you also believed in the Mayan calendar, right? who says it is the last patch or what level of fixes they are providing?

how about we wait, even with your half empty glass, and give them a chance to work through the issues? the other option of course is going back to fsx and waiting for the aces team to do the same.

 

They promised that autogen would be moved to the GPU and that we would be easily able to max the autogen sliders with the "right video card". They didn't deliver on their promise, and they didn't deliver on their promise that 2.1 is going to be more stable. Until they prove that they can accomplish whatever they're talking about, I'll not believe them anymore.

 

The fact that you're excusing them for so many things, while everyone who bought Prepar3D 2.0 is a beta-tester, is even more annoying.

They promised that autogen would be moved to the GPU and that we would be easily able to max the autogen sliders with the "right video card". They didn't deliver on their promise, and they didn't deliver on their promise that 2.1 is going to be more stable. Until they prove that they can accomplish whatever they're talking about, I'll not believe them anymore.

 

The fact that you're excusing them for so many things, while everyone who bought Prepar3D 2.0 is a beta-tester, is even more annoying.

Where am I excusing anything? I just prefer to fly with my sliders at an acceptable level and wait for the next patch rather than visit every flight sim blog or forum and complain about what you have and even about the patches that you havent even got

All I am ssying is wait and see what the patch brings, unless you work for LM you dont have a clue what will be in it or how many more are coming or who they are engaging as part of their extended beta testing. Patience, grasshopper.

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

They promised that autogen would be moved to the GPU and that we would be easily able to max the autogen sliders with the "right video card". They didn't deliver on their promise, and they didn't deliver on their promise that 2.1 is going to be more stable. Until they prove that they can accomplish whatever they're talking about, I'll not believe them anymore.

 

The fact that you're excusing them for so many things, while everyone who bought Prepar3D 2.0 is a beta-tester, is even more annoying.

 

exactly  !

 

now you and me got disliked and disagreed like crazy  

 

I was even banned from a topic because I was saying that we are only beta testers and pay for product a full AAA price that is not working longer than 20 minutes.

 

And in the end I´m mistaken because I moved the sliders which were given by the devs too much to the right...

 

 

what a joke...

 

exactly  !

 

now you and me got disliked and disagreed like crazy  

 

I was even banned from a topic because I was saying that we are only beta testers and pay for product a full AAA price that is not working longer than 20 minutes.

 

And in the end I´m mistaken because I moved the sliders which were given by the devs too much to the right...

 

 

what a joke...

 

 

Unfortunately the amount of ###### that say Prepar3D 2.1 is perfect and will excuse Lockheed Martin for anything is too high. A couple of months ago, when I kept repeating the fact that the autogen in Prepar3D 2.0 still runs on the CPU (when Lockheed Martin promised the exact opposite) because nobody cared to read my posts correctly, a few members called the moderators to get me banned from the thread.

 

Well, if the autogen were on the GPU, we wouldn't be having OOMs now because it would run on the VRAM. So much for nobody believing me.

Not all arguments about 64 bit mention 64 bit.  Seems like a lot of the "glass half empty" people are also proponents of going to 64 bit.  There is evidence of a high degree of correlation here.

 

The glass is never half empty, it's always completely full.  The part that isn't filled with water is filled with air.  Air is important.  You can go for a lot longer without water than you can go without air.

 

I prefer to think of using lowered sliders as "living within my means."  The words were "with the right graphics card."  It may be that the right graphics cards don't yet exist.  It may also be that this was an ideal situation, a design goal, and we're not quite there yet.

 

As for being a beta tester, I LOVE being a beta tester!  It usually means I have some input to the design process.  Those who never want to be beta testers should avoid buying early versions of anything.  Given the complexity of P3D, we're still not anywhere near a mature product... still in early versions.

 

Hook

Wow... so much hate... how can you handle the stress of being so angry over so little so much??

 

*Let's see who "you" decides they is... :wink:

I prefer to think of using lowered sliders as "living within my means."  The words were "with the right graphics card."  It may be that the right graphics cards don't yet exist.  It may also be that this was an ideal situation, a design goal, and we're not quite there yet.

