Can we stop installing add-ons until they are official

[Dillon 2,197]

Actually the benefit is I get to use the addons in P3Dv2.

 

You could have titled the thread better. Telling people "don't install this or that" is...bossy?

I also don't see the droves of people complaining that addons aren't working like you're talking about. I see a lot of people complaining about the performance of vanilla P3Dv2 though. Two totally separate things.

I think maybe you should let customers that bought and paid for P3Dv2 use the product how they see fit. If there are loads of threads causing you to make this one telling people what to do, then don't participate in the threads.

Telling people how to act on forums or how to use their products won't do diddly.

 

 

I missed this post, I could have sworn I said 'Please' in my original post...  :blink:

[styckx 1,871]

Dillon. No worries.. I just have no filter and just say what I gotta say. I'm like Gordon Ramsey on AVSIM.

[HighTowers 1,434]

Having a whole thread or two about a master compatibility list doesnt help the situation. People just take it as face value without finding out what it really means. Ive installed some aircraft whether with the EMT or native p3d installers, and a quick boot around an airport and all seems good, so some might declare that as compatible. Yet I do a full flight, and I havnt completed a full flight. 

 

I dont blame anyone. FSX needed a loooong time to mature. P3DV2 wont need anywhere need that span of time, but it will need maturity, and that comes with everyone not making presumptions, and working with LM and the devs to mention issues so that they are taken care of in a timely manner. The plus to adding addons even if not officially supported is that you end up being a beta tester and can report back to the dev on issues. Something that may not get covered with a very small internal beta team.  We are all in this together to advance flight simulation, beyond what our core products have provided for many years. 

[JimmiG 244]

Well, LM have said that they worked hard to maintain backwards compatibility. It's only fair to put their claim to the test. However I'm waiting for the official OrbX region installers before I jump to P3D 2.0. Without decent regional scenery, 2.0 is a downgrade from 1.4.

[DJSean00 7]

Close this.

[Warmbrak 5]

There is a difference between posting observations and basing opinions on how unsupported addons perform in P3Dv2. Popular threads are regularly opinion based and pointless, much like this one.

[Guest]

 

 

All I'm 'asking' people to do is stop complaining if their going to put themselves out there by hack installing add-ons into P3D v2 and using old FSX tweaks that no longer apply then wondering why their 'BACK IN HELL' (sorry J van E but the title to your post applies here, not singling you out)...

 

No problem! ^_^ And after 'being in hell' I certainly do agree with what you said! HOWEVER… I'd also like to say that when there is a sticky post like this one http://forum.avsim.net/topic/426926-p3d-v2-master-compatibility-list/ you are almost asking people to hack install add ons! Now you could say that the topic clearly states which add ons do not work so you should't give those a try but I think it's a bit more complicated. I've posted it before and I see Alan posted something similar:

 

 

 

there's a difference between having an installer that points to the folder and having a product that's actually tuned and optimized for the new code

 

Example: Orbx FTX Global is listed as compatible. Well, yes, you can install it and it works but there also are a few unexpected bugs! Positive thing is that 2.0 is supported by the devs and they are working on fixes.

 

Other example: the A2A C172 is STILL listed as working: you have to hack install it, but it works. Well, I can say that you can indeed fly the plane but 1. whenever I load it, all the trees have the wrong textures and I need to toggle the sims' resolution, 2. you can't switch between screen modes, and 3. A2A specifically posted on their forum that the C172 works in FSX and P3D 14, period… So I decided to not use that plane anymore: wrong tree textures means wrong memory something and that can influence everything.

 

One more: OpusFSX. Even the dev said it was P3D 2.0 compatible but within a week he had to add beta options to avoid problems with volumetric fog. Great support but another example of a dev who thought his FSX add-on would work in P3D without problems. By now we all know this isn't the case. I am sure there are more add ons that are supposed to 'work' according to the list, but that may actually cause problems.

 

I think that compatibility topic needs a huge disclaimer at the top AND it needs a few things fixed! (I'm posting this here because imho it's relevant to this topic and because that stickier topic isn't meant for discussion. I already posted in that topic that the C172 still has problems but that remark didn't make it to the list.) 

 

After my 'hell experience' I decided to only install and use FULLY supported and compatible add ons and wait patiently until other add ons become available.

[Q_flyer 766]

I personally don't think anyone needs to stop trying to install FSX add-ons into P3D2.

 

But the valid point that Dillon made is that people need to just be mindful that they are in effect sometimes forcing a square shape into a round hole.

 

So yes, it's about not being surprised when some addons don't perform the same as they do in their intended simulator... FSX.

 

I installed the feelThere ERJ into P3D in day one and am having a blast, and it performs perfectly, so I certainly wouldn't say that people shouldn't try their own installations, if they wish to.

 

But yes, there are some (like the Q400) that whilst they are working in P3D2, they are not working as well as they do in FSX and probably need some adapting.

Let's squash this back and forth.  I actually agree with your position on holding off and being practical.  We can agree to disagree on certain positions but gearing up to attack everytime we see each others names come up in threads is crazy.  We're both simmers who love this hobby, let's move on.  :friends:

 

Get used to it Dillon;  this guy does this with me too.   He get's a kick out of negative energy, bickering, etc.     The forum's Ignore List works well.         I'm glad he's being called out by more people than just me...  in fact 3 this week, I've counted...  

[stevem72 10]

The key question that will soon start to loom larger when considering buying addons will be "is it P3D v2 compatible or is it P3D v2 native?" As this be make a day/night difference with P3D v2.

