So, the issue Iām speaking of will occur, as has been noted, when people start including liveries for planes that are created by other authors, who will put their name in the ui_createdby, and a new plane will be created because itās a different author, even though itās expected that livery is a variant of an existing plane. I download a lot of liveries. Of course the workaround is to force all liveries to have the ui_createdby be the original author, but, then, where does the credit for the livery go? Yes, it can go in the manifest, but, traditionally it goes in ui_createdby. So, there is that, at least credit can be where credit is due in the My Library listing, as long as it lists the manifest info.
Also, very few of the planes I installed in 2020 had the correct icao_model. So thereās going to be a very varied experience of what planes are called. Granted, in my ācorrectingā the icao_model callout in the aircraft I installed, I realize I likely am breaking model matching. But, I figure that will correct itself in the future, especially as AI aircraft are created and used for model matching. Not to mention even the icao_model field is pretty varied in its layout and structure. So, my OCD is freaking out because I like consistency. Iāve spent my whole life learning about which plane was which by memorizing the manufacturer and type, and now thatās pretty much gone away, and Iām going to think of the sim planes by their authors instead, since itās only the icao_model, which isnāt very consistent in how it names planes. And, not to mention, not all planes have an official icao_model.
Weāll see. I understand the issue with mixing planes by different vendors, as I currently have P-40ās from 3 different authors, P-40B by Big Radials, P-40F by Inibuilds, and P-40N by Flight Replicas, but, theyāre automatically separated because they are different ui_types, and itās rare I buy the same model of aircraft by different vendors. Of course that falls apart with the P-51D, where I have the Aeroplane Heaven P-51D and the Reno P-51ās. But that was handled because the Reno planes were all separate anyway by owner, and some by ui_type. Texans will be a big problem, too, as I will eventually own multiple versions of that when it comes out.
What I liked about using ui_manufacturer, ui_type, ui_variation, and ui_typerole was it allowed me to sort my library the way I wanted, without affecting model matching (which I understand uses the icao_model and other fields). Now Iām stuck with the icao designation
Another point is, I used to be able to order my variants and put my favorites at the front of the list of variations. Now weāve lost that because you, correctly by programming convention I do understand btw, decided to no longer honor the [flightsim.xxx] sorting. But, that was a nice little back door I would use to make sure my favorite variant(s) was always first for all planes.
Anyway, it always annoyed me that authors would take credit for being the manufacturer of a plane, and now thatās coded into the sim, and Iām going to have to deal with finding the plane I want in a very disorganized fashion from the way I think about planes.
Iām sure youāre aware of the issue that the sim is mixing planes into other planes, especially the Carenado planes, likely because they didnāt originally include the icao_model in their aircraft.cfg correctly? I donāt know.
As you noted, these are all my own opinions. I admit I freaked out when I saw all these changes and understood the ramifications of the choices. Maybe it wonāt be as bad as Iām thinking. But, my experience with maintaining aircraft.cfgās to this point has me very scared of what itās going to be like. Iām still waiting for my Aerosoft Limited Collection edition I ordered in September. So, when I finally get to install the sim, Iāll let you know more about how I feel about this when I use the sim a bit and get a handle on how Iām going to keep my library organized in a fashion that makes sense to me. In the meatime, carry on. Itās just me ranting. Sorry itās so long, thereās a lot to unpack here and a lot of reasons this stuff is important to me. This is just one small issue. Itās a variety of issues.
EDIT: Please note, Iām basing this all on conjecture based on the fact you said itās using ONLY icao_model and ui_createdby to do sorting. From what Iāve seen the interface is ignoring sorting by ui_manufacturer, ui_type, ui_variant (except within a particular ui_createdby and icao_model, when those are properly filled in, which in the past has not always been the case), as well as you did not mention that it would be sorting on icao_manufacturer or icao_typedesignator. Also please note that we think of planes colloquially as well. icao_manufacturer=BEECH, is well, Iād prefer Beechcraft. So, in the past using ui_manufacturer as the sort key allowed me to control how to name it, and leave icao_manufacturer what itās supposed to be for your programming purposes.
And, note, I also realize that by my renaming planes on how theyāre sorted, it might screw up how those planes are used in careers and missions. Point there being, it would be really great if the SDK showed exactly how all the fields are being used everywhere. For instance, whatās the performance= field used for?
When all is said and done, I never in a million years ever grouped the planes in my sim by who wrote them. Itās good information, and I appreciate their effort, but, I never considered it as a UI grouping feature.
Iām a livery and scenery creator by the way, from way back.
