Patch Failure - Unhappy with LM

[Cruachan 705]

Hi,

 

Right now I'm feeling unhappy with Lockheed Martin. I posted my experiences with my recent failed patching attempts to v2.3 with some, what I believed to be, positive comments and suggestions as to how we could progress this issue towards finding a solution.

 

We know that not insignificant numbers have experienced problems with this latest patch update which is clearly flawed in some way. Much helpful advice has appeared on the forums, yet failures still occur. Others contributed to my thread with their experiences and, as far as I can be certain, none of us broke any of the forum rules. Yet, out of the blue and without any explanation, the thread suddenly disappeared. I have to assume, therefore, that either LM are in denial over this issue and we have struck a nerve or the perpetrator of this act is an over zealous Moderator acting as a shield between the Prepar3D community and the Developers. Either way it's very frustrating.

 

Currently I remain on v2.2 and have invited LM to exploit this window of opportunity before we are forced to go down the long and tedious reinstallation route. If they provided a modified updater with logging capabilities we would have a fighting chance of discovering why the patch is failing for many of us. Clearly this issue has not been addressed since similar experiences with the last update.

 

I know most of you who have had success will tell us to accept the inevitable, bite the bullet and carry out a full reinstall before reinstating all the third Party stuff. Well, I don't know about you but I really don't have the hours to waste nor should I when, in theory, I should be able to update quickly using the provided Patch Updater.

 

It seems likely that there may be a straightforward fundamental explanation as to why this patch does not work as it should on some setups. I don't believe mine is in any way unusual and I've always been careful to steer clear of anything that hasn't proven to be cast iron compatible with Prepar3D.

 

The problem is that this can only get worse as our installations grow ever larger and more complex as we will be faced with this rigmarole with every update.

 

I have asked the Moderators over at the Prepar3D forums to reinstate my posts and thread. So far they have not done so nor have they made any comment:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=7947

 

Am I missing something? Am I being unreasonable? All I'm asking for is an indication of a willingness to troubleshoot this problem. Currently I am viewing each update with feelings of dread for what lies ahead in terms of time wasted recreating a stable installation. Surely eager anticipation is far more desirable?

 

Mike

[FransKes 0]

One possible reason for the patch failure, assuming you did everything correctly, is the presence of the ASN link. ASN is incompatible with 2.3. You have to either uninstall ASN or disable "as-srv" in the DLL.XML file and delete or rename the "as-srv" folder in the P3D folder. This happened to me also.

 

Frans

[Yogipriester 11]

I can hardly read any critical comments at the LM forum but rather enthusiastic comments praising LM for their wonderful performance. It reminds me of some media in certain countries of the world.

Sorry, but a huge company that for the second time is not able to produce a patch for their product which works for most of their customers I refuse to praise and crawl into their ..........

 

Jürgen

[spirit_66 2]

So I must have been very lucky getting this patch done on my P3D v2.2 installation? I wonder what went wrong with the unlucky guys.

Spirit

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I can hardly read any critical comments at the LM forum but rather enthusiastic comments praising LM for their wonderful performance. It reminds me of some media in certain countries of the world.

Sorry, but a huge company that for the second time is not able to produce a patch for their product which works for most of their customers I refuse to praise and crawl into their ..........

 

Jürgen

Hi Jurgen and Cruachan

 