 

Some of the devs have found some very clever, creative methods and tricks with their products to deal with FSX's shortcomings or to improve performance - unfortunately now that LM have "cleaned up" or optimised some of this code, those methods and tricks appear in some cases to be having adverse effects in a number of ways.

 

 

 

 

[DarkstarF16 72]

The suggestion is perfectly reasonable. On the face of it.

 

However, I'm big enough and ugly enough to be responsible. I will 'try' stuff because I can't help myself. It's about limiting your testing to ONE thing at a time. Use the new thing for several days and try everything you can do with it. If people mass load stuff and the programme crashes then they won't have a clue what it was and its simple human nature is to blame the core programme, and not all the stuff you loaded into it and spent hours doing so.

 

Take my issue today. I couldn't save a flight. The programme has been working perfectly for days and today it crashed every time I tried to save a flight. Of course it was something I had done. That's not always going to be true except for the majority of cases.

 

I take the compatibility list with a huge pinch of salt. It's human nature to show how clever you are and get a listing in it. What did you test? Erm I loaded it ran it and it showed up on the screen. I posted how good I am . I'm not saying everyone does that, and apologies to the people that take care and are methodical. But it's only been a week! How can you be sure it really really works? What the compatibility list is good for is to let you know its possible.. After that you have to test it to see if it works for you.

 

If you get a crash - it's probably your fault. Is all I'm saying.

 

[EngineRoom 205]

I think we've got two factors at work here:

 

i) People perhaps forgetting that FSX had seven years to mature. P3Dv2 has had ten days. As Q-Flyer stated above, some people are trying to force a square add on into a round sim.

 

ii) Expectations. As ever the community hype machine went into overdrive with P3Dv2. Observing the discussion here and elsewhere it's apparent that a large segment of the FSX user base is desperate for something new. The community driven hype took over (again) and when it turned out that P3Dv2 - as has been so succinctly described above - is not unicorns with rainbows coming out of their bums at 1000fps the disappointment hurts.

 

Throw in a bit of the ever present "My sim is better than yours ergo I am more intelligent than you, flight simming peasant!" sentiment that is always lurking in the background, and you've got a pretty good grip of what's going on right now.

 

Give it time. Give LM time to patch the sim. Give addon developers time to get their heads around the new platform and get their stuff working in it. Give users time to get their heads around the new sim and how it works and get out of the FSX mindset.

[Dillon 2,197]

The suggestion is perfectly reasonable. On the face of it.

 

However, I'm big enough and ugly enough to be responsible. I will 'try' stuff because I can't help myself. It's about limiting your testing to ONE thing at a time. Use the new thing for several days and try everything you can do with it. If people mass load stuff and the programme crashes then they won't have a clue what it was and its simple human nature is to blame the core programme, and not all the stuff you loaded into it and spent hours doing so.

 

Take my issue today. I couldn't save a flight. The programme has been working perfectly for days and today it crashed every time I tried to save a flight. Of course it was something I had done. That's not always going to be true except for the majority of cases.

 

I take the compatibility list with a huge pinch of salt. It's human nature to show how clever you are and get a listing in it. What did you test? Erm I loaded it ran it and it showed up on the screen. I posted how good I am . I'm not saying everyone does that, and apologies to the people that take care and are methodical. But it's only been a week! How can you be sure it really really works? What the compatibility list is good for is to let you know its possible.. After that you have to test it to see if it works for you.

 

If you get a crash - it's probably your fault. Is all I'm saying.

 

Here's the elephant in the room. You hack install add-ons, you don't know how adversely that affects your install of P3D v2. You might not see an issue until down the road a few months from now a compatible product doesn't work on your machine for some reason (people need to stop tweaking config files for this very reason as well, this is not FSX). Months from now you look and look and report the issue that no one else is having only to find you have a compromised install thanks to the hacking you were doing initially. I agree it's great some people are testing things out but as we start getting into a maturity phase with P3D v2 it's best many of you totally wipe P3D v2 from your drives and re-install so you have a fresh version to actually use. I saw a post yesterday of a person hacking the registry to get an add-on to work properly. Imagine how that's going to affect him down the road especially if he forgets he did that. I for one am only going to install 'fully' compatible add-ons into P3D v2. The whole reason I stayed away from FSX is for this very reason, tweaking. Let us all remember when users down the road say P3D v2 isn't working for them when the issue doesn't affect anybody else, 'DID THEY HACK INSTALL ADD-ONS WHEN THEY FIRST INSTALLED P3D v2?'. I would hate to see our developers and LM get ran through the mud when the actual problem is with the person's install of the program.

 

I agree with J van E that a disclaimer needs to be in that compatibility thread saying, "INSTALL AT YOUR OWN RISK". Also if a developer says their products are fully compatible and we find their not we need to let them know right away. Thanks to everyone here we now know P3D v2 is not P3D v1 or FSX with better graphics.

 

Last but not least Developers need to be more specific as to which version of P3D their products are compatible with. Just saying it's compatible with P3D isn't going to cut it anymore. Which P3D product is it compatible with?

[torium 207]

if you haven't read the list of stuff being worked on for 2.1, go read it

Do you have a link?

[hoser70 40]

I'll keep on installing my addons and enjoying them, thanks...

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Frankly speaking, I didn't expect things to get that funny with the release of P3Dv2.

 

Now I'm actually convinced.   B)