Patch Failure - Unhappy with LM

[spirit_66 2]

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!  

Well, what should one call a fine working P3D v2.3? Should I do a full install only to please you? That's really funny. Can you tell me what I should try to give you right that my P3D doesn't work? Where should I look at to see what's wrong?

 

I start the FS, take a flight and it works so smooth and nice. Should I have doubts that it works pretty well?

 

The patch works very well and that's what I say based on my actual experience.

 

By the way - I didn't see the dll problems as a real problem. That's temporarily and has nothing to do with LM.

 

Spirit

[Cruachan 705]

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.

Hi Nathan,

 

Yes, all you have said may well be true, but then why offer a patch to users in the first place if they didn't view it as being a viable alternative. They are only too well aware of the need/requirement for this option as many requested it before version 2.1.

 

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to issue a modified patch incorporating a module which would output a text log file documenting the success or failure of each step of the patching process? How else can we determine why the process has failed?

 

How would we feel if we were forced to reinstall our operating systems every time Microsoft issues it's next batch of updates?

 

Also, other than increasing the available RAM from 8 to 20GB, my hardware hasn't changed at all for the past 3 years. I am still running Prepar3D v 1.4 and V2.2 without any issues. I have to assume that all the pre-requisites for a fully functional and stable Prepar3D are still in place and functioning correctly. In any event I would expect a well written installer/patch updater to inform me if something needed to be corrected.

 

Mike

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

LOL, Mitch, talk about stating the obvious!

===========================================

 

Well Mike, lol...sometimes we all need a nudge....and it is ONLY by stating the obvious....(large smile!)  Cheers!

 

I also am in total agreement with you on your O.P.   The patch should have worked...and then you had v2.3  Total agreement......

 

Mitch

 

 

Should I do a full install only to please you? That's really funny. Can you tell me what I should try to give you right that my P3D doesn't work? Where should I look at to see what's wrong?

-------------------------------------------

 

Nope...not to please me, or anybody!

 

You just have to wonder...that because the patch is so volatile, does it in fact update the files that it needs to to take you to v2.3.   In light of the repeated posts of failure to do its job across a number of different system configs....I myself would be wondering...as I looked at the screen....  A full install, would remove any and all doubt.  Each to their own, of course, Spirit.  

 

 

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.

 

 

Mike, I wish this for you as well. It took me around (as already stated...) 20 hours to sort this all out, to a stable and working copy...  I was not happy to say the least...(put mildly....).

 

Let's hope you see your solution come sooner, than later.  If not....as I say......."may the Climb up Mount Orbx...be a happy one....."

[Cruachan 705]

I start the FS, take a flight and it works so smooth and nice. Should I have doubts that it works pretty well?

 

The patch works very well and that's what I say based on my actual experience.

 

By the way - I didn't see the dll problems as a real problem. That's temporarily and has nothing to do with LM.

 

Spirit

Hi Spirit,

 

We know that the patch worked for you and you are now experiencing the fruits of that success. However, my experience, and that of others has been somewhat different. With respect, I remind you that hearing about folks successes is not really my intended purpose for this thread.

 

My hope is, and I do accept that it may be a false hope, that if users show sufficient support, something may happen to persuade LM to review their patching algorithms with the aim of incorporating, as a minimum, some form of logging monitor. Does anyone feel able to support this aim? If not, then, like Mitch, I may as well throw in the proverbial towel and accept the inevitable.

 

LM stated on the 11August:

 

"The Lockheed Martin Prepar3D team loves hearing about your experiences with Prepar3D at our forums. The forums also give us an opportunity to listen to your feedback as we continue Prepar3D development. We’ve partnered with our forum users and with several 3rd party solution developers to continue to bring added features, enhancements, optimizations as well as additional backwards compatibility, bug fixes, and additional stability to Prepar3D v2."

 

In the main I would say this is true, although they don't post very often on their forums. However, where the Patch Updater is concerned feedback is sadly lacking at present and my humble attempts were quickly squashed by the removal of my posts without any warning or explanation.

 

I'm sure you would agree that, if at all possible, reliable patching for everyone between major version updates is a highly desirable objective. Or do we all have so much time on our hands we are happily prepared to waste large chunks of it with each interim update?

 

Regards,

Mike

[Warmbrak 5]

There are a lot of add-ons and different setups that may cause a patch to fail; hence why LM recommends a fresh install to ensure it will work as intended. I am sorry if the patch did not work for everyone, but there is an alternative. The time wasted posting here and debating the issue to death could have been spent on a re-install. 

 

I had to do this for V2.2, but the end result was awesome. This time round the patch worked for me, so I can't complain. My advice is to suck it up and re-install. Just do it and move on.

