MAIW File Size Upload Limits

[gsnde]

Version 3.12?

Coming with a whooping amount of approximately 50 3½" floppy disks. The thing that drove me crazy was the installation:

(after a long time of disk shuffling)...insert disk 23...insert disk 22...insert disk 23...insert disk 22...

The installer was always reading some bytes and then needed to have something from the former disk for whatever reasons.

Exciting times

[Firebird]

My first introduction to anything computerised was the Phantom sims at Coningsby.
The visuals were a massive miniature model of the CGY local area hung up a wall and the code was loaded in from a Memorex C45 cassette tape.
Technology at its finest!

[TimC340]

I note Tom (tag21) has now uploaded a whole bunch of mostly fictional depictions of real airfields to MAIW.

While Tom is obviously talented at writing the blurb, the authoritative nature of the text leads one to expect that the download is an accurate depiction of the subject presented. In every case, this is not so. Do we not quality control the downloads at MAIW?

Terry Boissel and Alf Denham both produced reams of WW2 RAF airfields (all available at FlightSim/Avsim). Where the layout was speculative or incomplete, they were at pains to point out that the depiction was inaccurate and merely served to show the general layout and 'atmosphere' of the true location. In fact, most were pretty close to reality and could be overlaid on Google Maps to verify the general layout.

Ian Person and Ian Elliott have covered a whole load more WW2 airfields, in great detail in some cases, including almost all of those that Tom has recently produced. Tom's latest, Thorney Island, was covered by me in John Young's Andover package, and by Brian Clarke some years ago. It was also produced by Trevor Clark, and his is available at FlyAway. Like most contributors here, I go to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of what I produce and I stand by their veracity - accepting that there are limitations when generic libraries - particularly the ubiquitous Ted Andrews buildings - are used to represent real structures.

Most of Tom's airfields show little relationship to the subjects covered and really are simply placeholders to provide an operable airport at the location of a real-world WW2 facility. As an example, compare his dramatic but entirely fictional depictions of RAF Hornchurch with the real airfield:

Tom's Hornchurch





Ian P's Horncurch:



The real thing:



Tom's Thorney Island, on the other hand, appears to be a rebuild of Trevor Clark's Thorney using an SBX-generated modern photoreal background and some randomly-placed MAIW buildings and a lot of extra trees.

Tom's Thorney (note ATC placed on the main apron, for example):



Tom's AFCAD:



Brian's Thorney (accurate for the 1990s as an Army base, but not really representative of the 1970s or 1940s):



Brian's AFCAD:



Trevor's Thorney:



Trevor's AFCAD:



My Thorney, built as it was in 1975 with many of my own buildings (as well as a fair few Ted Andrews' creations) and on a completely new AFCAD - and available here at MAIW:





My AFCAD:



As I stated earlier in the thread, I have no problem with fictional airfields but I think it must be clear in the description that the scenery presented is not intended as an accurate depiction. Where someone else's scenery has been modified (hopefully with their permission) credit should be given to the original author.

Tom's sceneries also include AI aircraft produced by creators here at MAIW. Were they asked about their models' inclusion?

[gsnde]

Tim, I see your very valid points and appreciate them.

As for your question regarding quality control the answer is that right now we don't have that. We had that when MAIW did our own packages in the past.

I do the release management solo, and see to it that the releases follow our naming convention. That means that I have to edit 98% of all releases.

I also download and check the content if it is not made clear for what AI model a repaint or flight plans is meant to be.

But I cannot check sceneries in the sim and compare them to other sceneries or the real thing.

That is not to say that your point is not valid. I just don't have a solution at hand and would like to hear ideas from the other team members how we can deal with that.


From mobile hence short

[John Young]

I see that Tom has included my Hurricane, Spitfire, Lancaster and B-24 in some of his packages and acknowledge that in his readme. I've just e-mailed him to ask about the permission to do that. I don't recall giving it, but I may be wrong. I would normally suggest only a link to the files be provided.

John

[gsnde]

I fear I have never seen the upload package page, only the admin area. I don't even know how to do that.

Is on the upload page a header that lists our requirements for packages that we host?

