• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

Automatic SPC synthax updates?

Should scenProc automatically update the SPC file syntax?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
arno

arno

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
33,943
Country
netherlands
Hi all,

I'm working on some new scenProc features but these will result in changes of the SPC file syntax. For example the filters will be defined differently. For example:

Code: 
FTYPE=POLYGON;type=forest;type!pine

will become:

Code: 
FTYPE=POLYGON AND type=forest AND type<>pine

Also some steps will be renamed or get a different amount of attributes.

I have been thinking that I could add a feature that automatically tries to update the script to the new syntax when you load it. But since I probably can't guess the users intentions fully, this will not be a fool proof conversion.

So the question is, do you prefer a automatic conversion that works half or do you prefer to update it all manually?
 
this actually something that im not always happy its there,
when you have a working script; and want to test something; this is undesirable,
i may want to close and start over fresh; or completely change the logic i tested;
the auto save takes my safety net away this way; if i made a mistake or messed up the script;
it is now saved and i cant go back enough to starting point,

i learned to work around this (the hard way; losing saved work)
by working on a copy as a rule of thumb or i could stand to lose my stable script,

my :twocents:
 
ok i got confused by the title of this thread, (but the issue above still stands :) )

if auto syntax update is stable i don't see why not;
worst case scenario its less fixing manually the whole script!
 
Wow. This impact could dramatically impact my 100's of SPC files. Of course back in my mind is "Why the change?". If there must be a change in syntax I would give the option to try to update, maybe a way to temporally see the results (changes are in bold or highlighted in a different color), then theuser has the option to save with the changes. Of course I can always use and older version of scenPROC (I always keep a back up of the previous versions just in case something like this was coming down the road.
 
The changes are needed because else I can't implement new features. But that's why I started this thread to see how to roll them out.

You really have hundreds of spc files? I never imagined somebody would have so many.

My plan is to offer an upgrade when an old file is loaded. And then the developer can save it when he's happy.
 
Yea, believe it or not. But we create templates and through coding we are able to create the 100's (eventually 1,000's) of SPC files based on those. But we only have to change the templates which will in turn update the 100's). I know the updates have always been for the best interest of the developer in mind. And I am sure what you plan will benefit us greatly. What can I say, I am the typical simmer. I want change but I do not want to change! :p
 
Is an updated manual with the new syntax enough to update your templates or would a more detailed list of changes be useful?
 
If you can automatically convert that is preferable.

However, new functions are what we all want so I would choose manual if this means these can be implemented faster.
 
I would think that would be enough. Maybe a before/after screenshot to visually show the differences/updates.
 
arno said:
You really have hundreds of spc files? I never imagined somebody would have so many.
Click to expand...

yes we do! :)
you're work has impact this industry like no other tool set has, and scenProc is simply the king!

i myself also have hundreds if not over 1k of spc scripts, (NE France alone has almost 300 scripts!)
each feature with a slider in NEXM has at least 3-4 scripts with multiple object files behind it!
(a while back we brought up the possibility to end a script and start new instructions from within the script again if you recall;
that was to try and save time making a script per file output; and run them all from one script with each section starting over as a new script with output file :))

technically speaking its a basic search and replace function;
which is exactly what id do if i had to update my scripts;
open all scripts in Notepad++ and replace in all documents,
in this situation a per script check will do the same in second;

the only issue i can think of if this is automatically happening;
there could be issues with reapplying the updated syntax hitting partial word match,

in this case some signal might be needed to indicate the syntax was already updated on the script;
or a manual initiation of the syntax change function (if the change is so dramatic that manual editing is not efficient);

the more i think of it now manual may be the safest way to go; although a tick to automatically apply; should satisfy all critics :)
 
The last won't work, as scenproc will no longer so support the old syntax after the update. So old spc files will only run in old versions.

For those with so many scripts why not use the user variables and have only one script? That should reduce work when a feature has changed.
 
I just had an idea on how to implement the changes with less impact to existing scripts. Maybe the old ones will even keep working :)

And then the validation can show warnings about the changes that need to be made to use the latest standards.
 
another idea;
lets have scenProc v2 with the new capabilities with .sspc extension
leave scenProc v1 as is and phaseout support slowly,

technically speaking we can save the last build before the change and keep it available somewhere,
anyone still looking to work with the old schema can use it "unsupported"
(should already be working for existing scripts though)
 
The stable release 1.0 won't change for sure. It will only be in the development release. Maybe I should rename it to 2.0 due to the big changes.
 
in this scenario you don't even need to bother with syntax correcting; or even changing extensions,
native scenProc error checking will already alert something isn't correct in the syntax,
 
My vote (for what it's worth?) follows the same lines Chris mentions.

Having also 100's and 100's of spc files - if I hang on to earlier version(s) of scenProc (possibly deprecated but still functioning) and I'm therefore able to process those spc's, then I'm sound. In a way I've already done that and associated successful builds with scenProc versions to ensure I can replicate (overkill maybe but you never know).

As I see it, Arno, the more functionality you add for all of us, the better off we are. I'm assuming the new functionality, yes - Version 2 if you like, will only enhance all our work and the way (the many ways) we use the tool - so we'd need to be changing spc files anyway to take advantage of it. We wouldn't be doing the same-old, same-old I imagine.

Spending your time on the main functionality and the vision you have for scenProc capabilities, rather than utilities to make life easy and perform a partially automated transition is far more valuable. I only ever got a little benefit from "translator utilities" when switching between platforms or languages. They do their work and then, not trusting the results, I'd go in and double-check it all anyway!

[And, yes, the impact of scenProc has been immense. Please everyone, don't tell Arno. It's likely to make him start charging a fortune and earning the compensation he deserves :D]

And the vote? Manual please.
 
iangbusa said:
[It's likely to make him start charging a fortune and earning the compensation he deserves :D]
Click to expand...

i couldn't agree more!
who among us wouldn't support Arno commercially in scenProc v2?
(with update subscription designed to support continues developments)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top