I only recently learned why Content.xml no more is recreated when MSFS starts. Because it’s not used anymore. Instead, you’re supposed to use the Package Reorder Tool found under Experimental Options in MSFS.
Reason I want to understand how it works is because I have a package to remove static aircraft from a payware airport (LOWW by Gaya). Looking at how Content.xml used to work before it was decommissioned, you needed to make sure this kind of package was found below the entry for the main package. In my example below, this seems to still be how it is for LOWW in this case. Still, I see static aircraft at LOWW after SU10.
I read in a post by the Asobo developers how they have added a priority system. Which in fact is what will now determine what package loads first. Regardless of the order. However, looking at the Package Reorder Tool, does anyone know where/how to see what priority a certain package has?
I’m also not sure how the arrows are supposed to work. Just for fun, I tried clicking the up arrow next to zzz-loww-static-remover. I was expecting that would move it one step up. To end up just before zzz-airport-ekch-remove-static-aircraft. However that didn’t happen. Instead, it moved up all the way to end up after microsoft-unitedstates-point-of-interest as seen here:
The thing is, the LOWW scenery where I want static aircraft models gone is a 3rd party scenery. Bought via Orbx Central. Meaning, it’s found in the Community folder and thus and based on what you say, I should be able to prioritize it.
What I don’t get is where to see the actual prio of each package in the Community folder? Because I don’t see the prio using the new tool and when looking in …\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Content.xml, it’s blank. Or not completely blank, it only contains a heading as seen here
What I also still don’t get is why pressing the up arrow next to the lowest entry sends that entry far up the list. Rather than only one step up. To me, I would have assumed without any documentation that pressing the up arrow would send the entry one step up and vice versa using the down arrow.
Back to my main question about LOWW, as seen in my previous screenshots where both the main entry for the airport as well as the entry for my remove static aircraft are seen, I can’t know which one have highest/lowest priority. However, since I know I still have the static aircraft when the removal package are lower in the list than the main airport, I guess what I can do is try what will happen when I have moved the removal package to be above the main scenery in the list shown by the tool. To see if that also will change the prio and not only the position in the list presented by the tool.
Again, quite confusing all this to say the least and I hope we will see Asobo coming up with a better final solution how to handle this.
I’m not trying to be pedantic, and I also am very aware that English is not a native language to many that participate here, but I think we should try to be very consistent on how we define “priority” since it can be confusing. In normal native English conversation, If I were to say “That action is Priority 1!” that means it’s the highest priority action. Priority 2 would be lower. MSFS’s kind of odd naming convention doesn’t help this matter either.
Glad you are posting here, Richard. Your advice and knowledge has been very helpful for quite a while, and I’m a happy Navigraph subscriber
Many thanks Richard for your assistance, much appreciated! …and so cool to meet other “oldies” in here who’s been within this hobby for all these years. I still recall when you were providing nav data for free to ancient flight simulators a couple of hundred years ago or so At least I think it was you if my memory serves
Back to Content.xml, can you please just confirm it’s still …\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Content.xml that is used for this? As mentioned in my previous post, currently that file is empty over here. Except for a heading.
Will try to put in what you suggest for these two packages and see if that will get rid of the static aircraft at LOWW.
Thanks again and have a good rest of the morning/day/evening where ever you are these days!
It seems MSFS does priority opposite from FSX (which had the highest priority items at the top of the content list (which in itself is interesting as it means the menu displayed the contents opposite with how the packages were read in FSX).
It seems that the section doesn’t require cards to be in order as you could have priority= options in any order in the list
As was already mentioned, priority is in opposite order than expected, in that usually priority 1 has the highest priority, but, here, it has the lowest priority
I’ll let the other Richard comment here as well since he knows far more about this than I do but when it comes to priority and whether the system in place here is opposite to what you normally would think of, that I guess depends on how you see it.
What I mean is, in the example above, prio 2 will be what is active in the sim. Since it will load after the package with prio 1. In that sense…yes…prio 2 will “override” prio 1. However, prio 1 is the package that will be loaded first. In that sense, prio 1 is still the prio 1 most of us think of as prio 1…meaning the lower the prio number is, the earlier it will be loaded by MSFS.
Not sure if I even understand what I just wrote myself but I hope you’ll still be able to understand what I mean
I understood that, I was just really pointing out it was reversed in FSX, the first item was the most important there…
My bigger question/comment was, it looks like packages don’t have to be listed in priority order, you have to depend on the priority= tag, which, could get confusing… and… what happens if one of the priority numbers is missing, will the parser continue reading if it can’t find a card?
I thought I already posted about my result but looks like I never got to it.
Anyway, tried using the method mentioned above by @NAVData as seen below. Where I’ve used this new prio system both for EKCH and LOWW to get rid of the static aircraft. For whatever reason though, it’s only working at EKCH. Going to LOWW, I still have the static aircraft even when I have the “removal” package for LOWW in the Community folder as well as the entry for it in Content.xml as seen below.
Richard,
do you have the Gaya scenery from the MarketPlace (means in the Official folder) or do you have bought the Gaya LOWW scenery bought outside the sim in a webshop and therefore in the Community-folder?
Have you tried using only the removal packages in content.xml, particularly for zzz-loww-static-removal,
i.e. don’t have an entry at all for gaya-simulations-airport-loww-vienna?
I am wondering if the priority entries are only required for modifications you want made to already loaded packages, and therefore adding entries for the package that is to be modified as well as the package that makes the modification may be counter productive. I.e. just have entries for the package that does the modifications…
It might work, it might not! I am still trying to get my head around the logic of this new system.
Happy to report it’s working but also sorry I have been wasting your time guys
When playing around with the LOWW scenery and what has been suggested here, I figured I would have a look what it looks like without the static aircraft removal package. So I did and all of a sudden, there were LOTS of static aircraft all around the airport. Putting the removal package back in the Community folder as well as readding the entry in Content.xml, they were gone.
What happened was how I didn’t remember just how many static aircraft there are at LOWW without the removal package. However…and this is were I was fooled myself…not all static aircraft are removed by the removal package. Where I picked a parking stand when discussing this with you guys where it happened to be a couple of static models left. Even with the removal package installed.
So, the package has been working all the time from the perspective we’ve been discussing here, making sure it’s active and loaded in the right sequence. Only that the package itself isn’t 100% effective at removing all static aircraft models.
Should also mention I’ve now tried having both entries for the actual scenery package as well as the removal package in Content.xml but also only the entry for the removal package. As suggested above by @tamalien and can confirm that doesn’t seem to make any difference. Works fine either way.
Sorry again guys but big thanks for trying to help me out and hopefully we at least learned a thing or two about the new scenery loading system post SU10.
)
At least I think it was you if my memory serves 