 

As for being a beta tester, I LOVE being a beta tester!  It usually means I have some input to the design process.  Those who never want to be beta testers should avoid buying early versions of anything.  Given the complexity of P3D, we're still not anywhere near a mature product... still in early versions.

 

I can't agree with both points, honestly. I don't know if the right graphics card for shadows and water exists, but the GPU will never do anything for the autogen because it's still running on the CPU. They really should have said "with the right processor", or maybe, "with the right clock speed" because autogen is as multithreaded as FSX.

 

As for beta-testing, if you love being a beta-tester, then test betas. Prepar3D 2.0 had multiple betas before the release, and nobody bought it at release to be a beta-tester (especially the market Lockheed Martin is catering to, training). No software is perfect at release, but I was shocked at the amount of problems when it was released, and even more shocked at the amount of problems after the 2.1 patch.

 

Wow... so much hate... how can you handle the stress of being so angry over so little so much??

 

*Let's see who "you" decides they is...  :wink:

 

Not hating, I really want Prepar3D 2.x to succeed because FSX really has to be replaced. I'm just getting increasingly disappointed with the way Lockheed Martin handle some things, and I feel that they must be pointed out when there are so many people excusing them.

For general information, I've tested the soon-to-be-released "patch for the patch" extensively this afternoon.

 

What the XML parser changes "broke" is now fixed. I actually had to install some of the projects I haven't "fixed manually" yet so I could verify the results and so inform Wes Bard.  :Applause:

 

I'd much rather be part of the solution than part of the problem!

For general information, I've tested the soon-to-be-released "patch for the patch" extensively this afternoon.

 

What the XML parser changes "broke" is now fixed. I actually had to install some of the projects I haven't "fixed manually" yet so I could verify the results and so inform Wes Bard.  :Applause:

 

I'd much rather be part of the solution than part of the problem!

 

That's great news. Did the patch you receive include any fixes for the OOMs?

I was curious if some were going to have to unfix there fixes.

Good news, looking forward!

 

Marko

I was even banned from a topic because I was saying that we are only beta testers and pay for product a full AAA price that is not working longer than 20 minutes.

Wrong. I banned you from the topic because of your incessant repetition of the same tired mantra.

 

Say what you want, once. Then drop it and move along...

That's great news. Did the patch you receive include any fixes for the OOMs?

If they were caused by malformed XML scripts, then quite possibly it will help. Nothing I tested was aimed specifically at OOMs per se.

I was curious if some were going to have to unfix there fixes.

No. Errors are still errors, whether they are ignored or not. So, using the new config tool to track down and remove such errors can only be a "Good Thing" for everyone.

 

I'm so delighted with this new ContentErrorReport.txt log that I've moved my entire development pipeline to use P3Dv2.1.x even for FSX development!

Wrong. I banned you from the topic because of your incessant repetition of the same tired mantra.

 

Say what you want, once. Then drop it and move along...

 

EDIT: Sorry, thought you were talking about me.

Wrong. I banned you from the topic because of your incessant repetition of the same tired mantra.

 

Say what you want, once. Then drop it and move along...

 

lolwut

 

I replied once to this thread

First, it's not your place to tell Lockheed-Martin what they should and shouldn't do.  You are not the owner of said company and not in charge.  That's your primary source of frustration, this self-induced illusion that you're in control and/or have authority.  You're not and you don't.

 

All you can do is request, nicely.  That's it.  Ranting and raving about perceived slights and/or ambivalence on L-M's part is just a sheer waste of mental health.  Since you've already done that (of course I'm assuming you asked nicely)... your "job" is done.

 

They don't owe you anything, no really... they don't.  Heck they don't owe any of us anything.  Every single time we purchase software, it is always... and I do mean always sold "as is" with no guarantees or assurances of this, that or the other.  It's never, ever been different.

 

The fact that they are even listening to us at all is a plus, since they really don't have to.  However I can assure you that if the signal-to-noise ratio continues to deteriorate, they'll tune out.  Might want to consider that as you prepare to send out your next post, because bad posts affect all of us, not just the poster.