There are two ways to make 3-d instruments in your 3-d cockpit:
- Create 2-d instruments on a panel and use the “panel texture” (ATTR_cockpit or ATTR_cockpit_region in your OBJ) to show those 2-d instruments in the 3-d cockpit.
- Model the instruments in 3-d using animation.
So…which gives better framerate? Well, it turns out that they are actually almost the same…a few details:
- If your card can’t directly render-to-texture, there is an extra step for the panel texture. But that would be a weird case – all modern cards can render directly to textures unless you have hosed drivers.
- For very small amounts of geometry, there’s pretty much no difference between rotating a needle using the CPU and telling the GPU to do it by changing the coordinate system.
- The panel texture does put pressure on VRAM – if you’ve had to go to a 2048×2048 panel texture to have enough space, it’s going to hurt you.
Both approaches are actually quite inefficient – you get best vertex throughput on the card when you have at least 100 vertices per batch. But if a panel has 800 batches, you don’t necessarily want to do this – you’d pick up 80,000 vertices just trying to “utilize” the graphics card. That’s not a huge number, but it’s big enough to consider. Panels have enough moving parts that they’re going to push the CPU more than the GPU.
A number of authors like the 3-d approach because they are more comfortable with 3-d tools, and because it can look sharper (since there is no intermediate limiting texture resolution).
There is only one case where I would advise against the 3-d approach: if it takes a huge number of animation commands to accomplish what can be done in one generic, use the panel texture; the generic instruments are all coded cleanly and none of them take that much CPU power. But some of them produce effects that would be relatively difficult to reproduce with animation.
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. Or at least, you have to consider whether breaking them is acceptable. Often I hit cases where the cost of supporting a legacy feature is somewhat painful.
One way to decide what to do is to change the feature early in beta, see who squawks, and then change it back if necessary. There are two I am looking at for 930.
It turns out that glass instruments fade to black, not to transparency. This is a little bit weird, because that means they will leave black footprints if they are on top of a non-black background. My guess is that most people use them on black screens and thus did not notice.
If people really need fade-to-black glass instruments, I’ll just create a new lighting type (glass-transparent), but if everyone can live with fading to transparent, it’s certainly the more useful case and probably what most people always wanted.
Separate Specular Hilights
For as long as I’ve been involved, X-Plane’s specular hilights are modulated by the object or airplane texture color. In other words, if you paint your airplane red, you get red hilights, and if you paint it black, you get no hilights at all.
This is not a very good way to do things for a few reasons:
- Under this scheme, you can’t make a shiny black object.
- Someday we will add gloss maps – but the glossy part of the gloss map will be defeated by the black texture.
So for 930, I am looking at not modulating specular hilights by texture. (This is called “separate specular hilights” in OpenGL lingo.) My guess is that they will look enough better in almost every case that people would rather have it this way.
Should specular hilights be white for a black object? Yes! A specular hilight is a simulated intense reflection from a very far away, very bright object (the sun). So it should take its color from the sun, not the object itself. To this end, I have also (finally) set the specular hilights to take on the daylight sun color, so that they get fainter and yellowish at dusk. This makes dusk and dawn look a little bit less strange.
(Nerd note: Technically, for the day texture to be an albedo texture, it shouldn’t affect specular hilights.)
Microsoft extended Windows XP sales yet again, more or less. But rather than rant about how the Vista user experience makes me want to tear my fingernails off or how brain-damaged it is to try to put DRM into drivers, let me instead focus on Windows as an example of the cost of contracts.
I have ranted in the past
about how the boundary between X-Plane and a third party, or the plugin system and third parties, or even two third parties, is a contract. Consider:
- The named light list forms a contract between X-Plane and objects, e.g. X-Plane guarantees that there will be a named light called “airplane_landing” and that it is a good choice for landing lights. (This implies that X-Plane won’t change what it looks like to be inappropriate for landing lights, and that third parties won’t use it for inappropriate uses, like airport apron lights.)
- XPLMGetDataf forms a contract between the plugin SDK and plugins, guaranteeing that there will be a function in the XPLM called “XPLMGetDataf” that takes a dataref and returns its value. (This implies that Sandy and I won’t rename it or change its arguments or remove it all together, and that plugins won’t pass non-datarefs in as arguments.)
- Even a paint kit forms a contract – the airplane maker is essentially saying “the tail will be mapped to the upper left of the texture, and I won’t remap my UV” and the livery maker is saying “I will put an image in the upper left corner that looks like a tail.”
