Plane Pack 5.4 Opinions Please!

FSIC Messageboard

SDOE General

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Plane Pack 5.4 Opinions Please!
Condor Pilot	posted 09-29- 09:54 AM Hi all, Sdoe is designed to use "data.par" files to contain the aircraft information. Sdoe can also use the aircraft directory to overide the par files with newer plane information and updates. Should the next plane pack utilize the "par" file method or use the aircraft directories? The par files are intended to eliminate online mismatches among many other things. Using the aircraft directories can lead to online mismatches as people can easily make updates to these directories. If a mismatches did occur, couldn't you just take a minute and reinstall the latest plane pack? I really don't have a preference to use par files or the a/c directories, I was wondering what everyone else thought would be the pluses and minuses to each approach and which method they woiuld like better. I know using the a/c directories does allow the potential to make more frequent and smaller interim plane pack updates between larger packs which seem to occur once or twice a year. Condor out ------------------ IP: Logged
wakeup tailgunner Pilot	posted 09-29- 10:24 AM I prefer the concept NAt put forward for a website which contained only 'online standard' stuff. This would replace the planepack, and would get round the problem of ever increasing download size. Par files don't eliminate the compatability problem, only people taking care with their downloads can truly do that. If you put a plane into a directory, it will take priority over the parfile data anyway. The only certain way is to preserve you online standard install, and mess about with projects elsewhere. If someone moderated a Planepack website, with sections for terrain, planes, ground objects and general enhancements, we could post there the accepted versions that made up the online standard. Have regular voting sessions through the forum for new additons, and what ever the people accept as good enough and stable enough, gets added to the site. Hell, if I could get beyond the design a website with the free tools stage, I'd even look after the thing! ( if it would fit into free webspace that is!) IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 09-29- 10:29 AM IMHO it should be a hyrbid. PAR files get updated in a big effort once a year (almost like now ). Then after that, updates can be made from the web site. That way a new model doesnt grow stale while waiting for the next plane pack, but can still be part of the on line standard. Also in another thread, Mighty mentioned troubleshooting plane conflicts was easier with PAR files than individual files. This way you maintain a foundation to build on.... ------------------ Snickers =FC= [This message has been edited by Snickers (edited 09-29-2000).] IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 09-29- 10:32 AM "My 2 cents" ... I believe the original PARs should be left alone for the simple reason that they are the core elements of the game. Vast majority of the user-made aircraft reference (call upon) many of those original textures/pilots/sounds... etc. I do however agree that the remainder of the user-made additions should be installed and updated one a per "file/folder" update. There is frankly no reason to keep downloading crap that hasn't been touched in over a year! Obviously there will be one "initial" HUGE download to be sure and justify that everything is "same-same" with everyone. The advantage of this is that any future updates can be done on a much smaller scale or even selectively. The down side 1.) PAR files are slightly faster in loading textures. Nothing earth shattering but it's there non-the-less. 2.) Without PAR files one runs the risk of constantly blowing their "standarization" setup by over writing something with a beta or trial file. The advantage of the PAR is the "standaization" is frozen in those PARs can cannot be tainted. Well ... that's about it. IP: Logged
nealg Pilot	posted 09-29- 11:36 AM Personal only; I prefer the par files and a self installer, as a user. It makes it so much simpler. Zip files and using the media/aircraft directory are ok, but really may involve more time consumption. Why? Because when one gets a addition ready, after working tirelessly on it for days and weeks with everyone salivating for it, sometimes you try to finish it and zip it and upload it when you are so tired you might not even be able to lift a Dorito to eat it. You do a quick readme that a PhD in Ancient languages could not translate, and wham! there goes the user's install and he/she are left trying to figure out what went wrong. Obviously, if the user takes the time to research the zip file this can be avoided, but we know many don't...it says Unzip to your FS directory, so you do...when what was meant was unzip to your fs/media directory..or vice versa. I always unzip to a temp directory first and examine the structure, plus I am familiar with where everything should go by now...but not everyone is. If a way can be worked around that, or we all can carry 2 installs, then I think I would prefer the aircraft directory approach for online standard updates, and the Par files for the main pack. ------------------ nealg=FC= IP: Logged
Razer Pilot	posted 09-29- 12:17 PM Just thought i'd point out that the par files have bugs in them. (they have been fixed in the MH Betas and the R/C Sim but not in SDOE) which cause some files to not show up. I suggest that you leave 5.3 in the par files and make 5.4 go in the folders. you can make one large zip for 5.4 or RA the files to make a bunch of 1.4 meg files that you can combine to get the full zip. it will help out the modem people. ------------------ Tony "Razer" Martin "Making SDOE a dangerous Place, One plane at a time!" FS Hangar IP: Logged
