User Library
- Thread starter GSG2k5
- Start date
Hi Gary,
I can't really tell you where to find them, you might want to look at the big FS sites and Stevo (for this forum) has also made a few libraries of cars etc.
But I can answer the question of how to load them into ObPlacer XML. You will need to have a XML source file that defines the library. Sometimes the designer has included his XML source, then you can use that. Else you might have to decompile the library BGL file to get a XML source file. The disadvantage of this, is that you loose the names of the objects, so it is harder to recognise the objects.
For future versions I hope to add a feature that can read the BGL files directly, I am now testing these techniques in MDL Tweaker II.
I can't really tell you where to find them, you might want to look at the big FS sites and Stevo (for this forum) has also made a few libraries of cars etc.
But I can answer the question of how to load them into ObPlacer XML. You will need to have a XML source file that defines the library. Sometimes the designer has included his XML source, then you can use that. Else you might have to decompile the library BGL file to get a XML source file. The disadvantage of this, is that you loose the names of the objects, so it is harder to recognise the objects.
For future versions I hope to add a feature that can read the BGL files directly, I am now testing these techniques in MDL Tweaker II.
Hi
I have indeed, Landrover, Ford Transit's and a vauxhall or Opel zafira and a bus in the Objects_01 Library. Search on Avsim for flightsim.com for my name
These where for either manual use or Rwy12, but the library file could be used with Object Placer, At least I think they can, I've never tried them.
Stephen Legg
AKA Stevo
I have indeed, Landrover, Ford Transit's and a vauxhall or Opel zafira and a bus in the Objects_01 Library. Search on Avsim for flightsim.com for my name
These where for either manual use or Rwy12, but the library file could be used with Object Placer, At least I think they can, I've never tried them.
Stephen Legg
AKA Stevo
Hi Stevo,
He does not need the MDL files. All ObPlacer XML needs is the XML file you used to compile the library, so that the objects can be displayed in the object tree.
If this information is not there in the library, then decompiling the BGL is the fastest way to get that GUIDs in the XML format. Of course we should not encourage this if people do harm to your origional package with that, but if the XML file is only used to be loaded in ObPlacer XML it should not be a very big problem I think.
For future versions I am going to try to load the BGL file directly in ObPlacer XML, but I am still testing that technique.
He does not need the MDL files. All ObPlacer XML needs is the XML file you used to compile the library, so that the objects can be displayed in the object tree.
If this information is not there in the library, then decompiling the BGL is the fastest way to get that GUIDs in the XML format. Of course we should not encourage this if people do harm to your origional package with that, but if the XML file is only used to be loaded in ObPlacer XML it should not be a very big problem I think.
For future versions I am going to try to load the BGL file directly in ObPlacer XML, but I am still testing that technique.
Hi Arno
Yes, I know, but unfortunately I don't have it any more, I only kept the MDLs and Gmax Files.
Don't get me wrong Arno, I'm more than happy for GSG2k5 to use the BGL, but I would rather be asked before people try/struggle to get it working in other ways. Just asking can make life so much easier. Plus if people where going to decompile, I would rather not know about it
I suppose it's just a natural reaction to protect your work.
GSG2k5 if you would like to use the MDL's, I can send you them via email.
Stevo
Yes, I know, but unfortunately I don't have it any more, I only kept the MDLs and Gmax Files.
Don't get me wrong Arno, I'm more than happy for GSG2k5 to use the BGL, but I would rather be asked before people try/struggle to get it working in other ways. Just asking can make life so much easier. Plus if people where going to decompile, I would rather not know about it
I suppose it's just a natural reaction to protect your work.GSG2k5 if you would like to use the MDL's, I can send you them via email.
Stevo
Hi Stevo,
OK, next time I will not encourage them to do so.
But my whole point is that he does not need your MDL files. If he used the MDL files, they would get a different GUID and you end up with two libraries that are the same but use different GUIDs. That is really bad.
And if a user only extracts the GUIDs from the BGL to be able to call these objects, I must say I personally do not see that as a threat to my work. He is not trying to use the objects different then you intended when you released the library. He only wants to know which GUIDs they have, so that they can be called. But this is just my opinion of course.
PS. You can better keep your library sources next time. If you decide to update your library, you don't want the GUIDs to change. So it is best to continue with the previous library source in that case.
OK, next time I will not encourage them to do so
.But my whole point is that he does not need your MDL files. If he used the MDL files, they would get a different GUID and you end up with two libraries that are the same but use different GUIDs. That is really bad.
And if a user only extracts the GUIDs from the BGL to be able to call these objects, I must say I personally do not see that as a threat to my work. He is not trying to use the objects different then you intended when you released the library. He only wants to know which GUIDs they have, so that they can be called. But this is just my opinion of course.
PS. You can better keep your library sources next time. If you decide to update your library, you don't want the GUIDs to change. So it is best to continue with the previous library source in that case.
Hi,
My idea is to use the mdls with object placer instead of the BGL Library, importing them as 'Add Local MDL' that way he wouldnt need to use the Library anyway.