By comparison, the clouds are not a contract – there is no way third parties can customize the look of the clouds, so we can change the algorithm by which we create them pretty much at will. We could switch to a volumetric approach for all clouds or even go back to 2-d without worrying about third party interaction.
Okay – that’s a lot of words about contracts…what does that have to do with Vista? Well…
The Cost of Changing the Contract
Two major aspects of why Vista has been a worse experience for users than Windows XP come directly to the need for Microsoft to change contracts.
- For years, applications have run on Windows with admin rights. This is not good – it means that any process can do serious damage to the system if hijacked – and on Windows processes get hijacked on a fairly regular basis!
- For years, audio and video drivers have run pretty much unprotected. This was good from a performance perspective, but also caused a lot of BSODs. On Windows, drivers are third party components and are quite possibly not checked by Microsoft (especially video drivers) so letting them run without protections is risky.
In both cases, the problem is that the old contract is both (1) poorly designed* and (2) being used by a lot of third parties. What choice did Microsoft have? Continue to let apps run in admin mode and hijack the whole machine any time the user picked up a virus? Or change apps to run in user mode and hope that the applications didn’t depend on this guarantee?
(At this point, Raymond
might go ballistic and point out that the Windows API doesn’t really promise admin rights and apps should not have been doing all of these naughty behaviors in the first place. I don’t know what the Win32 API declares…the difference between what a platform declares and what it does is important enough to warrant another post. Certainly with X-Plane we have to worry a lot about third parties depending on behavior that was unintentional but turned out to be useful.)
Vista has been a difficult transition because it changed a bunch of rules (that needed to be changed). In the long term, I am sure that both of these decisions are for the better — eventually applications won’t be counting on administrator rights, so we won’t have to fume about UAC (or shut it off), and a hijacked web browser won’t be nearly as dangerous.
On the video driver front, the Vista experience is pretty reasonable now – there has been a lot of improvement since Vista first came out. I expect applications and UAC to take a lot longer – video drivers get revised quite frequently; applications seem to linger around forever.
I’m Not Signing That
If we end up with a situation like this in X-Plane (the contract is used heavily by third parties and not well designed) we only have two options, and they’re both bad:
- Break the contract. Third party content stops working, users are angry, authors are angry.
- Stick with the contract and mitigate as best we can. Usually this means writing more code (slows down new features), using a less optimal implementation (lowers frame rate), etc.
This is why my first reaction to any file format extension is: “is this going to be a PITA in a year”? The benefit might be visible now, but the cost could plague us indefinitely.
What You Want, Not Where You Want It
If you would like to request a feature, tell me what you want, not where you want it implemented. I bring this up because many of the feature requests I get are very specific and describe an implementation, not a goal. (To draw an analogy, it’s as if I call a general contractor and say “dig a big hole right here” without telling him “it is for a swimming pool”.)
The reason “what not how” is so important is because many of the “how” implementations that people send me involve creating new contracts with third parties. I am going to try to design the feature with the minimum contractual obligations – that is, to do just what is intended and hopefully not much more.
But if I can’t tell what you are trying to do, I can only say “I won’t code this implementation – the cost of long term support due to contractual obligations outweighs the usefulness.” It might be that there is another way to implement the feature that would not put a long term burden on the scenery system or airplane SDK and still provide all of the benefits.
* Poorly designed? Or perhaps well designed for a previous problem – if the problem changes, the design might not be appropriate. Or perhaps not even designed at all – sometimes contracts evolve without a lot of central planning. All of these things have happened in X-Plane. In the case of Windows, I suspect it’s the previous-problem case — that is, what made sense for much smaller computers where the scope of what could be done was quite limited no longer makes sense for big modern computers that are capable of a more expensive and robust solution…just my speculation.
You might not believe this (due to the general lack of scenery system documentation) but I do spend some brain power thinking about X-Plane documentation for third parties!
Consider two approaches to documentation:
My question is: which of these approaches is more “readable” or “clear” to you as a third party? Each one (the formal website vs. the Wiki) has pros and cons, but I can’t judge “usability” of the documentation myself. Is it easier to find things on the website? On the Wiki? Comments welcome!
(I need to decide where to put future documentation, hence the question “which works better for those who read the documentation.)
It looks to me like we could afford a few landing light halos on most (but not all) hardware. This gets a bit tricky in terms of how we make this available to authors…
- We have to allow access without breaking old planes.
- There will be two distinct cases due to very different hardware.
