What is the reason why the latest scenery ID 59308 is not the recommended one ? Thanks
The reaon is most likely that the moderator (and I agree) think that the previous version was more accurate and better.
I would suggest to not try and pick already VERY VERY good airports to "tweak". You have done 6 airports and you think you can "improve" on someones work who has done many hundred??
Please stick to small airports that you can practice on before taking on the big masterpieces of someone else. You know the word "verschlimmbessern"?
Please don´t overestimate your abilities - I will alert the moderator to your submissions, so we don´t suffer a degression in quality by accident...
Jan
Ribechan
commented
in reference to scenery pack
59308on March 29, 2018 8:31 AM
Dear Litjan
You do not know me so I will leave besides your emotional comments and stick with the facts. In this scenery I have added ATC flows and made some very minor changes to the sizes of a few aircrafts in the stands that were in conflicts + made some very minor changes to the taxi routes so some aircrafts do not go through closest stands the reach their assigned stand. That's it.
I just wanted to understand why this is not the recommended version so I could eventually made some changes and improve both the scenery and my experience. That was the sense of my question and I would have appreciated you helped me in resolving these based on your experience instead of issuing inappropriate comments.
I am sorry for the emotional tone - and I am sure you meant well with your effort and submission.
We all knew the day would come, when TWO people (or more) would work on an airport and not agree what is the best way forward. I talked to Beda (the original maker of EDDN) and he does not agree with your changes at all.
Now the moderator has to decide...
This can be avoided by first giving the author of the airport a chance to comment (or change the airport himself) on the perceived shortcoming, preferably by posting a comment.
If this is just about your own experience when using EDDN, feel free to edit the airport any way you like, but don´t upload your result (that way you don´t force your preference on everyone else). Your changes to make the "AI taxi better" are considered "micromanaging around an X-Plane AI bug) and is generally not recommended. Also an airport flow for a single-runway airport is not really necessary (although it is recommended).
In a way, if you look at Beda´s (300+) airports you can assume that he did things right and with a reason.
So yeah - theoretically everyone can simply go in and change stuff on someone else´s airport - but be prepared that people may not like your change and challenge it. There are thousands and thousands of airports still out there that need the most basic improvements, those are probably easier targets than someone´s "baby" that he spent hundreds of hours on...
Thanks for your contribution, Jan
Ribechan
commented
in reference to scenery pack
59308on March 29, 2018 5:29 PM
Jan,
In my case the scenery was validated so I was expecting it becomes the recommended one. If something was not acceptable, the modifications should have been rejected, I was prepared for that since it is clearly defined in the process. What is not defined is the role of the first author, if he(she) has some authority he(she) should be in the loop of the validation process and clearly explain what is wrong if the changes are rejected and I think it's fair.
Per your description it is ambiguous who is (are) finally validating the sceneries : the moderator, the author, you, all of you or else ?
Now I just realized that you are Jan Vogel the one who made the awesome tutorials that I spent hours and hours on to understand how to correctly design airports. During my work on the very few airports I made and/or modified I have always gone back to your tutorials to understand on the spot what I had to do and how to do it to be in accordance with the rules.These were and still are a tremendous amount of relevant information for me and I take this opportunity to thank you so much for this. I have been a fan of what you did and the way you did. That also gets me a bit sad and disappointed the way you treated myself in your posts above.
thanks for the kind words about my tutorial - and again, I am sorry that I lashed so hard on you in my first reply.
But I really didn´t make my tutorials so people would pick VERY GOOD airports and try to improve them. This is like going to the Louvre and "making the Mona Lisa smile just a bit more friendly!" with an ink pen...
Here is the deal: Just because you can pass validation does not mean that everything is super with your scenery. You will just have to accept that sometimes your scenery does not become the new recommended scenery, even though you did nothing illegal. The better an airport is, the harder it is to improve it. I seriously recommend to pick an airport that is "in need" of improvement instead of trying to make very good airports better - especially when you are new and lack the experience.
As for the "first author" having rights to his airport - he really doesn´t have any - but I think its common courtesy to contact him before simply "improving" the airport he spent so much time on.
For me the matter is closed at this point. If you want to fight for your version to become the recommended one, you need to take it up with the moderator at the Gateway, it is not my descicion anyway.
I am happy that you are getting into improving X-Plane with WED, I just ask you to not target airports that are not really in need of improvement/are under constant update and modification - I think your time would be spent much better on the thousands of bad and barren airports that really need improving. Thanks, Jan
You must be logged in to participate in the discussion
You are right. I'm very sorry, Julian, it was a big mistake of mine. You can close this Report. The Airport was overcast by another.
