Getting all the values correct for various configurations of airports is very
difficult. For instance, I’m building configurations appropriate for large GA
airport with Medium Twinjets and GA traffic (KBED and KACK), smaller GA
airports with usually some large jet traffic (i.e. Longitude in size) (KASH),
Smaller GA airport with some military traffic (KCON), and then small turf
fields out in the White mountains. Could somebody explain the reason why it is
now recommended that we compile these files to SPB vs using them in raw xml
format? Can I still develop them by modifying the xml file in the community
folder and reloading the airport? Currently I’m exiting and reloading, is
there another way to reload an airport from within Dev mode, and then exiting
Dev mode so i can get the traffic and all that? I have lots more questions,
but I’ll save those for other topics. Edit: I should add, I am so far creating
all freeware airports, and I’m unconcerned with other people using my work in
this area (in fact, I’d love to have it be an example of how it should be
done). Hence, I’m wondering if there’s a technical or other reason to release
it in spb format over xml (the telephone game affect would be a good answer).
SPB is a compressed binary representation of the XML file. It is faster to
read for MSFS.
Yes, I understand that, but, is there a problem with XML format Services and
LWC files? Does it no longer use them? Does it ignore them? I can’t imagine
once read that it takes up any more memory space once loaded, it should be the
same information? Most other files are text, so it doesn’t make sense to
require these to be SPB. So I’m wondering why they have deprecated the xml
format? The reason I ask is SPB is impossible to debug for myself or users. So
every time I want to make a change, I have to recompile my airport, rather
than making a simple change to the file. I’m having all sorts of problems
getting these files to do what I want, so I’d like to know that XML format is
still supported. Or am I wasting my time and Airport Services and LWC are not
finished yet and therefore don’t expect it to work? I’m not being derogatory
here, just asking. It not being finished is a perfectly acceptable answer and
I’ll spend my development time elsewhere. Otherwise, I’d like to be able to
figure out what I’m doing wrong as efficiently as possible.
BTW, as a developer who have created livingworld files and distributed them in
the community with payware product of AREX. You must understand that you can’t
configure for one or 2 airports. You will configure the ENTIRE region, so if
you are doing KBED or KACK, you will configure thousands of airports, for
example KJFK, KLAX, KORD, you name it all of them. So presenty configuring for
just one airport won’t work, therefore you will configure the entire region.
So probably you are wasting your time considering your file will come into
conflict with thousands of airports. And products such as ours will become
incompatible with those users who have them. Have had these issues in the past
months, have had developers remove them.
So, I asked that question in a different thread, and it’s a 100% different
subject than what I asked in this thread, but, thank you for responding. They
describe two methods of creating LWC and AS files in the SDK, in one, you
place them in shared, and it’s supposed to affect the whole world. In the
other you create an Airport Services file in AirportServices\Services.xml and
LivingWorld_Config_LWcfg.xml But the SDK is unclear on what the difference is
1. Why have two methods of releasing files, if one isn’t meant to affect only
the airport it’s designed for? Certainly method two implies it’s only meant
for the local airport it was written for? 2. The SDK seems to imply that the
above method is local, and the shared method is meant to affect the world.
Quote from the SDK for Airport Services:
The Services.xml main file describes what services will be created at each airport (and mention the script files to use them), as well as the parameters controlling the position and frequency of creation of such services. A file in Shared will describe any airport that does not have a specific folder named after its ICAO code in any package.
Do you have it from an official source that local AS and LWC files can’t be
made? Your experience with people’s files interfering with yours may just be
due to formatting issues and poorly written files by the other users? I’ve
certainly seen lots of that. That’s why I asked the question in the other
thread. I’m sorry if my files are interfering with yours, but, I have to do
something about firetrucks and other vehicles I would never see at the
airports I fly into running around. I’m doing my best to do this in a non-
destructive manner, so it’s only in the airports I release, and would LOVE
to have some OFFICIAL word on the intention of these files and how to
accomplish what I want. The SDK is not clear on the subject. Is it going to
work appropriately some day, and but not yet?
Both XML and SPB files can be used.
Airport Services (Services.xml) can be both local and global. Living World
(LWcfg.xml) is global only.
Ok… that makes some sense. But, why is there a suggestion to create LWC
files as LivingWorld_Config_LWcfg.xml? Is this part of an old design that was
never implemented? Are there perhaps portions of a LWC file that can be local?
Is there a format for that, for areas smaller than a region? I’m not sure
where I read this? I can’t seem to find it in the SDK. But, I didn’t make it
up. If this is truly the case, that LivingWorld_Config files are region
specific, I’d like to ask for a new tag for the section, something like that
would limit the scope of affect of the given Living World Airport section to a
specific airport.
Where did you see that suggestion? I see ICAO code mentioned only in the
context of airport services. In living world sample, a company prefix is used
in naming, and it bears no meaning. The file replaces existing config
globally.
Oops, it looks like the comment that I was responding to has been deleted?
Basically they said Airport Services can be local, but Living World Config is
region only… Based on the structure of the file, this makes sense to me,
but, I’d love to see an option similar to what I suggested above be
implemented, then.
That’s very interesting to know, thank you! Just wondering: Wouldn’t it be
possible to set up a new region (something like MYREGION instead of the the
hard coded regions? In which case of course the same region code needs to be
assigned to a particular area using either a BGL or CGL and we need to have
the ability to do that. I haven’t exactly figured out the difference between
the regions.cgl and regions.bgl that come with MSFS yet. We can still view the
regions.bgl that comes with MSFS in P3D SDK’s tmfviewer. But creating a new
region assignment BGL for a particular area using the P3D SDK (in my case I
tried regions E and Z) didn’t have any effect at all in MSFS. So it seems that
only the CGL variant of the regions assignment is loaded and there doesn’t
seem to be a way yet to create region assignment CGL files.
On the old developers forum, the ability to define custom regions was hinted
about a year ago, maybe reposting it as an Idea might be worth it. Not being
able to control LW other than globally is really limiting: we made a small
airfield in France, which should be better suited for private cars, yet we
still get the big Passenger Bus on it…which is also another thing that
should be customizable by-airport.
Would be possible to know if the promised ability to specify Living World
ground vehicles by ICAO is still planned ? On the old dev forum, somebody from
Asobo (David Bonning, I think) suggested something like the ability to define
custom regions, which might cover one or more airports.