So…I have posted an RFC on the X-Plane Wiki. Please post your thoughts on the discussion page!
One option (not really discussed in the RFC) is to do nothing at all. Basically I hit upon this during some routine refactoring of the shaders. The whole issue can be deferred indefinitely.
Why wait? Well, I don’t believe that an incremental increase in the number of landing light halos is the future. Our end goal must be some kind of truly global illumination, hopefully without a fixed lighting budget. It may not make sense to add a bunch of complexity to the aircraft SDK only to have all of those limit become unnecessary cruft a short time later.
(I think I can hear the airport designers typing “why do the airplane designers get four lights and we get none? Give us a light or two!” My answer is: because of the fixed budget problem. We can allocate a fixed budget of lights to the user’s aircraft because it is first in line – we know we either have the lights or we don’t. As soon as we start putting global lights in the scenery, we have to deal with the case where we run out of global lights. For scenery I definitely want to wait on a scheme that isn’t insanely resource limited!)
Programmers: yes – Dx10 hardware can do a hell of a lot more than 4 global lights. Heck – it can do a hell of a lot period! For example, it can do deferred rendering, or light pre-rendering. A true global lighting solution might not have anything to do with “let’s add more global lights a few at a time.”
I want to revisit the question of whether (and how) the livery system should be extended. In particular, it is my opinion that the livery system should not be extended to allow:
- Replacement of OBJs used for modeling the airplane or cockpit.
- Alternate or modified ACFs*.
- Generally, the livery system shouldn’t be used for changing the plane’s behavior – it’s just paint!
I have commented previously in three parts that the livery system is meant to make easy the integration of third party paint without (a) violating copyright, (b) requiring byzantine installation instructions or (c) requiring the painter and original author to coordinate. I have received requests from a number of very talented airplane authors, asking for the livery system to cover a whole range of new features, most of them involving configuration. I will try to explain in this post how I think should should be handled.
First, to be clear: an aircraft file is the .acf file that contains the X-Plane specific data needed to simulate the plane; the aircraft package is the folder containing that .acf file. A livery is a painting scheme for the 3-d model of the airplane, and a configuration is an instance of a plane with certain features, e.g. with or without G1000, with P&W; vs. Rolls Royce engines, etc.
Configurations of an aircraft should be created by putting more than one aircraft file
(.acf) in a single aircraft package. Because the graphic and sound resources needed for the aircraft are accessed relative to the .acf file, you can build a family of aircraft with some common aspects and some unique aspects to each plane.
Files used by an aircraft fall into three broad categories:
- Files found by a fixed formula using the .acf name, e.g. be20_paint.png. Let’s call these “file-specific”.
- Files found by a fixed formula without using the .acf name, e.g. the contents of the aircraft plugins folder. Let’s call these “package specific”.
- Files that are explicitly named in the .acf file, like airfoils and OBJs. Let’s call these “flexible” (since this naming scheme could be used in any way).
Here’s how the important files in an aircraft break down:
- The aircraft paint scheme is file specific.
- The aircraft panel background is package specific (but you can effectively have each file use a different panel background by setting the panel type differently for each plane).
- Sounds are actually either, which effectively makes them flexible. Non-generic instruments are package-specific.
- Objects, generic instruments and airfoils are flexible.
In other words, if you can live with duplicating your aircraft paint files (and I suspect that in most cases either the plane is built by objects, or the modifications in each configuration warrant paint changes anyway), then every other feature can be set to package or file specific, allowing you to build a group of aircraft around a single real-world plane.
Now if there are aspects of a multi-configuration aircraft package that don’t work right now, we can look at possible changes to the sim to make this work. But it appears to me that just about everything necessary to make multiple configurations is already available in the sim now.
As a final note, the question here (livery vs. multi-file aircraft pack for configurations) is one of file formats, and thus of data organization and contracts between authors and programmers. It is not a question of user interface. The user interface can be reshaped to make multi-aircraft packages look like liveries, or liveries look like multi-aircraft packages. But I suspect that most of the interest in extended liveries is on the file-format side.
* The one exception for liveries is the tail number — given the strange state where the tail number, as painted into the livery, is also written into the ACF, it wouldn’t be bad to be able to override this property. Some people are already doing this using plugins.
I have blogged about this before, but I will try to create one simple explanation of what’s going on with sim/cockpit2 and sim/flightmodel2 datarefs.
Sandy and I (with the help of others who helped compile the list) created “new” datarefs (first released with X-Plane 9) , aimed at airplane modelers. These new sections are:
- sim/cockpit2/ which provides a new set of datarefs for cockpit modeling via OBJ animation and generic instruments.
