Sign in to follow this  
Guest jacaru

FS 9 Patch Issue

Recommended Posts

I also posted this in the FS9 Patch thread, but I am also posting here for more exposure.I have installed the patch. Prior to the patch, I had the No CD fix applied (like most every FS 2004 user on the planet). The Update went flawlessly, no warnings or messages. But I noticed that when I now launch FS 2004, I don't get prompted for the CD #4. Which leads me to believe that the FS9.exe file did not get updated. According to the Update README file, if the update detects a non standard version (No CD fix version), it is supposed to give you a message, and then abort the update. I was under the impression, if all was OK the FS9.exe would be overlayed with the one in the update download.It didn't do either.So what should I do? I could uninstall the update, copy my original FS9.exe file from the FS 2004 CDs, and then perform the update again.If this is the case, I am surprised that Microsoft didn't just replace the file? This makes no sense!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Your patch is installed correctly... Microsoft didn't do away with the 'No-CD' '.exe' if we have it installed. The patch is not going to require you to have CD#4 in the drive to start Flight Simulator. Go fly and have fun. Some people have to make this thing more complicated than it is... :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I think you need to make a decision as to whether to pursue the new fs9.exe or not, as it impacts on your choice of addon patches - Active Camera 1.1 works fine with the existing n-cd file, but version 2.0 requires a patch itself to work with the new FS9.exeOn my patch install I didn't get a new FS9.exe, nor error messages that the install failed, so I guess it worked, but I got the new FS9.exe from someone else who also installed the patch onto a setup similar to mine (English version, loads of addons, n-cd crack, Update run from the root directory of FS9, that kind of thing) and he DID get the new FS9.exe!I'm beginning to think the patch installer is faulty - it probably SHOULD be overwriting FS9.exe, but in many cases it doesn't. It doesn't seem to have any effect within the sim itself, but memory addresses are changed between the FS9.exe versions and I can see all sorts of confusion developing with some users having trobule with the `old` FS9.exe, some with the `new` unless something is done to correct this.For once, I actually think Avsim needs to host the new FS9 no-cd crack file when it appears, if only because it puts all Avsim users back on the same playing field.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK my version indicates 9.1.But I still have the old FS9.exe file (No CD Version).So really I have a partial patch. Microsoft should have backed up or renamed the FS9.exe and then installed the new one. If anyone wants to put back the No CD version then THEY can just copy it to the Flight Simulator 9 folder. Unless there was NO FS9.exe changes in the base program, and it was ALL changes to the external files (DLLs, etc)Again, this approach doesn't make sense and is causing confusion.If there was changes to the FS9.exe, I want to get the new FS9.exe without having to uninstall and re-install the the whole update.Can someone please CLARIFY whether a new version of FS9.exe gets copied as part of the update? Can someone post the NEW FS9.exe file in the File Library on AVSIM (Microsoft shouldn't care as it is resolving an installation issue they caused by not updating or replacing the FS9.exe file during the upgrade)? Thanks!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to easily check which version of FS9 you have by right-clicking on it and then left-click on properties. Click on the VERSION tab. If it says version 9.1, you have the patched version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>OK my version indicates 9.1.>>But I still have the old FS9.exe file (No CD Version).>Can someone please CLARIFY whether a new version of FS9.exe>gets copied as part of the update? Can someone post the NEW>FS9.exe file in the File Library on AVSIM (Microsoft shouldn't>care as it is resolving an installation issue they caused by>not updating or replacing the FS9.exe file during the>upgrade)? Barry, I'll certainly try, but it's like trying to explain the theory of relativity to someone while at a football game. There's so much noise in the background that the message is lost... :(FIRST OF ALL!, the "patch" does not "write a new fs9.exe" file at all. It modifies the existing fs9.exe by inserting new code in place of the old code. If you happen to be "lucky," the patch may actually run with the no-CD fs9.exe still installed, but the intentional changes to the fs9.exe code will not be done! Ample evidence is available that the memory offsets ("hooks") in fs9.exe have changed. The fact that the .dlls for Active Camera, FSUIPC