GEX Enhanced Autogen Library File Duplicated; Part 2 File Not Needed

There are two files in the library: fsx_enag.zip and fsxenag2.zip. The description says that the complete set of enhanced autogen textures is split into the two archive files, and that fsx_enag.zip must be installed first, then fsxenag2.zip should be installed. The installation instructions state that the installation consists of copying the provided Texture folders in each file over the existing FSX\Texture folder after backing it up.

I found that the entire contents of the Texture folder inside fsxenag2.zip is already contained in the FSX_Enhanced_Autogen_Pt2\Install City Textures\Texture subfolder within the first file, fsx_enag.zip. I compared file count, and individual file names+dates+byte-sizes carefully between the FSX_Enhanced_Autogen_Pt2\Install City Textures\Texture subfolder in fsx_enag.zip and the only Texture subfolder in fsxenag2.zip, and they are in all respects identical.

In other words, it appears to me that the second file, fsxenag2.zip, is redundant and not needed at all. All that is required for a complete installation is to install BOTH of the Texture folders inside of fsx_enag.zip to the existing FSX\Texture folder.

What really needs to be done here is a slight reorganization of fsx_enag.zip to combine the two \Texture subfolders into one, and eliminate the FSX_Enhanced_Autogen_Pt2 folder completely, since in fact ALL of the texture files are already contained within this one zip file. I could easily do this, but it would be pointless to upload the resulting slimmed-down zip file to the Library without deleting the two files already there, and I'm not even going to try to do that.

So, it would be nice if someone with Library reorganization privileges would double-check my assertion and then at least remove the redundant fsxenag2.zip, thereby freeing up a little Library disk space and reducing bandwidth demands of users downloading the redundant archive.

Just from doing a quick read of the file descriptions, it looks like files in part 2 repair some of the files in part 1. If you do 1 then I would also do 2.

As I mentioned initially, I went to A LOT more trouble than simply reading the descriptions. I investigated each and every individual file name, size and date, and found them to be identical. I'm baffled by how a file can be a "repair" or "update" of a previous file and still carry the exact same modified date, down to the second.

Here are two file lists- the first is the list from the first archive, fsx_enag.zip, and the second shows the list from the second archive, fsxenag2.zip. Please note that both lists show file modified dates.

The last few files are omitted from the above screenshots because I could not make them fit in detail view. See below.

Apologies for wasting your time.

As I mentioned initially, I went to A LOT more trouble than simply reading the descriptions. I investigated each and every individual file name, size and date, and found them to be identical. I'm baffled by how a file can be a "repair" or "update" of a previous file and still carry the exact same modified date, down to the second.

 

Here are two file lists- the first is the list from the first archive, fsx_enag.zip, and the second shows the list from the second archive, fsxenag2.zip. Please note that both lists show file modified dates.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]176912[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]176914[/ATTACH]

 

The last few files are omitted from the above screenshots because I could not make them fit in detail view. See below.

 

Apologies for wasting your time.

Much like a postal barcode, they may look the same, but they're really not. And can I ask why you're being a detective on this issue? Why not just follow the installation instructions? All due respect, of course.

Much like a postal barcode, they may look the same, but they're really not. And can I ask why you're being a detective on this issue? Why not just follow the installation instructions? All due respect, of course.

Agreed! Over-analyze at the risk of it not working!

Agreed! Over-analyze at the risk of it not working!

Exactly. If I open my main FSX cfg file and start deleting stuff that I think doesn't belong, the game will become fubar.....

HoggyDogg, did you download all this from here?

Out of curiosity I did and what I found does not match your description or your screenshots.

For one thing I only have a "Install City Textures" folder in part 2. Your screenshots show it in both parts.

While I also found that every texture in Part 2 has a counterpart in Part 1, the dates are not the same.

Everything in Part 1 is dated 12-14 and 12-15-2008, while everything in Part 2 is dated 12-26-2008 except for 2 files dated 5-12-2006.

I will say that I looked at 3 or 4 files and did not see any obvious difference, that does not mean there is no difference at all.

Those textures are packed really tight and having a row of building one pixel too high or low would show in the sim.

As for the GEX relationship, this package was created by Nick Needham and Anthony Vos. Old timers recognize those two guys as being key parts of the GEX team and also they are well respected names.

Many simmers set up their FSX systems based on what Nick Needham has to say.

If I choose to install this addon (verdict is still out) I will trust that Nick and Anthony know what they are talking about and will install Part 2 over Part 1, as instructed.

BTW, I use a neat little program called WinMerge that compares files on the binary level and WinMerge says the files are different.

peace,

the Bean

Ok, I'm lost, what does this have to do with GEX?

It's an autogen enhancement that can be used with or without GEX.

And can I ask why you're being a detective on this issue? Why not just follow the installation instructions? All due respect, of course.

I actually DID follow the instructions, to the letter, dutifully copying the second archive's files over the first archive's "Part 2" files. That's when I noticed that they seemed to be identical.

As to why I'm "being a detective," I thought that's what community members were supposed to do- try to be helpful when they discover something that seems amiss, causing redundant installs, wasted Library disk space and wasted Site bandwidth usage.

I stand corrected in my brash assumption, and I won't rock the boat any more.

...I stand corrected in my brash assumption, and I won't rock the boat any more.

I actually DID follow the instructions, to the letter, dutifully copying the second archive's files over the first archive's "Part 2" files. That's when I noticed that they seemed to be identical.

 

As to why I'm "being a detective," I thought that's what community members were supposed to do- try to be helpful when they discover something that seems amiss, causing redundant installs, wasted Library disk space and wasted Site bandwidth usage.

 

I stand corrected in my brash assumption, and I won't rock the boat any more.

True, but there's a difference between pointing out corrupted files, and dissecting files and thinking you found something that isn't there. And like Stringbean pointed out, the creators of these files in question are well respected in the community, so there's no reason to doubt their work.