- sim/flightmodel2/ which provides a new set of datarefs for airplane exterior modeling via OBJ animation.
These datarefs sometimes include new data that was not available in version 8, and sometimes they simply provide a second dataref with the same information. Why duplicate datarefs? The new datarefs have some special properties, so I wanted to have a complete set of datarefs for modelers with these new properties.
Skip to the end for the rules of thumb on how to use them.
The new datarefs are designed to have longer, less confusing names; the old datarefs contained a lot of abbreviations – potentially acceptable for programmers (who are used to seeing things like fstat and chgrp on a regular basis) but not good for modelers who do not speek English as a first language. The new datarefs have long names and are more consistent in their conventions. They also contain complete documentation.
You will see the array dimension of some of the new datarefs as symbolic constants, e.g. [engine] instead of . This is because the dataref generation system we use knows that these new datarefs sometimes track the maximum number of parts in the aircraft structure. This tagging means that it is much simpler for Sandy and I to adjust the datarefs when Austin increases part maximums.
With the old datarefs, if Austin allows for 10 engines, Sandy and I must search for every  dataref and decide if it must be  – some will be per-engine and need to change, some will be per-battery and will not! With the new system, we simply redefine the “engine” constant to 10 and the datarefs adjust.
(Note that if your plugin really needs to run dynamically with any number of engines, the best thing to do is to read the array size using XPLMGetDatavX.)
There are two ways to view a dataref: before system failures (such that the dataref reflects simulated physical reality) and after system failures (such that the dataref reflects pilot indications). For example, when the pitot tube ices up, the pre-failure airspeed reflects how fast you are flying; the post-failure airspeed reflects how much crud is in your pitot tube.
Pre-failure datarefs are appropriate for animating the exterior of the airplane. For example, if the gear indicator light fails but the gear is working, you want to animate your landing gear based on the real (pre-failure) gear position, so that the gear really does look like it’s down from an outside view.
Post-failure datarefs are appropriate for animating the cockpit. For example, you want to use that post-failure indicated airspeed for your air speed indicator, so that pitot ice will affect your generic instruments and animations, as well as the built-in instruments.
The new datarefs are designed to clearly provide two different views:
- sim/cockpit2/ are all post-failure whenever possible, and are thus appropriate for cockpit modeling.
- sim/flightmodel2/ are all pre-failure, and thus are appropriate for external airplane modeling.
Be careful not to swap them! You should always be using sim/flightmodel2/ for your aircraft and sim/cockpit2/ for your cockpit. If the dataref you need is in one and not the other, email me and I will add it to the right place.
Correct Multiplayer Behavior
The older datarefs all return data about the user’s airplane. However if you build an object, attached to an ACF, and that ACF is loaded for a multiplayer plane, you will get incorrect results — the user will see his own plane’s actions visualized on the multiplayer plane.
The new sim/cockpit2/ and sim/flightmodel2/ datarefs handle this case correctly: they return data about whichever airplane is being drawn. Thus if your object is attached to airplane number 5 in a multiplayer session, that’s the airplane that will animate your control surfaces.
(Plugin developers – outside airplane drawing, these datarefs return information about the user’s flight.)
For this reason, you should always use sim/cockpit2/ and sim/flightmodel2/ – not the older sim/cockpit and sim/flightmodel/ datarefs. If the dataref you want is only in the old sections but not the new ones, email me!
What Dataref Do I Use?
Here’s the rule of thumb:
- If you are targeting X-Plane 6/7/8, you must use sim/cockpit and sim/flightmodel, otherwise
- If you are targeting X-Plane 9, use sim/cockpit2 for your generic instruments and 3-d cockpit. Use sim/flightmodel2 for your attached objects.
That’s all there is to it!
The choice of panels (2-d panel vs. 3-d panel) for your cockpit and the choice of OBJ commands (ATTR_cockpit vs. ATTR_cockpit_region) both affect how your 3-d cockpit looks. Since these two techniques can both be varied, there are a lot of combinations, and 920RC2 does not have the right behavior. (RC3 will fix this I think.)
2-d vs. 3-d Panel
The 3-d panel is a new flat panel whose purpose is to provide the image for ATTR_cockpit or ATTR_cockpit region. Building a new panel for 3-d has a few advantages:
- The instruments can be packed together – no need for windows or other texture-wasting elements. This can help reduce panel size — panel size is expensive when using ATTR_cockpit_texture.