While I will be the first one in line, that would like to type my displeasure with LM for producing a patch, that DOES NOT WORK...and no matter what I did, no matter what I disabled...nothing would allow that released patch to do its job...which is dumb...just plain, dumb.  I had over 20 hours of trial and error, all failures...and even due to my level of frustration, posted a Throw in the towel...of which I certainly held that view. I had a perfectly working good copy of v2.2 on a total-system backup..and in fact did bring that back (over 5 hours of restore time wasted via USB 2.0)  I did that. I had v2.2 back. But...my curiosity was eating and eating at me....and by that time, I had settled down somewhat, lol.  So....my true nature came out...and I just uninstalled and deleted my v2.2 folder....turned on all my storage drives...and got to work.  I did a clean install of v2.3...and made sure that I had working installs of Accu-Feel and GSX Ground Services Those two are the most important add-ons for me.  I got them working, (thank you Richard for your insert file), and after verifying that, started the slow climb up Mount ORBX.   Having past my pity-party, was it worth the work and time to install?  Oh man....oh man....was it ever!    I'll say that anyone that does not take the time (yes...yes..you should not have had/have to....yes...total agreement!!!!!)  is truly, truly missing out on some great performance-tuned coding...and a reworked HDR that is pumping visual life into the sim.   Nothing was going to have me remove a perfectly working FSX, in my mind.  Over a dozen flights all around v2.3 with all my candy working...with all my Pilot Mesh working.....has been the reason, and only reason that I have made the decision to free up that space, and let FSX goes its own way.  I finally have an M.S.-based flight simulator that not only runs smoothly under the very stressful demands I require, but looks so freakin' GOOD!  Just the light scattering routines has me no longer looking back.  I flew FSX last night...and it looked so worn out, and dated. Post P3D v2.3 install, is the first time I had something of an M.S. based flight sim to compare it to that LOOKED like it had advanced beyond even a mature FSX...---> v2.3 made it look so worn out.  I guess that I could also trade in the word, 'worn out' for flat, dead looking, no vibrancy...but even v2.2 had that look.  It was FSX.1 to me.  I want to be perfectly clear here...I am not saying that FSX is a dog, was ever a dog...but I now have something that in my A/B flight comparison, has me for the first and ever time, only wanting to fire up P3D, and no longer FSX.  So, there you have it...each user will do their own thing, and for their own reasons, but finally, there is an alternative to move on down the line...and for me...it was ONLY that v2.3 came out, and hopefully, LM will do a little more magic with each v2.x, until v3.0 shows itself.  I have finally made the full switch and migration over to the P3D franchise...and again, only because of what I see and appreciate in their v2.3...and the fabulous performance it dishes out on my system.  I am now tweak-free and have even deleted the .cfg file shortcut fro P3D. There is no need of it, anymore. I have never had a clean FSX.cfg file...since the day of release....  The time has come, thank goodness. You fire up P3D v2.3, and just fly......

 

Happy Camper, Post PITA-v2.3 install

[Cruachan 705]

One possible reason for the patch failure, assuming you did everything correctly, is the presence of the ASN link. ASN is incompatible with 2.3. You have to either uninstall ASN or disable "as-srv" in the DLL.XML file and delete or rename the "as-srv" folder in the P3D folder. This happened to me also.

 

Frans

Hi Frans,

 

Yes, I am aware of this possibility. In my case it doesn't apply as I don't have ASN. Also the DLL.xml and exe.xml files are not present during the patching process as their parent folders have been deleted as per LM's and Rob's instructions. Also, in case others have similar suggestions relating to FSUIPC I have tried every which way including substituting the beta 'f' file and removing the Modules folder in it's entirety.

 

Thanks anyway for trying to help.

 

Mike

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

So I must have been very lucky getting this patch done on my P3D v2.2 installation? I wonder what went wrong with the unlucky guys.

Spirit

Hi Spirit, yes sir!  If you got it to work...but...I might add...you might THINK that you got it to work...that your version reports back v2.3...but somehow I doubt that all the necessary files to truly build you up to a verified working copy of v2.3 ...well...perhaps was truly successful. The only way that you will know for certain...is a full clean install. If not....there is no way to know that all the files are now working...WORKING genuine v2.3 variety.  With all the trouble that seasoned fight sim veterans have had...and I include myself in that count....and that there are way more patch-update failure stories, than positive reports...suggests to me, that the patch is a fatal flop.  Good luck though on your having used that venue....happy flying!  

[SpoonerFLIGHT 10]

Patch is fine, it's your setup.

[Cruachan 705]

I should perhaps explain that the 'patching' process completes in about a minute. That in itself is not a good sign. Only one error appears and that is the infamous 'Could not write value Complete to key...etc.' which I had hoped had been dealt with by now. An empty Prepar3D.cfg file appears in the Prepar3D v2 folder found by running %APPDATA\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2 as do two empty folders, Facilities and SceneryIndexes found by running %PROGRAMDATA\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2. The Prepar3D.exe version and date remained unchanged.

 

I wish I had had the presence of mind to copy the content of my posts over at the LM forums. They contained a fair amount of helpful detail which, I had hoped, might encourage the Developers to look at this further. Sadly I did not. Pity as it would have saved a lot of repetition.

 

Mike

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I should perhaps explain that the 'patching' process completes in about a minute. That in itself is not a good sign. Only one error appears and that is the infamous 'Could not write value Complete to key...etc.' which I had hoped had been dealt with by now. An empty Prepar3D.cfg file appears in the Prepar3D v2 folder found by running %APPDATA\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2 as do two empty folders, Facilities and SceneryIndexes found by running %PROGRAMDATA\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2. The Prepar3D.exe version and date remained unchanged.