Yes, now you have reassured me Arno that the work cannot be change, I feel better about it
But still, there's no need to decompile to find out what the GUID's are, when they are already in the rwy12 file that come with the download. And for my Transit Vans I but all the GUID's in the documentation.
Anyway end of subject
On another note
This EZ-Scenery, is it true that it scans for all Library files in fs and anyone can place anyone elses objects from any addon scenery?
If so, wouldnt there be a copyright issue with many people using object that arent allowed or arent indented for use by everyone else?
I read this on a review where it said "EZ-Scenery then scans fs for all library files"
Stevo
My idea is to use the mdls with object placer instead of the BGL Library, importing them as 'Add Local MDL' that way he wouldnt need to use the Library anyway.
Yes, now you have reassured me Arno that the work cannot be change, I feel better about it
But still, there's no need to decompile to find out what the GUID's are, when they are already in the rwy12 file that come with the download. And for my Transit Vans I but all the GUID's in the documentation.
Anyway end of subject
On another note
This EZ-Scenery, is it true that it scans for all Library files in fs and anyone can place anyone elses objects from any addon scenery?
If so, wouldnt there be a copyright issue with many people using object that arent allowed or arent indented for use by everyone else?
I read this on a review where it said "EZ-Scenery then scans fs for all library files"
Stevo
Hi Stevo,
Why did you create a library in the first place then? The whole idea of an library is that people can easily call the objects in there. Adding the same objects again and again to different files only results in the same object having multiple GUIDs.
Also, using local objects, will geo-lock them. So in general it is not adviced to do this. Having the objects in an object library is the prefered way of doing it.
Good point. An user with some knowledge of BGLComp should be able to create the proper XML file with that information. That is probably the best way to do it.
Yes. So this can make it a bit difficult if you want to distribute your scenery, as you need to be careful not to include libraries from commercial sceneries etc.
No, I don't think there is a problem with using object libraries that are installed on your system. This does not break the copyright I think. The only problem arises when you want to distribute the scenery, as you can usually not include the libraries. So you should ask the users to download the same files you have (for example download the Rwy12 libraries as well). But with libraries that are part of commercial sceneries this is no option of course, so you should be careful not to use them.
Why did you create a library in the first place then? The whole idea of an library is that people can easily call the objects in there. Adding the same objects again and again to different files only results in the same object having multiple GUIDs.
Also, using local objects, will geo-lock them. So in general it is not adviced to do this. Having the objects in an object library is the prefered way of doing it.
Good point. An user with some knowledge of BGLComp should be able to create the proper XML file with that information. That is probably the best way to do it
.Yes. So this can make it a bit difficult if you want to distribute your scenery, as you need to be careful not to include libraries from commercial sceneries etc.
No, I don't think there is a problem with using object libraries that are installed on your system. This does not break the copyright I think. The only problem arises when you want to distribute the scenery, as you can usually not include the libraries. So you should ask the users to download the same files you have (for example download the Rwy12 libraries as well). But with libraries that are part of commercial sceneries this is no option of course, so you should be careful not to use them.
Hi Arno
All my librarys werent designed for use with the programs available now, except Rwy12, the Ford Transit package was release long before rwy12 or your super object placer where released so they arent design to be used with those programs, although they can be adapted for use with them.
My point of giving the mdl's was if he only wants to add a few vehicles to his own scenery he can incorporate only the vehicles he wants instead of needing all the library files & textures to complete the package, thus making it easier for him and the people who download his scenery. I was only talking in the sence of this one person not everyone.
Re: EZ-Scenery
Is it best then, to get round this, not make library files.
Say I make a building that is totally unique for one of my projects, I dont want that object to be repeated with the use of EZ-Scenery, so do I place all the objects for my project in one BGL, instead of using a library bgl then calling them from it? or even if i put all my objects in one BGL (with co-ords etc) does this still act as a library file.
To be honest if the scenery is Commercial or freeware, I would still hold the intellectual property (IP) rights to the objects I make, as would you with yours, all my sceneries are freeware but with limitations on what can be done with them, being a musician and sound engineer I deal with copyright issues a lot, and to me, with my understanding of IP. EZ-scenery users would need to ask permission from all the authors of the individual library files if they are Commercial or not. That's if they are going to release them as freeware.
Of course I'm not just talking of library's created as library's for download (like my Objects package), I'm also talking of libraries included in full sceneries, like the ones I included in my Airport scenery, I wouldnt want them to be used by EZ-Scenery.
"stevo get off your high horse" 
Stevo
All my librarys werent designed for use with the programs available now, except Rwy12, the Ford Transit package was release long before rwy12 or your super object placer where released so they arent design to be used with those programs, although they can be adapted for use with them.
My point of giving the mdl's was if he only wants to add a few vehicles to his own scenery he can incorporate only the vehicles he wants instead of needing all the library files & textures to complete the package, thus making it easier for him and the people who download his scenery. I was only talking in the sence of this one person not everyone.
Re: EZ-Scenery
Is it best then, to get round this, not make library files.
Say I make a building that is totally unique for one of my projects, I dont want that object to be repeated with the use of EZ-Scenery, so do I place all the objects for my project in one BGL, instead of using a library bgl then calling them from it? or even if i put all my objects in one BGL (with co-ords etc) does this still act as a library file.