- The 3-d panel can be smaller than the 2-d panel; having a huge panel feed the 3-d object is slow.
- Instruments that are drawn with perspective in the 2-d panel can be redrawn orthographically, which is more useful for texturing real 3-d overhead panels.
Because the 3-d panel is meant only to be used as part of a 3-d cockpit object, spot lights and flood lights are not available, nor is a night-lit alternative. Why not?
- Such customized 2-d lighting would not match the rest of the 3-d cockpit visually.
- We will eventually have a more global lighting solution.
Basically I don’t want to provide features that will clash with the future implementation and eat framerate! The 3-d panel is aimed at next-generation content.
ATTR_cockpit vs. ATTR_cockpit_region
ATTR_cockpit_region provides a new alternate panel texturing path that gets rid of legacy behavior for improved performance and image quality.
- ATTR_cockpit_region requires the region be a power of 2, which saves VRAM. (If your panel is 1280×1024, then ATTR_cockpit rounds it to 2048×1024. Yuck!)
- ATTR_cockpit_region grabs the lit and unlit elements of the panel separately, and can thus provide lighting that is consistent with the rest of OBJ.
- ATTR_cockpit_region does not preserve transparency (which isn’t a good way to model a 3-d cockpit performance wise) – removing the alpha feature improves framerate and saves VRAM.
- ATTR_cockpit_region lets you pick out parts of a panel to texture only what you need.
This last point is less important now that we have 3-d panels (ATTR_cockpit_region came first) – it was meant to let you pick out a small subset of a large size 2-d panel, skipping windows. But if, for example, you need more than 1024×1024 pixels of panel texture, two cockpit regions are better than one 2048×1024 – some graphics cards hit a performance cliff when a cockpit or region exceeds 1024×1024.
(Under all situations, the instrument brightness rheostats should be preserved correctly.)
ATTR_cockpit + 2-d panel:
- The 3-d cockpit should look exactly like the 2-d cockpit.
- The 2-d panel is used as source.
- Panel transparency is preserved.
- Spot/flood lighting effects are available and work.
- Flood color is the forward flood color.
- The panel texture and object texture may not look the same under some lighting conditions.
ATTR_cockpit + 3-d panel:
- The 3-d panel is used as source.
- Transparency is preserved.
- Spot lights are not available, but flood flights work.
- Flood color is the side flood color.
- The panel texture and object texture may not look the same under some lighting conditions.
ATTR_cockpit_region + 2-d panel:
- The 2-d panel is used as source.
- Transparency is not available.
- Spot and flood lights are not available.
- Panel and object texture colors should match under all lighting conditions.
ATTR_cockpit_region + 3-d panel:
- The 3-d panel is used as source.
- Transparency is not available.
- Spot and flood lights are not available.
- Panel and object texture colors should match under all lighting conditions.
Basically both the 3-d panel and ATTR_cockpit_region are aimed at next-generation cockpits – they both strip legacy features to provide a clean platform for real 3-d cockpits. The expectation is:
- Global lighting will be applied to all 3-d geometry – panel texture and object texture. Non-emissive lighting (spot lights, flood lights) will apply to everything.
- Windows will be built using geometry, not alpha.
- The panel texture can be minimized by packing a 3-d panel and using regions. Manipulators let you provide interaction to regular object geometry.
I’m back from vacation and trying to catch up on email and close out 920. I’ve received a number of emails regarding the 3-d cockpit, the big questions being:
- What can I do about the lousy lighting for 3-d object textures and 3-d panel textures via ATTR_cockpit_region?
- Can I use the new 2-d panel spot lights in the 3-d cockpit?
The answer is unfortunately “not much for now” and “no”. Let me explain what’s going on with the 3-d cockpit and what we’re thinking for a long term strategy.
First, I try to organize my feature work around one part of the sim for each patch. 920 is a bit too big of a patch for us (featuring both a lot of cockpit/instrument work and some big rendering engine changes). Austin has been on the road a lot this year, and in his absence I went a little nutty. I wanted to do some work on the 3-d cockpit, but it’s different code, and with 920 in beta so long, this work will have to wait.
Our long term approach to the 3-d cockpit is “real 3-d lighting”. By that I mean: multiple light sources, acting on all of the cockpit geometry based on 3-d positioning. This means a few things:
- Providing some way to specify multiple light sources inside the cockpit, as well as how they are controlled (e.g. how do you dim the flood light)?
- Specifying which attached objects are considered part of the interior of the plane vs. the exterior.
