Military AI Works

MAIW Admins,
I have been creating military airfield scenery in FSX, P3D and MSFS for a number of years and have uploaded some 50 MSFS packages to Flightsim.to under the username "Tag21".
I would like to share some of my FSX/P3D creations on this site, but there is a problem with the 256 MB upload file size limit.
I have created a common "Addon Library" file into which I have loaded the models created by MAIW, Ted Andrews, Ian Pearson and Bill Womack.
I use some of these models in all my sceneries, so the Library needs to be uploaded along with the airfield scenery files.
The library file is 360MB when zipped, so it exceeds the file upload limit for the site.
Is there any way to fix this problem?
Tom

I don't know off hand but I will investigate for you.
I know that I can load files up but I am not privy to the interface that makes them visible to users.

I have a way of uploading such files. Please tell me where I can find the Zip files via message. I will upload them once I am back home mid of next week.

From mobile hence short

Steve and Martin

Thank you for the quick response.

I have uploaded the files for RAF Ford to Dropbox. This is a new airfield I have just built for P3D v5 and v6. It is on the South coast of the UK, 4.3 miles North East of Bognor Regis and was very active as a fighter station in WW2.
It is 1,5 GB in an uncompressed state and contains the Addon Library.

The Dropbox link is

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ohcclt7a ... jpjw4&dl=0

Regards
Tom

Steve and Martin

Any progress on how to upload files in excess of the 256 MB limit?

Regards,
Tom

I had not done any research on this as I thought the original request was dealt with.

However, it seems that the upload limit is not part of the website admin functions. I can only assume that it is part of the files management system and that I do not have access to.
So, at the moment the short answer is that files of that size remain only manually added - and this means Martin.

Have you any idea of how many files you think you will have that will exceed that size? The answer may help Martin decide on the best way to make your stuff distributable.

Steve / Martin,
Only the Library file at 360 MB zipped will need to be uploaded.
This is available at:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ohcclt7a ... jpjw4&dl=0
Once that is available on site, I am assuming that members will be able to separately download the airfield scenery file and the Library file.
Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom.
I am looking into this, please give me a bit more time to sort it out.
Thanks!

Steve / Martin,

I have been experimenting with the content of library files and have discovered that the majority of my scenery objects are already present in the MAIW Ofiicial Scenery Library.
I will therefore direct users to download this file when they download my scenery files and this will solve the Upload Limit problem.
Regards,
Tom

This indeed was what we wondered about. How much was already used in our Global Libs pack and other downloads.
It is the reason that we went down that path for libraries.

1.5Gb for an airfield download? And at that a simple airfield that bears only a passing relationship to RNAS Ford at any stage of its existence? I think there is some very inefficient packaging going on here. Any ADE-created airfield that uses the libraries mentioned should be a few hundred Kb at most. As the author has discovered, MAIW libraries already include - and are authorised to include - the vast majority of the files he wants to use (and a great deal more besides) and none of them approach that kind of file size.

I do think that if a scenery is a fictional representation of a real location, then it should be made clear in the description and documentation. A cursory examination of the author's screenshots shows that what is offered is not in any way an accurate depiction of the airfield and anyone hoping for realism will be disappointed. I have no problem with fictional sceneries (UKMil did some very good ones), but I think it's only fair to the audience that they are informed of the fiction.

Some info on Ford: https://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.or ... s/Ford.htm

Edit: note that Ian Elliott has done Ford and Tangmere for FSX and they are available over at SOH.

Hi Tom.

To release version 2 of your RAF Ford I need a sentence or two about what has changed. You can add it here in the forum post.

Hi Martin,
The airfield layout has been altered to reflect how it was in 1944.

This information is included in the Installation Instructions file that is included with the download zip.

Regards,
Tom

And I need to put it easily into the file description. Is this supposed to replace the first version? Or is it meant to be an alternative?

Hi Martin,
Version 2 of RAF Ford (EGKF) is meant to replace Version 1, but I would not object if you want to keep both versions active.

My recently released version of RAF Hawkinge (EGHW) is showing MAIW as the author, so could you please correct that.

Regards,
Tom

tag21 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2023, 23:58 My recently released version of RAF Hawkinge (EGHW) is showing MAIW as the author, so could you please correct that.

Sorry for that - now corrected! I believe that Edge has changed the auto-fill behaviour. Thherre were some weird issues with wrongly populated fields lately.

Bl**dy M$.

I have seen Linux, Steve.

I am a big fan of Microsoft Windows, even with all the weird things that come along with it.

Remember the time when you only had to look the wrong way at a 3.51 NT computer to make him blue screen without any chance of recovery? Microsoft has come a long way since that time.


Send from mobile hence short

I totally get it. The trouble is the more complicated you make things the harder they are to fix when something goes awry.

In aircraft terms, you can strip and repair a Spitfire to flyable condition but not a Vulcan. All down to the miles of wiring in those complicated beasts. Once certified maintenance units cease to support a modernish aircraft type they are grounded.

The biggest thing going for MS is their backwards compatibility. Their biggest issue is the bloating and complications caused by their backwards compatibility.

gsnde wrote: ↑03 Nov 2023, 15:27 I have seen Linux, Steve.

I am a big fan of Microsoft Windows, even with all the weird things that come along with it.

Remember the time when you only had to look the wrong way at a 3.51 NT computer to make him blue screen without any chance of recovery? Microsoft has come a long way since that time.


Send from mobile hence short

My god Martin, you must have been working in IT as long as I have.

Remember Novell Netware