What is the reason why the latest scenery ID 59308 is not the recommended one ? Thanks.
What is the reason why the latest scenery ID 59308 is not the recommended one ? Thanks
The reaon is most likely that the moderator (and I agree) think that the previous version was more accurate and better. I would suggest to not try and pick already VERY VERY good airports to "tweak". You have done 6 airports and you think you can "improve" on someones work who has done many hundred?? Please stick to small airports that you can practice on before taking on the big masterpieces of someone else. You know the word "verschlimmbessern"? Please don´t overestimate your abilities - I will alert the moderator to your submissions, so we don´t suffer a degression in quality by accident...
Jan
Dear Litjan You do not know me so I will leave besides your emotional comments and stick with the facts. In this scenery I have added ATC flows and made some very minor changes to the sizes of a few aircrafts in the stands that were in conflicts + made some very minor changes to the taxi routes so some aircrafts do not go through closest stands the reach their assigned stand. That's it. I just wanted to understand why this is not the recommended version so I could eventually made some changes and improve both the scenery and my experience. That was the sense of my question and I would have appreciated you helped me in resolving these based on your experience instead of issuing inappropriate comments.
Hi Ribechan,
I am sorry for the emotional tone - and I am sure you meant well with your effort and submission.
We all knew the day would come, when TWO people (or more) would work on an airport and not agree what is the best way forward. I talked to Beda (the original maker of EDDN) and he does not agree with your changes at all. Now the moderator has to decide... This can be avoided by first giving the author of the airport a chance to comment (or change the airport himself) on the perceived shortcoming, preferably by posting a comment. If this is just about your own experience when using EDDN, feel free to edit the airport any way you like, but don´t upload your result (that way you don´t force your preference on everyone else). Your changes to make the "AI taxi better" are considered "micromanaging around an X-Plane AI bug) and is generally not recommended. Also an airport flow for a single-runway airport is not really necessary (although it is recommended). In a way, if you look at Beda´s (300+) airports you can assume that he did things right and with a reason.
So yeah - theoretically everyone can simply go in and change stuff on someone else´s airport - but be prepared that people may not like your change and challenge it. There are thousands and thousands of airports still out there that need the most basic improvements, those are probably easier targets than someone´s "baby" that he spent hundreds of hours on...
Thanks for your contribution, Jan
Jan, In my case the scenery was validated so I was expecting it becomes the recommended one. If something was not acceptable, the modifications should have been rejected, I was prepared for that since it is clearly defined in the process. What is not defined is the role of the first author, if he(she) has some authority he(she) should be in the loop of the validation process and clearly explain what is wrong if the changes are rejected and I think it's fair. Per your description it is ambiguous who is (are) finally validating the sceneries : the moderator, the author, you, all of you or else ?
Now I just realized that you are Jan Vogel the one who made the awesome tutorials that I spent hours and hours on to understand how to correctly design airports. During my work on the very few airports I made and/or modified I have always gone back to your tutorials to understand on the spot what I had to do and how to do it to be in accordance with the rules.These were and still are a tremendous amount of relevant information for me and I take this opportunity to thank you so much for this. I have been a fan of what you did and the way you did. That also gets me a bit sad and disappointed the way you treated myself in your posts above.
Hi Ribechan,
thanks for the kind words about my tutorial - and again, I am sorry that I lashed so hard on you in my first reply. But I really didn´t make my tutorials so people would pick VERY GOOD airports and try to improve them. This is like going to the Louvre and "making the Mona Lisa smile just a bit more friendly!" with an ink pen... Here is the deal: Just because you can pass validation does not mean that everything is super with your scenery. You will just have to accept that sometimes your scenery does not become the new recommended scenery, even though you did nothing illegal. The better an airport is, the harder it is to improve it. I seriously recommend to pick an airport that is "in need" of improvement instead of trying to make very good airports better - especially when you are new and lack the experience. As for the "first author" having rights to his airport - he really doesn´t have any - but I think its common courtesy to contact him before simply "improving" the airport he spent so much time on.
For me the matter is closed at this point. If you want to fight for your version to become the recommended one, you need to take it up with the moderator at the Gateway, it is not my descicion anyway. I am happy that you are getting into improving X-Plane with WED, I just ask you to not target airports that are not really in need of improvement/are under constant update and modification - I think your time would be spent much better on the thousands of bad and barren airports that really need improving. Thanks, Jan