- Providing a way to provide emissive lighting vs. elements that must be lit by light sources.
The 3-d cockpit lighting environment must work the same for the panel texture and object textures. This is necessary to keep the brightness of the finished cockpit consistent between the two textures sources. With the current 3-d system (e.g. what you can do in 864) often the brightness of the panel texture and the rest of the object don’t match.
To this end, ATTR_cockpit_region, which is targeted at the new system, gives you the same lighting model for the object texture and panel texture. Now that model isn’t very useful right now, but it will get better with future patches, and it will always be consistent.
Why Not 2-D Panel Lighting
We can’t use the new 2-d panel lighting features (spot lights), etc. because they are not scalable. Most of the advanced 3-d cockpits I have looked at use a lot of textures, quite possibly several 1024×1024 object textures, as well as a panel texture.
Now the panel texture is very expensive, so there is a penalty for letting it be any bigger than necessary. Given this, we’d only have two options:
- Provide the 2-d spot light features on the OBJ textures, effectively making them dynamic. This would be very expensive, performance-wise.
- Have authors only use one huge panel texture. This would limit them to 2048×2048 and be really slow.
If we don’t provide the spot lighting features for all panel textures then we have the problem of inconsistent lighting, which makes the feature fairly useless.
So instead I have withheld spot lighting (and _LIT replacement textures) from the 3-d panel; the cockpit object will instead end up featuring real 3-d light sources to create these kinds of effects in a 3-d correct manner.
The idea here is to avoid providing features that will be unnecessary, inferior, slow, or unsupportable in the future. Otherwise such a “stop-gap” measure would just end up breaking existing airplanes.
So for now, the 864 system for 3-d cockpits still works as it always did. It will be at least one more patch before 3-d cockpits get a serious upgrade.
I’ve blogged in the past about the difference between key frames to animate changes to a dataref and key frames to animate an event. Simply put, key frames let you relate the position of your mesh to a dataref value, but they do not let you start a sequence of animations based on a change to a dataref.
In other words, you can make an aniamtion that puts the gear handle up when the gear dataref is 0 and down when the dataref is 1. If that dataref were ever 0.5 you’ d see something in the middle. (This dataref will always be 0 or 1 though.)
But you can’t use animation to make the handle slowly move from up to down over a few seconds when the dataref instantly jumps from 0 to 1. If the dataref moves instantly, so does your animation. There can be no time delay between the dataref and animation.
To get this “triggered sequence” effect, you need something else to detect the event and create a dataref that moves slowly. That something could be a plugin; X-Plane also provides a built-in mechanism: the “misc. slider”.
In an attempt to put the information somewhere useful, I have described the feature on the X-Plane wiki.
No Spare Datarefs (Usually)
In that last blog post I went on a rant about “spare” datarefs. Basically people would ask us to make some datarefs that did absolutely nothing, simply to wire parts of their panels and animations together.
And while I’m going off on a tangent about authoring and datarefs, we will not be adding any “spare” datarefs.
Well, the slider_on and slider_ratio datarefs are sort of “spare” datarefs – they’re 24 slots that have no default function.
I relented on my usual hard-line position on this (and a few other) datarefs for two reasons:
- These datarefs are tied to a real (albeit really simple) bit of simulation code – that is, the code that moves the sliders over time. We had to add these datarefs to make the slider mechanism accessible.
- Because sliders are an airplane feature, there is a logical scope: the person who writes the airplane gets to decide what the sliders do, and no one else gets to muck with them. (Since the cycle time is an aircraft file attribute, no one else could sanely hope to utilize them.)
I still maintain my original position that if you need a dataref that doesn’t exist at all, you should use a plugin to create it.
Someone in the X-Plane community can write a (really simple) open-source plugin whose sole purpose is to create trivial datarefs for aircraft use from a text configuration file, letting aircraft authors make as many datarefs as they need. (It is possible that this plugin exists and I just don’t know about it.)
Aircraft authors: to make sure that datarefs from differing add-ons do not have name conflicts, Sandy and I established a registry of plugin dataref prefixes. If you are going to add custom datarefs to your airplane, be sure to register a prefix, and only use that prefix. Do not start your datarefs with sim/XXX – that prefix is for X-Plane’s use only.
(Side note: the X-Plane SDK website has been under some kind of automated attack for the last week or so with lots of bogus user sign-ups. I haven’t had time to address this properly; if you are not registered on the SDK Wiki, I may not be able to approve new sign-ups for a few more days.)