[newtie 533]

With the time spent on this thread, you could have the full 2.3 installed and been on your way.  :smile:

[Cruachan 705]

There are a lot of add-ons and different setups that may cause a patch to fail. The time wasted posting here and debating the issue to death could have been spent on a re-install.

 

Hi Warmbrak,

 

You may be correct concerning Addons and different setups but, with all due respect, you do not know that this is the case without evidence other than the fact that we are told to first backup and then delete those 4 folders. Others with ORBX, FTX, PILOT's, etc. seem to have been successful with the updater.

 

Regarding the time wasted, is it time wasted if somehow, as a result of threads like this, we end up with an improved patching process?

 

In the end, you will likely be proved to be quite right and I will be dragged kicking and screaming down the full reinstall route..LOL! I'll try and hold out just a little longer in case there are any developments. Yea, I know, more fool me!

 

Mike

With the time spent on this thread, you could have the full 2.3 installed and been on your way. :smile:

Yawn!

[SKEWR 364]

I followed Rob's advice and I think I have a better performing P3D, but I can't tell with the myriad of blue triangles...

I'm pleased that there is a sim that's still being improved, however, I would have liked to avoid some of the growing pains that come with it.

[rparson99 32]

LM could possibly produce an install that does a version check on every one of its files and abends if modified...then we would all have to do a full install every time.  Sure, problems are not a welcomed experience, but these types are mostly due to the openness the simulation allows for modification.  And if this is the cost, then I wouldn't rush out and change it for the alternative although I expect this will improve over time as devs adopt higher standards.  For now it will pay dividends to understand a little of how 3rd party add-ons modify our installs and proceed with caution...the key EXE and DLL files which can lead to so many problems.  And a little patience and Advil will help too!

[Cruachan 705]

I followed Rob's advice and I think I have a better performing P3D, but I can't tell with the myriad of blue triangles...

I'm pleased that there is a sim that's still being improved, however, I would have liked to avoid some of the growing pains that come with it.

Hi SKEWR,

 

Roll back your NVIDIA drivers to 337.88. It's a known issue relating to tesselation and the 340.52 (? I can't recall for certain) drivers. NVIDIA have fixed it and all should be well in their next WHQL release. Switch off tesselation meantime if you don't want to roll back.

 

Mike

[Cruachan 705]

LM could possibly produce an install that does a version check on every one of its files and abends if modified...then we would all have to do a full install every time.  Sure, problems are not a welcomed experience, but these types are mostly due to the openness the simulation allows for modification.  And if this is the cost, then I wouldn't rush out and change it for the alternative although I expect this will improve over time as devs adopt higher standards.  For now it will pay dividends to understand a little of how 3rd party add-ons modify our installs and proceed with caution...the key EXE and DLL files which can lead to so many problems.  And a little patience and Advil will help too!

 

Not prone to headaches so won't need the 'Advil'. As a rule I have patience aplenty, but I must confess that this campaign/battle is stretching it a tad..lol

 

All I ask is that LM tell me under what circumstances their Patch Updater will fail in the manner I have described. Simple question, and they should have the answers if their Beta testing was sufficiently comprehensive. So far they aren't playing ball and that does make me wonder why.

 

Mike

[DylanM 1,069]

I checked my file datestamps / versions before and after the patch and they did indeed update. The patch installed successfully (or the new water, HDR, and performance is one hell of a placebo...)

[asanal 32]

I spent many hours with new P3Dv2.3  Faulting Module name clr.dll crashes. I checked one by one all addons . Finally when removed Active Sky NEXT software, P3Dv2.3. started to work without any problem.

[motoadve 49]

Im going to wait for ASN new version and also FSUIPC, then will install the patch.

[Cruachan 705]

Please, I ask again that you DO NOT POST HERE ABOUT YOUR SUCCESSES! We KNOW many have had no problems with the patch, but these posts could easily be misinterpreted as rubbing our noses in it! I apologise if this upsets any of you but, hopefully, you can understand why such posts are counterproductive.

 

This thread is for those who have NOT had success with the patch and also feel motivated to lend their support by encouraging LM to revisit their updater which, FOR SOME OF US, is currently just not fit for purpose. Is this such a big ask?

 

If, by some miracle, we do receive a revised patch that actually works for EVERYONE next time around isn't that a worthwhile objective? I accept that there will still be failures regardless, but if the modified patch updater has been given built in logging capabilities then we should have a quite different ball game.

 

*************************************************************************************

 

LM could be using those of us who, for the time being, remain on v2.2, and are a highly motivated cohort of testers for this very purpose. I am willing, is anyone else interested or am I flogging a dead horse?

 

*************************************************************************************

 

All these posts proclaiming patching success only threaten to undermine this objective!

 

Thank you.

Mike