Sv Pilot	posted 09-29- 12:42 PM Par files/Installers and multiple installs of Fighter Squadron for those how want to try betas. ------------------ -Sv =FC= WWI in SDOE! IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 09-29- 01:40 PM Whoever maintains this beast, would need to make things install easily/correctly before posting.... (of course, that doesnt assure that it will on everyine elses machine... ------------------ Snickers =FC= IP: Logged
Laika 801 Pilot	posted 09-29- 02:29 PM quote: There is frankly no reason to keep downloading crap that hasn't been touched in over a year! Woho I would prefer the folder thingy, its easier to find out what new tricks the builders use LK IP: Logged
Aui Pilot	posted 09-29- 02:32 PM Plain Zip-files. IP: Logged
Rendsburger Pilot	posted 09-29- 03:21 PM Now i write it once again. I want NO par. file. And i have one reason. If i installed planpacks i have no or a wrong text description of the new planes in game,because only US user can read this information. I have German Language installed,and the french/italy and what else user have also the same problem. If the planes are in an extra aircraft folder installed,i can edit the text description of the planes in my own language,but with parfile i have no chance to do the same! So have a look over your borders and please use aircraft folders.It�s also easy to upgread or remove planes! Greetings from Germany,Rendsburger IP: Logged
Whirlwind Pilot	posted 09-29- 03:32 PM What?!?!?! Not everyone speaks English??? Just kidding... actually, that is a good idea as we were facing a par file shortage. That and if you released a plane or set of planes that needed x,y,z to work and a higher numberd par file changed what x,y,z refered to, FUBAR. IP: Logged
Nat Pilot	posted 09-29- 03:44 PM there really absolutely no difference in mismatches when it comes to using par file or directly installed aircraft, and the reason for this is simple.. if you download and install a Beta it will override the parfile causing a mismatch, if you have directory arircraft and then download and install a beta it will ovre write it causing a mismatch.. ergo same problem. What actually causes mismatches therefore is people messing with things they don't understand, and as you see, par file or directory aircraft the result is the same, if people want to tinker then the eay way is a seperate install of SDOE, but isn't this what we recommend now in anycase? I see the advantages to parfiles at this moment, but I look forward aswell and see no real future in them, unless ofcourse we get patched allowing more parfiles, but I don't fully understand that comncept yet and think it will cause problems in anycase. A website even without a microsoft style installer is still imo the best idea, as was said by TailGunner, a website maintained as Online Standard downloads is the best idea with downloadable Zips that install the aircraft to a directory, as he states, this will allow for rolling updates to the standard, will allow individual aircraft downloads for those that don't especially play onlime, but also have the option to download the complete online standard in one go, keeping everybody happy. So, my vote is for directory aircraft not par files, in a years time i don' want to be downloading a 50+mb parfile ofwhich 30 aircraft haven't changed since the last download, so only 5 aircraft are new. ~Nat~ IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 09-29- 03:54 PM Rendsberger, If you download an update for online standard and it extracts to your aircraft folder, you will overwrite your existing loadout file (that could represent a significant loss of your own work). Thereby losing your translations. In a parfile your custom loadout won't get overwritten. If you want to edit the loadout you can extract it out using the parfile tools set and make the changes you want. SDOE checks loadouts for compatibility. I believe if you change the loadout to include translations this will cause online conflicts (it certainly does for weapon changes). If you have translations available for the planes. I would appreciate receiving them. They can then be incorporated into the online standard for everyone. IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 09-29- 03:56 PM PS My preference is par files. IP: Logged
Razer Pilot	posted 09-29- 04:00 PM For the record, i have 3 installs of SDOE. Online Standard, Beta's, And a install for me to test any planes i'm working on or helping out on (sort of an FS Tester Install). That way i don't have to worry about installing it and screwing up anything i'm working on. ------------------ Tony "Razer" Martin "Making SDOE a dangerous Place, One plane at a time!" FS Hangar [This message has been edited by Razer (edited 09-29-2000).] IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 09-29- 04:38 PM I personally would like an individual installer that doesnt use the par files. Make it sooo much easier to edit the aircraft. For the record I have one install of SDOE. I install the planes I get and then decide what stays and what goes and what needs fixing. IP: Logged
Werner Molders Pilot	posted 09-29- 09:47 PM Plane Pack 5.4 Opinions? Call it 6.0 I think enough has been contributed to warrant it getting a new number. My .02 anyways... Werner ------------------ Visit Abbeville Field Today! IP: Logged
Mirthain Pilot	posted 09-29- 09:52 PM Par files were used in the first place to make the online standard just that... a standard, if you want to test and play with your A/C, then you can by placing the .sm files into the aircraft folders.... but then you will mismatch, how do you get back? Rename the folder with the .sm files in it, and viola, you are back to the online standard. That is the glory of parfiles. using the folder install makes it impossible to return to the original unless you backed up the folder in the first place. I say do the par files, then do the updates as folder updates. This will allow us to still update, but have a base standard that is easy for us to use. Mirthain=FC= IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center