From mobile hence short

[TimC340]

Hi Martin

yes, I think I understand the limitations you're working under! I was aware that there was an effective QA operation when MAIW produced its own packages. I think the question now is whether we want to be just another download site (with a military bent) or whether we hold ourselves to higher standards - and, if so, how?

For now I guess the best we can do is have a few trusted people to download new packages and just give them a once-over to ensure that they are what they say they are, and they don't breach our self-imposed standards of integrity. In this case, I think Tom's enthusiasm has got the better of him somewhat and I don't think he's fully 'bought in' to the MAIW ethos. I'm aware he is, like Steve and I, ex-RAF and he obviously has great love for the service and its history, but I think he's adopted other people's work slightly too enthusiastically! I also don't think his fictional representations of real and historic airfields does MAIW any favours as a reliable site to download representations of real-world military sceneries and aircraft - especially when many of his subjects have already been covered.

[PB68]

Tim and Martin,

I am kind of glad this has come to light because we really do need to know how to move forwards on Scenery Packages, predominantly for inclusion within the MSFS environment.

You won’t have seen this Tim, but Martin you might have as it is posted in the MAIW Developer Area.
I firmly believe that when the situation is right ( proper implementation of the AI system ), obviously it is not right at the moment, but when it is, initially ( to keep the workload to a minimum) Scenery should be converted from an FSX/P3D Package already certified for release by MAIW. To give you an example, here is what I posted previously in the Developer Area -

Hi All,

Ok, just to show you a little more about what I am currently able to do, once the FSX Scenery of Bentwaters is loaded.

This is a Topdown view of the base.



This is a Topdown view of the base with the MSFS SDK Dev tools open, with the Samples / Simple Airport Template* loaded and open too.



As you can see John, the AFCAD aligns very well. It doesn't matter too much because where areas of the AFCAD are misaligned or even missing, corrections can be made using the on-screen developer tools as shown below. Further more, more advanced material types can also be used which means that the scope for improving the look of the ground hard surfaces, is only a few clicks away !



Still with the MSFS SDK Dev tools open, but with the Samples / Simple Scenery Template* loaded and open, I can manipulate the position of the FSX models ( this is something I wasn’t expecting to have the ability to do ! ) however I want.

As you can see in the image below, the HAS Shelter mdl. is slightly out of alignment with the ground image,



Using the MSFS SDK Dev tools I am quickly able to correct this as shown below. All amendments are saved when the scenery is rebuilt and a new BGL file generated. ( From a retro perspective, this is all mind-blowing stuff !! )



* I will give further information about what is required to be placed in these Templates in due course.

As you can see, the possibilities really are endless with this discovery. If you were to spend time at it, you could reproduce one of our previous generation Airfields and bring it right up to MSFS Standards. The FSX scenery models when done well, do stand up to the test of time and look really good at both Bentwaters and Woodbridge.


I guess as long as the correct permissions are sought, this really does provide us with another Scenery option, for Inclusion within MSFS.

Regards,

Pete.

[gsnde]

I see that Tom has included my Hurricane, Spitfire, Lancaster and B-24 in some of his packages and acknowledge that in his readme. I've just e-mailed him to ask about the permission to do that. I don't recall giving it, but I may be wrong. I would normally suggest only a link to the files be provided.

John

You tell me, John, if I need to remove something.


Send from mobile hence short

[John Young]

I have had a friendly response from Tom and I need to discuss this with you (Martin) and Tim. I'm just going to put something together and I'll PM it a bit later.

John

[TimC340]

Pete, that's very interesting! As you say at the end, it'll depend on what permissions we have and how we interpret them but I might have a go with some of my own stuff in MSFS and see how I get on. I'm - yet again - persevering with a Udemy course to try and get my head round Blender so that I might start creating scenery in that software (SketchUp Make 2017, my preferred software is becoming annoying now Trimble have disabled its ability to incorporate extensions, and I'm not paying for the Pro software!).

As for Tom's stuff, I have seen his MSFS creations on flightsim.to (see here) and I know that accuracy and fidelity is not really his thing. That's fine; it's not up to me to impose minimum accuracy standards on other creators. However, I do think MAIW should offer accurate representations of real-world places as much as possible and, where accuracy isn't offered or isn't possible, to clearly state the limitations of the scenery. And, obviously with Thorney, I'm concerned that someone else's work has been adapted and offered as an original creation. That's not on.

