Orbiter installation poll

[martins]

This question is directed mainly (but not exclusively) towards new orbiter users who only recently discovered and installed Orbiter:

I would like to know if the current way of orbiter installation (as a simple zip file) is ok with users, or if the next version should use a different method (self-extracting archive, or some more sophisticated installer/uninstaller). For most of us, unpacking a zip file isn't exactly rocket science, but I realise that a not negligible percentage of computer users these days may be lost when they have to do more than put a CD into their machine and wait for the installer to come up and do everything for them (and possibly mess up the registry and system in the process )

I have added a FAQ entry on the topic ( http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/faq.html#B1 ) which may help, but if it is a real problem, it may need to be addressed for the next release.

I suspect that the poll results will be somewhat skewed, since all members here presumably did manage to install orbiter, and not many who gave up frustrated are likely to visit here. But it may still give me some insight.

Caveat: I reserve the right to utterly ignore the outcome of this poll ...

 

[gawinnard]

I'm a long time user of Orbiter. I know that you're looking for new users comments, However, I've had 'issues' of installing addons in the past (IMHO it orbiter's biggest Feature )

I would like to see in the launch pad (or separate) an add-on manager/installer, with install/uninstall features. Also if existing file exist from previous versions or other add-ons, the user is given the choice to archive old files and overwrite, or not to overwrite and keep the newer file in a 'holding' archive.

 

[reverend]

I think ZIP is fine unless you wish to become like 99% of all other programs which are installed with an installer/uninstaller.

on gawinnard's comments about adding and removing addons, this would be resolved by using a package system like I posted about. So there is no overwriting other addon's files.

Either this or a 'shadow copy' system that would let someone restore their orbiter system to a previous date.

 

[DaveS]

Current way is just fine. That way, you can just extract the items you want to, without worrying that all files get overwritten.

Besides, many add-ons require you to edit Orbiter files, so you have to leanr how to deal with zip files eventually.

 

[Bj]

unzipping is really as easy as installing, I would just leave it zipped.

 

[Artlav]

One thing i just can't stand is the self-extracting archive files, especially if they are the only method provided. That's my personal opinion, not necessarily a popular one.

I think current zip only option should be kept - ZIP is a default feature in the Windows XP and above, and everyone, who is geeky enough to use Win9x or Unix almost certainly knows how zip works.

The VC2005 redistributables could be a problem if that problem was not solved already. License permitting, just including them in the zip will do, otherwise, a separate download will be necessary, still keeping the zip option optimal.

Speaking of the add-ons installation, what about a folder system?
1. The addons directory, containing the sub-dirs for the add-on files, organized in standard scheme.
2. Every add-on sub-dir will have a small cfg file in it, with things like description and priority written in it.
3. The add-ons active will have priority over the basic files.
4. If 2 addons have a file collision, the one with higher priority is used.
5. To allow different add-on stacking, a 2D priority system could be used (classriority with a metric).

All of above is speculative advice, of course.

 

[Urwumpe]

I voted for a installer, but that not because the old way is insufficient or bad. Free Installer kits are just available now and pretty simple to use, using them can be considered state of the art.

A package manager would be even better but I neither know if one for windows exists, nor do I know how the packages should be made available.

 

[thomasantony]

Hey martin,
I am ok with extracting Zip files. If there is an installer, its still ok by me. You may want to look into Inno Setup. Its an free open source script-based setup generator. I used it in a project of mine and found it very easy to use.

http://www.jrsoftware.org/isdl.php
There are also some extensions for InnoSetup here:
http://www.vincenzo.net/isxkb/index.php?title=Main_Page

And yes, I think one thing that orbiter needs is a standardized addon packaging system. Being able to install and uninstall addons from the launchpad would make things really easier. Maybe each addon could have an XML file in the ZIP archive specifying all the files that need to be copied, backed up etc. This way, any modified or overwritten file can be reverted to their original state on uninstalling.

I don't know if you have used it. The php-based CMS Joomla has such a system for installing its extensions. You just have to give it a zip files and it does everything thats needed. Uninstalling extensions are also very easy.

~
Thomas

 

[dbeachy1]

I like the current method (a zip archive) just fine. I also agree with Artlav in that I very much dislike self-extracting files. Zip files are very common nowadays, and as long as the Orbiter download page has instructions on how to unzip the archive (possibly with a link to the WinZip home page), even new users should be fine.

Also, I have developed installation programs before (using InstallShield), and it's never as simple or straightforward as you think, particularly when dealing with upgrades. Plus then there is one more thing to develop and maintain for each Orbiter release. Just my two cents...

Also, regarding the idea of a built-in add-on manager inside Orbiter, that would really be a lot of work, both for Martin and for add-on developers. I quite like distributing my add-ons in zip format, and I would really rather not change that.

 

[astrosammy]

There should be an installer AND a zip file.

 

[kingpoiuy]

I would say use an installer IF and only if it includes a package manager for addons. Maybe even a package manager with a direct link to the hanger or something. Click on what you want and it downloads it automatically. Otherwise I would vote zips. I don't like registry stuff if it can be avoided.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I say keep it the way it is with the zip file. It allows the most customization and custom placement of files. Plus, I can extract multiple Orbiter installations to the same folder. With a self-extracting system, I do not believe I could customize the title of each individual installation like I can with a zip file.

 

[V8Li]

.zip file. If I mess something up, like an original config or texture, I can always copy it from the .zip without extracting the entire archive.