To be honest if the scenery is Commercial or freeware, I would still hold the intellectual property (IP) rights to the objects I make, as would you with yours, all my sceneries are freeware but with limitations on what can be done with them, being a musician and sound engineer I deal with copyright issues a lot, and to me, with my understanding of IP. EZ-scenery users would need to ask permission from all the authors of the individual library files if they are Commercial or not. That's if they are going to release them as freeware.
Of course I'm not just talking of library's created as library's for download (like my Objects package), I'm also talking of libraries included in full sceneries, like the ones I included in my Airport scenery, I wouldnt want them to be used by EZ-Scenery.
"stevo get off your high horse"
Stevo
Last edited:
Hi Stevo,
A library is a library in the end. There is no difference between a library for Rwy12 or one for EZ-Scenery. The only difference is how all those tools read the information about the objects, that can indeed make things a bit complex.
This discussion has given me the idea to let ObPlacer XML also read the Rwy12 XML files. That would make things a lot easier. I'll try to add that in a next version.
No, that is impossible. With the XML format they are always defined as library object. You can add the placement to the same XML file, but they are still library objects. The only result of this is that they become geo-locked, so you can only use them around the origional placement. In the end that adds only more confusion, so I would not advice to do that.
It is just the task of the designer to make sure he knows which libraries he is using. Many you can argue that the way EZ-Scenery scans all BGL files is not optimal from this point of view.
Yes, you are right about that. I mentioned commercial sceneries, but it is also true for libraries that have been designed for a specific freeware scenery. On the other hand if you use a Rwy12 library for example, you can just ask the end user to download the same file you downloaded.
I think they only need to contact the designer of a library if they want to include it in their distribution. They can always ask the end user to download the same files he downloaded. But this is indeed a point I am afraid a lot of users of EZ-Scenery do not see (most users are not real scenery designers like most of us on these forums). This is not a development I am really happy with, I must say.
A library is a library in the end. There is no difference between a library for Rwy12 or one for EZ-Scenery. The only difference is how all those tools read the information about the objects, that can indeed make things a bit complex.
This discussion has given me the idea to let ObPlacer XML also read the Rwy12 XML files. That would make things a lot easier. I'll try to add that in a next version.
No, that is impossible. With the XML format they are always defined as library object. You can add the placement to the same XML file, but they are still library objects. The only result of this is that they become geo-locked, so you can only use them around the origional placement. In the end that adds only more confusion, so I would not advice to do that.
It is just the task of the designer to make sure he knows which libraries he is using. Many you can argue that the way EZ-Scenery scans all BGL files is not optimal from this point of view.
Yes, you are right about that. I mentioned commercial sceneries, but it is also true for libraries that have been designed for a specific freeware scenery. On the other hand if you use a Rwy12 library for example, you can just ask the end user to download the same file you downloaded.
I think they only need to contact the designer of a library if they want to include it in their distribution. They can always ask the end user to download the same files he downloaded. But this is indeed a point I am afraid a lot of users of EZ-Scenery do not see (most users are not real scenery designers like most of us on these forums). This is not a development I am really happy with, I must say.
Hi
Bumber
Well Arno you know I've been on this forum for a long time now and are not one for really expressing my opinion, but this EZ-scenery issue has annoyed me a bit, as you can possibly tell. I have to say it might stop me releasing any more scenery to the public knowing I have no control over what is done with my objects, especially one that arent intended to be used over and over again.
That might seem trivial to some people, but when you've put a lot of time, effort and research into building something. You want to feel safe that the end product is going to be used as the full package it was orginally released as, freeware or commercial. Where as now this isnt the case.
Am I being over the top here?
Stevo
Bumber
Well Arno you know I've been on this forum for a long time now and are not one for really expressing my opinion, but this EZ-scenery issue has annoyed me a bit, as you can possibly tell. I have to say it might stop me releasing any more scenery to the public knowing I have no control over what is done with my objects, especially one that arent intended to be used over and over again.
That might seem trivial to some people, but when you've put a lot of time, effort and research into building something. You want to feel safe that the end product is going to be used as the full package it was orginally released as, freeware or commercial. Where as now this isnt the case.
Am I being over the top here?
Stevo
Last edited:
Hi Stevo,
If a user would use any of the objects I designed for a specific project, on his PC in other area I don't really have a problem with it. But I would never agree to him redistributing my specific library.
So I think we should trust the authors of addon sceneries. They should be aware of the libraries they are using and which they can redistribute and which they can't.
I am a bit worried about some of the novice EZ-Scenery users that don't seem to be aware of these problems yet, but I think with a bit of "education" it should all work well in the end.
If a user would use any of the objects I designed for a specific project, on his PC in other area I don't really have a problem with it. But I would never agree to him redistributing my specific library.
So I think we should trust the authors of addon sceneries. They should be aware of the libraries they are using and which they can redistribute and which they can't.
I am a bit worried about some of the novice EZ-Scenery users that don't seem to be aware of these problems yet, but I think with a bit of "education" it should all work well in the end.