and RealityXP have to updated is rock-solid, proof positive that changes were made.Although no one outside of the MSFS programmers can be certain, it is near certainty that offsets used by FS9's own .dll files have also changed. Hence, it logically follows that some - if not all - of the "fixes" provided by the proper application of the patch will not function properly, if the old, non-patched no-CD fs9.exe is used in place of the updated original fs9.exe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Steven, you are wrong and are only confusing thinhs still further. The other files and the properties dialogue for FS9 indicate a 9.1 file update, but the FS9.exe is not, repeat NOT updated - version remains at 9.0.0.30612 not 9.1.0.40901. You are not helping by confusing the issue which is confusing enough already, for example:Active Camera 1.1 works with 30612Active Camera 2.0 works with 30612But neither work with 40901Active Camera have patched 2.0 so that it DOES work with 40901 but then the patched 2.0 will not work with 30612.All this seems likely to cause confusion unless a link to a no-cd patched 40901 is allowed to stand in this forum on this one occasion - frankly if MS cannot be bothered to release a patch that checks the validity of the users installation or require verification of the serial number I don't see that they can ask Avsim or any other simmer to do their protection work for them any longer.Anyone know where or when the crack might appear?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Ample evidence is available that the memory offsets ("hooks")>in fs9.exe have changed. The fact that the .dlls for>Active Camera, FSUIPC and RealityXP have to updated is>rock-solid, proof positive that changes were made.>>Although no one outside of the MSFS programmers can be>certain, it is near certainty that offsets used by FS9's own>.dll files have also changed. Hence, it logically follows>that some - if not all - of the "fixes" provided by the proper>application of the patch will not function properly, if the>old, non-patched no-CD fs9.exe is used in place of the updated>original fs9.exe...In that case the patch is flawed as on neither of my installations (one with no-cd file one with `fresh` original FS9.exe from the CD) did the patch installer modify the file. I knew to look, and where and how to look, but at casual first glance all apeears to have been installed AOK.And that's the point - how is the average simmer supposed to know that his newly patched FS is not working with his freshly patched FS addon because MS can't do the job properly? It TELLS him the patch is installed successfully. He READS that his addon needs a patch or upgrade to work with the patched FS. He installs the patch file and the addon doesn't work! All because the installer didn't install/modify the FS9.exe as it was supposed to.Instead likely as not they'll go and rant at the addon developer when the problem is not their fault, or post in forums like this. And only a small proprtion of simmers post in forums.It's a potential prize snafu, is what it is.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>In that case the patch is flawed as on neither of my>installations (one with no-cd file one with `fresh` original>FS9.exe from the CD) did the patch installer modify the file.>I knew to look, and where and how to look, but at casual first>glance all apeears to have been installed AOK."At a glance?" That's hardly a through examination... :)The only "visible evidence" that the fs9.exe was properly updated is to simply check the version number and date of the fs9.exe itself. If properly patched, the version number and date will have changed.However, internally, the memory offsets and dll calls have changed, hence the need for new versions of FSUIPC, Active Camera and RXP .dll files.It should be patently obvious that MSFS cannot apply the patch to an altered fs9.exe file! Since the non-stock fs9.exe has had all the 'copy protection' removed, none of the remaining parts of the file are at the expected locations in the file (that's why the altered fs9.exe is roughly half the size of the original fs9.exe file!)...It's unfair - no, impossible! - to expect MSFS to "patch" an altered file with their update utility. That is precisely why they went out of their way to emphasize that you must restore the original, unaltered fs9.exe file prior to running the update patch program.For the very first time in my extensive experience, MS wrote a comprehensive, cogent and eminently understandable set of instructions for properly applying their update. It sure as heck isn't their fault if the end user is either unable or unwilling to follow simple, clear and precise directions.To be sure, MS could have simply included a totally new fs9.exe in the update, rather than replacing code in the original fs9.exe... Even then though, there would always be some indeterminate number of individuals who would have somehow figured out a way to bollox up even that simple procedure... