MAIW Package File Reorganization

[Jumpshot724]

I didn't know where to post this so I apologize if this is in the wrong place....

I used to be A LOT more active posting on here so I also apologize for kind of coming out of nowhere with this, but would it be possible to implement some type of MAIW continuity in file/folder naming?


For example, some of the add-on scenery folders included with MAIW packages:
PHNG - MAIW Kaneohe Bay
MAIW_RAF Boscombe Down
MAIW NAS Oceana (KNTU)
MAIW Masirah Air Base

I think it would be a lot more organized if they followed the same naming guidelines so it would be:
MAIW MCAS Kaneohe Bay (PHNG)
MAIW RAF Boscombe Down (EGDM)
MAIW NAS Oceana (KNTU)
MAIW RAFO Masirah AB (OOMA)


Also for example, in the Military AI Works Folder some of the folders created for packages are:
Australia
MAIW_Hickam_C-17
Malaysia
NATO
RAAF
Saudi Arabia
Saudia Arabia
UK
United Kingdom
USA
USAF
USN_USMC_C-130s

These could be organized better, fix the spelling from Saudia Arabia so there is only one country, combine UK into the United Kingdom folder, RAAF into Australia, and USAF & USN_USMC_C-130s & MAIW_Hickam_C-17 into the USA folder, which is also a mess.



I know someone can easily do this themselves, but in doing so it not only makes it harder to fix a problem when you're trying to remember what you re-named something, but if it was more organized it would make this great organization look better. Spelling errors should also be caught before release, and I'm not the greatest speller on the planet but that's why we have a beta team lol. It would just make everything a lot more organized and even cut down on some folders.


I'm not trying to make a rant or start a flame war, just trying to give some suggestions to better improve this already great community!!!! . If the admins like this idea, I can even volunteer myself to spearhead this since it's not time sensitive.

[nickblack423]

Joe,

Sounds a very good idea to me. We maybe should have done that from day 1 to make things easier to navigate, but you have so many package managers who take their own spin on things that we have ended up with the way it is now.

Its certainly something I think the staff should have a look at for future standards documents.

Cheers mate

Nick

[MIKE JG]

We do have package standards, a quite lengthy document actually, but getting a loosely organized group of flight sim enthusiasts from around the world to adhere to them has proven to be impossible. Believe me, I've tried for years now. There's no point.

It's up to each package manager to make sure those things are taken care of. We don't beta test any more because we don't have a beta team or the manpower for that stuff any longer.

Spelling errors are the least of our concerns these days.

[BadPvtDan]

Yeah it's a great idea but were on the downside of things. We struggle with the scope of things today...probably wont add to it.

[campbeme]

Looking at the list you supplied there, they are all old packages done before our latest standards update of 1st January 2011. I don't see any issues with our current standards, and agree with the guys comments above no point going over old ground with the small group we have.

Also when updating old packages we do tend to stick with the original layout of the first package, this makes it easier to just overwrite the old package with the new. Gives the user a lot less to do also by not having to find folders and files to delete from the old package.

[nickblack423]

Well said guys also. Good to see that the standards are always getting higher.

Nick