used in every package released, at least for the big airports which use large numbers of new objects.I will also try to upload conversions of models between the palettes and keep these up-to-date, but that exercise will have to wait until I finish Stansted - Cristian will hunt me down otherwise. In that way, the user has the choice of which way to maintain his scenery model collection - Bogdan's method of linking directories, or a single directory with all models for each scenery.There is a third option, which is to recompile MODELMIP.TAG to include the new scenery models. This option would save space, make directories look neat, ensure everyone has the same models and allow better maintenance as new models become available. All models would be available in all sceneries. New models could still be developed, and added to the GEN directories as they are now.The downside is that the TAG files would be a bit larger than the planes for downloading.If there is interest in going this direction, I would be happy to do this, possibly using the Flight Unlimited site and Bogdan's site as the repository for the four MODELMIP.TAG files that you would need - Seattle, SanFran and UK-South, for both day and night.But for most people, I agree with Glidernut that I don't think you can expect all models used to be included in all packages released. It is too difficult for the package developer and very repetitious.RobD.

[Guest glidernut]

RobD.Every one will hunt you down if you dont finish Stansted ferst.Not only that but me and Cristian would also cum under fier for keeping you awy from Stansted.So to save ouwer lives, get on with Stansted.In the meen time the rest of us can get up to date with your latest modelsfor Sanfran, and put them all in UK-South.Inclooding me, Im sory to say I forgot to do it as well.glidernut:-wave