best location for scenery addons?

ApfelFlieger · January 1, 2020 at 8:48 PM

@ IPACS:

I wish everyone a happy 2020.

On my Mac is the folder "Aerofly FS 2 Addon" available for Addons. But there are two different ways to save the scenery addons:

Variant 1: "Aerofly FS 2 Addon/scenery/...":

In this variant are the first sub-folders "elevation", "images" and "places“ to save the respective sceneries sorted by countries.

I don’t know if it is a technical advantage that first the functions "elevation", "images" and "places" are grouped.

When sorting a downloaded scenery addon you always have to change into the parent folders "elevation", "images" and "places" first and then into the respective country folders, which is a greater effort than with the other variant. I also find this variant altogether more confusing.

Variant 2: "Aerofly FS 2 Addon/addons/scenery/...":

In this variant are the first sub-folders the country-folders. In these you have to create the folders "elevation", "images" and "places" for further storage, in order to save the respective files of the scenery addon in these directories.

This variant seems to me more advantageous, because all data of a country are combined. From my point of view this is easier to understand and clearer than the other variant - and also easier to handle. The disadvantage is that you have to create the folders "elevation", "images" and "places" yourself.

My question about this:

Which variant is the better one from the IPACS point of view?

Thanks in advance, Tschüss, Michael (III)

ApfelFlieger · January 7, 2020 at 8:30 AM

@ IPACS ( admin , Marc Borchers , Jet-Pack (IPACS) , drhotwing1 (IPACS) , Arthur )

Who from IPACS can give a competent answer?

Tschüss, Michael (III)

Tomfa · January 7, 2020 at 9:11 AM

Hello Michael (III)

If I may, my personal point of view as far as I am concerned with Windows10 I use your Variant 2 which is simpler, grouped and better organized! And everything works perfectly! With Mac it must be the same.

But as you ask and in order to have a wiser opinion, IPACS should be there to answer it better

Spit40 · January 7, 2020 at 9:46 AM

I prefer 2. Its much trickier to use scenery from flight-sim the other way. I just wish the ‘extra user folder’ worked this way too.

Trespassers · January 7, 2020 at 10:06 AM

Hi all,

The topic has been discussed here, with even a statement from Admin clarifying the allowed structure (though without explicit preference) :

Thread15031 - add-on-scenery-structure

Of course, structure 2 is far superior since you can gather all components of an addon within a same folder.

Structure 1 forces mixing addon files in common subfolders, quickly leading to a growing mess, this must be avoided!

Unfortunately, the user-defined folder still doesn't recognize structure 2, which doesn't make much sense in my opinion. IPACS acknowledged this years ago but never implemented it.

Cheers

Antoine

TomSimMuc · January 7, 2020 at 11:04 AM

I agree with Anthoine to prevent chaos in the folders.

To keep drive C: clear, I use variant 3, which only works for Steam, but keeps all categories places/images/elevation together:

(my SSD Drive D: is reserved for AFS2 only)

Tomfa · January 7, 2020 at 11:22 AM

Variant 3 is good, however an infinite list especially with GB , without forgetting everything else.

ApfelFlieger · January 7, 2020 at 11:01 PM

Quote from Trespassers

Hi all,
The topic has been discussed here, with even a statement from Admin clarifying the allowed structure (though without explicit preference) :
Thread15031 - add-on-scenery-structure
Of course, structure 2 is far superior since you can gather all components of an addon within a same folder.
Structure 1 forces mixing addon files in common subfolders, quickly leading to a growing mess, this must be avoided!
Unfortunately, the user-defined folder still doesn't recognize structure 2, which doesn't make much sense in my opinion. IPACS acknowledged this years ago but never implemented it.

Cheers
Antoine

Display More

Moin Antoine,

thank you for your reference to the already existing discussion , I had overlooked that.

You're right, everything is already sufficiently described there so that I can now start to work on it for a FAQ.

Bye, Michael (III)