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only "visible evidence" that the fs9.exe was properly updated is to simply check the version number and date of the fs9.exe itself. If properly patched, the version number and date will have changed."If you check the properties of the files you will find the new FS9.exe is 28 bytes larger than the original.-----** d:04FS04fs9.exe Old date: 6/12/2003 11:07 PM New date: 9/1/2004 3:18 AM Old size: 1,394,631 bytes New size: 1,394,659 bytes-----http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchKurt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I dont know whether you're trying to pick a fight or picking up my comments in arbitrary fashion but either way you're misunderstanding me. THE PATCH TELLS THE USER IT HAS INSTALLED PROPERLY EVEN WHEN THE FS9.EXE HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED. That's the `casual glance` the average user is entitled to expect confirms that everything is installed AOK. There should be no need whatsoever for any user - average, experienced or `genius` - to have to confirm that confirmation with their own confirmation of the version number. MS have, quite simply, messed up. Either the patch installs, or it doesn't. But in several cases we have seen FS9upd.exe say it has installed, when it hasn't. That's a mess, a prize ####-up, bollox, or whatever you want to call it. And I've given it much more than a casual glance!Next, I am referring to unpatched, un-cd-fixed, virgin, FS9.exe extracted from CD1 and placed in the root folder of FS9. I have already said this twice and now I'm repeating it again. I completely understand and agree that MS are not responsible for installation errors resulting from the use of a no-cd or other hacked .exe, but why then does the installation tell the user it has completed successfully when it hasn't? I extracted the FS9.exe from CD1, replaced the FS9.exe in my `clean install` FS9 (No addons, no modules) and copied the patch to the root FS folder, after renaming the Registry to point the FS9 entry to the clean copy rather than my precious 11.6 gigs worth of addons, airplanes, scenery, textures and aftermarket stuff. And STILL the patch refused to update the FS9.exe. Until the third time of trying, when I hadn't changed anything. Explain that to a casual user, then explain that to me. I wouldn't even have KNOWN I didn't have the right files if Chris Willis hadn't posted the new FS9.exe version number in this forum over the weekend, and I hadn't got curious to check if my version was the same as his - the patch had told me it had installed properly, but it hadn't.That's the problem, not cd-cracked files, not expecting every user to be an Avsim visitor and FS expert, simply that the patch is flawed. And while I agree the instructions for use are cogent and understandable, they are NOT comprehensive as there are other files that might have been modified by users that are NOT mentioned anywhere in the readme. So `comprehensive` is not applicable.And none of this would even be a problem if aftermarket developers hadn't already adapted files from suitability with FS9.0 to suit FS9.1. Now it appears that many simmers might be suffering from `FS9.0.9! without even realising it. The best common ground would be for MS to post the revised FS9.exe, or for Avsim to take the initiative, after consultation with MS, I guess. The no-cd crack for FS9.1, when it appears, will solve most of the problems for most users, but there will be those who have adapted files for their FS9.0.9 who will suddenly find that once againg things aren't working. And that's MS's fault, surely?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Bill, >>I dont know whether you're trying to pick a fight or picking>up my comments in arbitrary fashion but either way you're>misunderstanding me. >>THE PATCH TELLS THE USER IT HAS INSTALLED PROPERLY EVEN WHEN>THE FS9.EXE HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED. Nope, it is a simple case of misunderstanding. Now that I clearly understand what you're saying, I'll have to agree......especially so, since I've had precisely the same experience today.On one of the flightstations here, I thought that I had copied over a virgin version of fs9.exe before running the upgrade patch. And yes, even after it reported that I had successfully upgraded to v9.1, I found out that it hadn't updated the fs9.exe file after all.How I discovered this was simply because Active Camera (after the 2.0 upgrade + 9.1 patch) wouldn't work.Truthfully, if I didn't have Active Camera installed, I would not have known this, and would have assumed that all was well with that updated FS9 installation.So you indeed do have a valid point.There's simply SO much reporting of 'self-inflicted wounds' being passed around these last few days, that it's frankly getting hard to keep up with sorting out the real problems from the BS... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the install, my FS9.exe Version is 9.0.3062. I am a software developer and have written many installs. If it is an update, it is the responsibility of the update / install program to properly update ALL required files OR ROLLBACK completely upon failure (in this case Microsoft provides an Uninstall). In all my years of software development, I always rebuild or re-compile the excutable (.EXE) from the ground up (Unless it is HTML or a interpreted / rendered type language). Which would lead me to believe that there should be a completely new FS9.exe file. Unless maybe Microsoft has another way of doing this by incrementally adding additional machine code on the fly to an EXE file? They own the world so maybe they could do this?? In my case, it installed all required files, except the base application file (FS9.exe)? This makes absolutly NO SENSE. The install / update utility that Microsoft provided should have:(A) Detected a non standard FS9.EXE (it is not like Microsoft didn't know about this No CD hack to begin with) and prompted the user that the patch would only be applicable to the original FS9.EXE and then ABORT or QUIT the INSTALL.OR(:( A completely new FS9.exe should have been compiled and distributed with the update, replacing the current FS9.exe.Microsoft has been doing installs and updates for awhile now. This should not be an issue.This is SOOOOOOOOO SIMPLE! The solution is for someone to upload the 9.1 VERSION of the FS9.exe to the AVSIM Library and let people finish the update properly. If AVSIM needs to get permission from Microsoft to do this, so be it.I don't give a rat's patudy if I have to use my CD#4 to get the performance benefits and to have a PROPERLY updated 9.1 version of FS 2004. Just my 2 cents worth. Can somebody send me the file? Just send me a private message and I will give you my email address. ENOUGH ALREADY... Lets be done with this!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the current data base:My original FS9.exe (I have kept a back-up of it since day 1 when I started using the No-CD version) is 1,394,631 bytes, is version 9.0.0.30612, created on June 12 2003 and modified on June 12 2003.My new FS9.exe after the patch is 1,394,659 bytes, is version 9.1.0.40901, it was created on April 2 2003 and modified on 1 September 2004.My install went without a hitch, in less than 5 minutes, after following all the instructions and I have multitudes of addons. However, I have just started having several CTD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>To add to the current data base:>>My original FS9.exe (I have kept a back-up of it since day 1>when I started using the No-CD version) is 1,394,631 bytes, is>version 9.0.0.30612, created on June 12 2003 and modified on>June 12 2003.>>My new FS9.exe after the patch is 1,394,659 bytes, is version>9.1.0.40901, it was created on April 2 2003 and modified on 1>September 2004.>>My install went without a hitch, in less than 5 minutes, after>following all the instructions and I have multitudes of>addons. However, I have just started having several CTD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Nigel, would you confirm the creation date of the patch? Seems>by the info you provide, the patch was made _before_ the>original FS9.exe!>>I suspect the year is wrong but even at that, it looks like it>took MS from this past April to early September to affect the>changes and then another 5 weeks or so to release the>patch.....and only adding 28 bytes of code. No wonder MS is>reluctant to get into patches!Another Nigel here! - My patched fs9.cfg is version 9.1.0.40901, Date created - Sunday, July 27, 2003, 10:40:10 AMDate Modified - Wednesday, September 01, 2004, 3:18:50 AMI had the nocd version, but replaced that with the original version from the CD before I applied the patch. Otherwise I would have lost the modifications to fs9.exe.Only 28 bytes of code changed is probably not true. The file is 28 bytes larger than the original, but that does not indicate how much of the original code was changed by replacing code that occupied the same space. I know when I compared the original version and the patched version with WinDiff, there appeared to be many changes in the code - I can't tell what they are because they appear as garbage characters since WinDif is designed for text files, not executables.Someone far smarter than me maybe able to use a hex editor to compare the original version and the patched version and verify what I found and maybe even tell what the changes are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many developers on their updates only modify the required bytes on requiered files to make smaller updates.mak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this