library objects

[Tasmanet]

What is the trick with some library objects that dont appear
at the co-ordinates I set.

It has been claimed on many posts that they are "LOCKED TO
A LOCATION".

I think they are offset to some co-ordinate.

By that I mean that the "Leaning tower of Pisa" is offset to Rome
so when I put my co ordinates in for Orlando Florida the
Leaning tower of Pisa is hundreds of Kilometers to the North.

Just a theory

Thanks in advance
Tas

 

[arno]

Hi Tas,

No, I am pretty sure that they do not have an offset. It has been verified on the AvSim scenery design forum that you can actually lock your own scenery objects as well. By creating the library in a different way they could be unlocked again and that all worked without changing the position. So I am pretty sure it is no offset.

 

[Tasmanet]

Mmmmmmm

Thanks

Had a quick look at AVSIM and you are being modest again.
Still not sure why they did it, or what is to be gained
by locking library objects.

Something to do with backwards compatability. ???
Just being nice to the guys at FS

Tas

 

[archtx]

NewBGLAnalyze will extract the model so it can be moved. There has been some debate as to whether this is in accordance with Microsoft's wishes. It is curious why they chose to lock certain objects geographically, such as some very generic terminals and hangars.

 

[Tasmanet]

BGLAnalyze will extract the model so it can be moved. There has been some debate as to whether this is in accordance with Microsoft's wishes

Now is their chance to let us know.

 

[arno]

Hi Tas,

Still not sure why they did it, or what is to be gained by locking library objects.

That is a good question indeed. I think only MS can answer that one . It does not harm to limit the leaning tower of Pisa to Italy only, but I don't really see the logic behind it as well. Maybe it is to increase the performance (as less objects have to be scanned when finding the object that matches a GUID).

 

[arno]

NewBGLAnalyze will extract the model so it can be moved. There has been some debate as to whether this is in accordance with Microsoft's wishes. It is curious why they chose to lock certain objects geographically, such as some very generic terminals and hangars.

Yes, extracting them and then creating a new library (without any object placement in the same XML file) does indeed remove the geo-locking. But personally I think it is not "right" to redistribute objects that came from default libraries like this. So IMHO you could use this at home, but using it in a scenery you want to distribute is not a good idea.

 

[archtx]

I mostly agree with you Arno. If MS wants the golden gate bridge "locked" to San Francisco, then scenery files should not be distributed with the golden gate crossing the Panama Canal. However, "generic" terminals that are locked to South America, I have no problem relocating to North America. It's a sticky question where to draw the line....and it certainly would be helpful if we knew MS's reasons for locking them in the first place.

 

[arno]

I do fully agree on that. I don't see the reason why generic terminal buildings are locked as well. Most likely you will always be able to find terminal that are locked for your area as well, but in this case I do not see the need of it.