FSXA general correction libraries question

#1
Scenario:

While using the BGLSCAN utility I found huge number of library objects that is duplicated in more then one library file. Again OZx where there were for example eg 20 developers and each have his library, often duplicating models in more then one library file.

So I want to clean up the libraries.

Say I have 1000 library models. As part of cleanup of libraries, do I create
-ONE huge library file containing all models
-10 library files with 100 models each.
-100 library files with 10 models each.

What will the impact be on FSX when I just add them to ONE huge library. Obviously this will be the easiest to ensure there is no duplicates.

Any suggestions

regards
JB
 

hcornea

Resource contributor
#2
I don't know that there is any performance difference either way.

Clustering into files is usually for organisational purposes only.

Assuming you don't exceed the 2Gb filesize limit (unlikely) I would imagine a single library for your own use would work fine.

I suspect the model properties will be altered by decompiling and recompiling however, and this will most likely produce some unwanted artefacts.
 

arno

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#3
Hi,

Like Ian said I am not aware of performance preferences for this. I would organize them in libraries in a logic way. So group objects that are only used in a specific scenery or group them thematically. That makes it easier to mange later on.
 

hcornea

Resource contributor
#5
You have to remember Jeroen, that I know more about what is in those libraries than most.

You will have to take me at my word.

Some things will break, but you may not notice them, which is fine.

I could tell you what they are .... but I'm too busy rolling on the floor.

:rolleyes:
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#6
Plus I would not dare to mention that decompling and recompiling libraries could break the developers copyright; and that in the future these objects are likely to re-appear in other libraries at other times and that once started this will be a never ending task :)
 

hcornea

Resource contributor
#7
That very last point is very valid ... although I suspect further OZx development will be additive, given a total change in the development team.
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#8
It also just occurred to me that many developers list those 3PD libraries that their scenery needs. Compilation libraries would lose the identity of objects and their respective libraries so they would almost certainly need to be downloaded and then duplication cleaned up again.

Anyway this is drifting off the topic and if the OP is happy with things that is just fine :)
 
#9
Plus I would not dare to mention that decompling and recompiling libraries could break the developers copyright; and that in the future these objects are likely to re-appear in other libraries at other times and that once started this will be a never ending task :)
I fully agree but when I clean up this on my machine only then I cannot see any copyright breached.

I am NOT a developer, have never distributed scenery ever and dont intend to start doing so ever. There are just too many skilled people around and fact is I know when I suck at something, so scenery developers can relax. i have no intention to ever get involved in this

this is purely to satisfy myself, knowing that my machine is clean and in properly in order and FSX work as it intend to work.
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#10
Nothing I said was intended as a criticism :) If it came across that way then please accept my apologies.

As for copyright some developers terms may not allow permission to decompile their libraries. That would probably apply on your computer even if you did not intend to distribute anything. However since I am not a lawyer and hate threads that get into armchair lawyering I am just shooting the breeze

I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment on third party libraries. I wasn't referring to you distributing them but the situation where you might download some other scenery from another developer that uses libraries containing objects that you have already. Again that is not really a problem since I guess you would go through and repeat your cleanup....
 
Last edited:
#11
You have to remember Jeroen, that I know more about what is in those libraries than most.

:rolleyes:
Just to set the record straight, my name is definitely NOT Jeroen. :eek:

dont know where you get your information from, but it is totally wrong :p

Most people here who I have worked with, eg Arno, Jon, Tom Aguilo, Mr Bill, Doug Dawson etc will know that I go by the name "Johan" from correspondence with them on various subjects, and I live just across the pond in South Africa.

Just to get the facts straight for future reference as I am sure you would not like to be called by a name you don't want to be associated with (Not that I have anything against Jeroen, whoever he may be).
 
#12
Nothing I said was intended as a criticism :) If it came across that way then please accept my apologies.

....
Not seen at all as criticism. I always appreciated being corrected. I never thought about "decompiling" as a breach of UELA as I always just seen it, that I can do whatever I want with software on my private machine where I have downloaded such software. Nice to sometimes also get some objective info.

So yeah this is food for thought.
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#13
I can do whatever I want with software on my private machine where I have downloaded such software
Weelll.....I would not be too sure about that. If you were to reverse engineer ADE for example a large red hand would emerge from the display and grab you by the throat.....;) :p :D
 
#14
Weelll.....I would not be too sure about that. If you were to reverse engineer ADE for example a large red hand would emerge from the display and grab you by the throat.....;) :p :D
LOL...!! yeah yeah that would be funny..!!

as said you did put another spin on it for me and I actually decided to leave he libraries as they were.
 

hcornea

Resource contributor
#15
My apologies Johan.

Must have confused you with someone else.

Decompiling or Reverse engineering is often a breach of the EULA of downloaded software.
In the case of OZx, I don't think there will be any problem if you are not distributing the bgl files.
In the case of other software, it is probably reasonable to assume that if you keep it to yourself, no-one would be likely to pursue the matter. That is different to it being permitted, of course.
 
Last edited:
#16
My apologies Johan.

Must have confused you with someone else.

Decompiling or Reverse engineering is often a breach of the EULA of downloaded software.
In the case of OZx, I don't think there will be any problem if you are not distributing the bgl files.
In the case of other software, it is probably reasonable to assume that if you keep it to yourself, no-one would be likely to pursue the matter. That is different to it being permitted, of course.
no problem Ian.

As i said Jon did put it in another perspective to make me re-think the process.

That is what is so great about these forums. Every day you learn something new or pick up some life lessons along the way.
 
Top