 

I wish I had had the presence of mind to copy the content of my posts over at the LM forums. They contained a fair amount of helpful detail which, I had hoped, might encourage the Developers to look at this further. Sadly I did not. Pity as it would have saved a lot of repetition.

 

Mike

 

You see, this is what I can't understand! I know there must be something in my setup that causes the patch updater to skip the bulk of what it should be doing. My objective is to find out what it could be before the opportunity is lost, yet again, when I'm forced down the reinstallation route. Others may also benefit from this troubleshooting exercise but, rather discouragingly, LM seem reluctant to participate, if one can draw any conclusions from their silence on this matter.

 

Full installs should be reserved for major version updates. Period. I would expect to be doing a full reinstall when version 3.0 is released.

 

Mike

Mike, that was exactly my patch install attempt...exactly as you describe, down to the 'could not write the key, blah, blah'.  It is broken...and if some think they did an upgrade through it...all the best of luck to them.  The only way you know you have a true working copy of P3D v2.3...is via a total and clean installation.  There is no other way.....

[motoadve 49]

 Too much work, too much time, too much trouble.

Im staying with 2.2 until a proper patch comes out.

It should be like every other game, patch and play.

[Cruachan 705]

Patch is fine, it's your setup.

You see, this is what I can't understand! I know there must be something in my setup that causes the patch updater to skip the bulk of what it should be doing. My objective is to find out what it could be before the opportunity is lost, yet again, when I'm forced down the reinstallation route. Others may also benefit from this troubleshooting exercise but, rather discouragingly, LM seem reluctant to participate, if one can draw any conclusions from their silence on this matter.

 

I say again we need some way of monitoring each step of the updating process and log successes and failures. Only then do we have the opportunity to find what may be causing the patcher to fail on some setups like mine. Surely this has to be a worthwhile exercise? I'm trying desperately to maintain a positive stance, but as sure as hell it's growing to be more difficult with each passing day.

 

Full installs should be reserved for major version updates. Period. I would expect to be doing a full reinstall when version 3.0 is released.

 

Mike

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

 Too much work, too much time, too much trouble.

Im staying with 2.2 until a proper patch comes out.

It should be like every other game, patch and play.

But if it does not...you are losing out...

[Cruachan 705]

Mike, that was exactly my patch install attempt...exactly as you describe, down to the 'could not write the key, blah, blah'. It is broken...and if some think they did an upgrade through it...all the best of luck to them. The only way you know you have a true working copy of P3D v2.3...is via a total and clean installation. There is no other way.....

Hi Mitch,

 

As ever, I appreciate your uplifting and infectious posts. However, I'm hoping you and others will understand what I'm trying to do here. We need a working reliable patching system. Failing that we all have to accept that Lockheed Martin are just not interested, for whatever reason, and we expect to be faced with hours of aggro reinstalling everything with each and every incremental interim update between major versions. These days surely we should be expecting something better particularly from Lockheed Martin.

 

Currently I'm still holding off from doing hard labour in the earnest hope that LM will offer to try and help sort this mess out. If nothing is forthcoming then, yes, I will do the full reinstall and regret this missed opportunity to finally nail the problem once and for all.

 

Shame I daren't post this over at the LM forums as I'm now expecting the Moderators to pounce. So much for free speech, but then I can only guess that they are viewing my not unreasonable observations as implied criticism of their masters. I can only hope that word will get back to them somehow.

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

But if it does not...you are losing out...

LOL, Mitch, talk about stating the obvious! I desperately want to join the ranks just as I am sure 'motoadve' also shares that desire. I have already stated my reasons for holding off meantime.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[NathanHalley 0]

I used to write software for a large defense contractor not named Lockheed Martin. Not in the simulation arena, but in the realm of flight. We provided no upgrade path. When we released a new piece of software, you reinstall your operating system and then all the building blocks for our software and then our software. Why? Because so many things could have changed on your computer between when you installed version 1 of our software and version 1.1 software that could screw things up, and we weren't going to deal with it. You want to use our software? You get a fresh install.

 

It would not surprise me if LM has a similar type of mindset. Keep in mind, this is not a game. It is primarily meant to be used in a professional environment for serious training, and in those types of environments it is not uncommon to do a fresh install.

 

So while it might be obnoxious, I can totally understand that LM hasn't put a ton of time into making sure the patching process works with all possible combinations of hardware and software configurations. I'm not saying that it isn't obnoxious, though.