The best choice would be to offer both: a zip and a self-extractor or installer. Dough I'm sure a simple "right click->extract files" is not much of an unknown for most today's users. I mean, 2 year old kids use DVD players. We were dumber .

EDIT: One more point of view: I've replaced the TransX in the package with the new version so that I don't have to replace it all the time when I reinstall Orbitersim. Can't do that with an exe.

 

[Jax6213]

The zipfile install is okay, but it would be also nice to have an EXE, self extractor install version also with all the textures, bells and whistles.

Thanks for having the poll.

Does this mean we are close to having a new version of Orbiter?!?

 

[levans]

IMHO, there is much to like about ZIP delivery. It has a simplicity and allows archiving and inspection of components. As a newbie I've had no problems actually installing base system, or add-ons. Probably, the target market for a sim of this calibre is likely to find people who have 'clue' when it comes to this kind of installation (and indeed configuration through editing text files).

Having said that, I have a few corollary comments relating to add-ons in general, and installation:

1. Finding and using add-ons isn't too hard, but I think the community could do even better. It's particularly hard, as a new user, to reason about the features you might like/need in terms of add-ons (over what is in the base). It seems that more add-ons are being adopted into the base distribution over time, which is a good thing as it provides a kind of 'blessing' to certain features as they mature. It also allows the common experience to grow - providing a baseline that everyone can relate to, without preventing people to demonstrate new or better ways to do things on the periphery. It also helps to limit "reinvention of the wheel", and keeps overall community energies directed at forward motion, rather than splintering it into different factions and inducing 'brownian motion'. Probably, the simple answer to this is that you're not supposed to care about add-ons until you've played enough with the basic installation to learn the nomenclature and know what you want!
2. Creating an initial personalised environment has involved:
- Learning about the add-ons I might want
- Downloading and installing particular (latest) versions of these
- Logging the changes I am making over the base (installations, configurations), so I know exactly what I have. It reminds me of configuring Linux installations in the bad old days.
A full-fledged plug-in configuration system would likely improve this a good deal, providing an at-a-glance manifest of the plug-ins, allowing in situ activation/deactivation of add-ons (perhaps useful for limiting start-up times depending on scenarios you want to run). It could also provide a common, more user friendly, addon configuration in the future (instead of conf file editing).
3. In the future, there are likely to be new base versions of the simulator. It seems this doesn't happen too often, which is a Good Thing if the increments are valuable and stable. When it does happen, assuming that it doesn't invalidate all the add-ons one is using, it would be nice to be able to upgrade the base, preserving the add-ons and configurations that have been made. Naturally, this requires some more sophistication by way of installers. However, it saves the user from having to "replay" all the add-on installation and configuration on top of the new base (assuming these remain compatible).
4. In the current situation, it must be true that conflicts in file naming between add-on packages could occur, except through the care of add-on designers to avoid such things. While not really a comment about the unzip installation practice per se, it seems to me that a better system would be to have add-ons deliver a top-level directory into a general "add-ons" directory in the base installation hierarchy, under which copies of various well known directories (textures, docs, etc.) contain the extra plug-in data of various kinds. This ought to mean that the only common namespace to be concerned about is the top-level plugin directory name.

Long story, short: I think the ZIP file installation represents quite a nice complexity balance (simplicity at the cost of some convenience). If the developer(s) of Orbiter find time to dedicate to convenience, then there are a number of things that could be done to increase add-on management convenience, and to somewhat mitigate against scale-out (the potential increase in the numbers and versions of add-ons in the future) at the cost of some implementation complexity. Right now, though, I'm betting that the community is still small enough and composed predominantly of folks for whom the current configuration management regimen isn't unduly difficult.

 

[Quick_Nick]

I'd say that sticking with ZIP would probably be best. It's not as simple(but just slightly less) as just running an executable but Orbiter is not a simple program. If someone has hopes of figuring out Orbiter, they should be able to figure out how to get a compressed file open, especially if given instructions. Also, almost all addons use the ZIP(or other compression) format as well. 'Unzipping' programs are included in newer OSs anyways.
But going ahead and making a simple self-extractor would still be a good idea for any users who aren't very technical.

 

[streb2001]

If someone has hopes of figuring out Orbiter, they should be able to figure out how to get a compressed file open, especially if given instructions.

Exactly.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

A zip file is no problem, besides it gives us more overview/control of what exactly is being installed where.

Still, I wouldn't mind there being an installer, so I voted for an installer. Sometimes it's just the ease of use and it's just common for modern applications. Also it would help a lot of new computer users.
As long as we know the Orbiter installer doesn't mess with the windows-registry, an Orbiter-setup would be fine to me.

You may want to look into Inno Setup. Its an free open source script-based setup generator. I used it in a project of mine and found it very easy to use.

http://www.jrsoftware.org/isdl.php
There are also some extensions for InnoSetup here:
http://www.vincenzo.net/isxkb/index.php?title=Main_Page

Ha, I use Inno Setup too for our software applications. So far, it works great (with customized logos, etc.), also the documentation is clear.

regards,
mcduck

 

[BenSisko]

The current zip file system works fine. I also agree with Reverend's comments.

 

[to be]

Though I voted for the zip file option, I think it may be a good idea to have adedicated installer, and a number of people who I have shown orbiter to have questioned why it used zip extraction as the installation process. So, I can't see how it would hurt.