[Firebird]

Purely on the subject of his scenery I do think that a category on the upload form such as 'real interpretation' or 'fantasy interpretation' of a scenery would be a good idea.
It wouldn't of course stop such things but it would at least make the author think about it.

Now whether martin has the experience/tools to make this change is another thing. It maybe that it is something that we can only address once we have control of the website and update it.

[gsnde]

Now whether martin has the experience/tools to make this change is another thing. It maybe that it is something that we can only address once we have control of the website and update it.

Martin knows how to do that

But is it as easy as putting everything from Tom into the 'fantasy interpretation' section - once the details of included things are clarified - and leave everything else in 'real interpretation'?

[TimC340]

I have done a couple of airfields myself which go down the 'what if' line - I did Wethersfield as the base for a joint US/UK rapid deployment force as it might have been in the late 1990s. It was a real-world proposal that never got taken up, but it was fun to see what it might have looked like. I wouldn't share it here as that isn't how I see MAIW, but if there was a 'fantasy' section I just might!

[gsnde]

Tim and Martin,

I am kind of glad this has come to light because we really do need to know how to move forwards on Scenery Packages, predominantly for inclusion within the MSFS environment.

You won’t have seen this Tim, but Martin you might have as it is posted in the MAIW Developer Area.
I firmly believe that when the situation is right ( proper implementation of the AI system ), obviously it is not right at the moment, but when it is, initially ( to keep the workload to a minimum) Scenery should be converted from an FSX/P3D Package already certified for release by MAIW. To give you an example, here is what I posted previously in the Developer Area -

I just read through the AIG forum and noticed this post:

MSFS conversion list

Pete, I was under the impression that AI conversion to MSFS is still in experimental state and not yet a „smooth“ process like to FSX or P3D. But that is obviously not the case, right?


Send from mobile hence short

[Firebird]

Now whether martin has the experience/tools to make this change is another thing. It maybe that it is something that we can only address once we have control of the website and update it.

Martin knows how to do that

But is it as easy as putting everything from Tom into the 'fantasy interpretation' section - once the details of included things are clarified - and leave everything else in 'real interpretation'?

If there is any concern over the mdl inclusions in his scenery then I have no issue with leaving his work in a completely separate folder until a resolution is found.
I was addressing the wider issue of fantasy/what if packs. If we allow them then I agree that they should be clearly marked as such so as not to confuse the membership.

For example, people may like to download Tim's what if packs. I also remember that we host a what if pack from Mike Pearson that includes the Mirage IVK. We didn't get any complaints over that.

I am thinking that we should allow 'fantasy' stuff, but maybe the line is stuff that was investigated/planned/cancelled is OK but pure fiction is not.
An example of this, a pilot on one of my squadrons - who is very well known - did some trials in the F-15B when looking at the Phantom replacement and also AAR trials using a KC-10 for a new tanker. Both of these would fit in my criteria, but SU-27s for the RAF would not.

[TimC340]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, UKMil did some fictional airfields - Northumbria and Orkney were complete fantasy, and Carnaby was a fictional extrapolation of how the airfield may have developed post-war. They were credible and well-detailed settings that showed off the exceptional skills in the UKMil team, both in scenery and AI, and had a justifiable place in their portfolio.

There are several scenarios I can imagine which would be fun to tackle and present for MAIW's consumers - proposed airfields that weren't actually built (there were many in WW2 UK), developments of existing airfields that never happened (RAF Hemswell for the TSR2, for example), and completely fictional airfields that display some aspect of military aviation or flight sim construction not easily illustrated any other way. I think the important criterion is that the product is credible; it could have been real and it's presented as though it was real. My extrapolation of Wethersfield is somewhere between the second and third categories; the joint UK/US Rapid Deployment Force was a concept promoted in some Defence papers, but never got as far (AFAIK) as a firm proposal with a defined location. From my PoV, it gave an excuse to collect together a load of aircraft that might not normally be seen together and an airfield that was local to me, I had flown from, and I was disappointed to see being neglected IRL.