Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
mac44

Prepar3d Professional Patch 2.2 to 2.3 - Help!

Recommended Posts

Help!
Just came back to Preapr3d after a few months off and noticed there is a patch 2.4 available - however it requires my version 2.2 to be patched to 2.3 before I can install it - does anyone know where I can get this incremental patch 2.2-2.3? (before anyone asks bizarrely the Prepar3d website does not keep any legacy patches only the current 2.3- 2.4! and I also have no wish to install it from scratch again as I have so many add-on's installed and configured on my current install - any help is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post

Your only option is a full reinstall. 2.2 to 2.3 is not available. You *might* try emailing the LM licensing section - worth a try.

 

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

thanks for the reply Vic (might try this as a last resort)

Actually someone has actually messaged me and kindly offered to send me their 2.2-2.3 patch - only issue is that's its the academic patch and I am running professional version  - so not sure if its going to work? - does anyone else have the professional patch that they might me willing to share (if not might see if the academic patch works).

Share this post


Link to post

Will sharing patches actually work?

What harm can it do? Either it will work or it won't. If the latter, then mac22 will be no worse off. IMHO, for what it's worth, by denying legitimate customers legacy patches LM have got it so wrong. Prepar3D, like FSX, encourages the time consuming installation of Addons, many of which are really quite complex. Their current stance on this issue is a clear demonstration of LM's unwillingness to acknowledge this growing issue. What's more, why the heck should it matter to them when the level of Developer support on the Prepar3D dedicated forum is, shall we say, nominal. Rarely do they respond in any meaningful way to requests for help or feedback. Folk like Saul and Rob appear to have their ear when it is needed and, from time to time, obligingly act as a conduit between us and LM, but what does that say about the rest of us?

 

We are now advised to expect version 2.5 sometime early this year. If you cannot patch you will be faced with a full reinstallation. My hope is that the 'workaround' will continue to provide a solution since it's unlikely that LM will have addressed this known issue since the numbers affected are, as they see it, insufficient to justify their attention. I want to be able to update to 2.5, but must confess that I am viewing the prospect with very mixed feelings.

 

Each and every time an update is issued the forums start filling up with posts from customers requiring assistance. The presence of Addons appears to be a red herring other than for the existence of entries in the exe.xml and DLL.xml files. In any case, the backing up of those 3 well documented users folders + the ProgramData folder will ensure a secure recovery following a successful patch update.

 

I keep praying LM will have had a change of heart, but it's not likely. The majority can patch quickly and successfully. I fail to see how the provision of legacy patches can be other than helpful to those who have, for whatever reason, delayed the process.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

the question was simple - will sharing patches work. You obviously don't have an answer.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Gerry,

 

Actually, I do....Yes!

 

However, I should qualify that by saying I don't know whether an Academic patch would install successfully in a Professional installation nor, indeed, vice versa. I believe both patches are identical except for referencing that infamous registry key which is needed to write the value 'Complete' at the end of the patch install.

 

As you are probably aware, I am one of those that was unable to install patches by the official route. I received no help whatsoever from LM and was left to work out a solution for myself and others who found themselves to be in a similar position. That solution was/is (hopefully) the workaround posted at the Prepar3D forum. Rob kindly included links to these threads. Unfortunately these links no longer work since LM 'updated' their board software.

 

Regards,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Actually, I do....Yes!

 

Then why didn't you say initially so, instead of suggesting What harm can it do?

Share this post


Link to post

Then why didn't you say initially so, instead of suggesting What harm can it do?

Gerry, Gerry, and a Happy New Year to you to!

 

Quite simple, I have seen evidence that it does work, but I cannot say that it would work in every case. Perhaps it will, I just don't know for certain.

 

If LM won't provide access to previous updates then I see no valid reason for legitimate licence holders sharing patches with others who require them. The other alternative would be for LM to provide patches which would allow updating from a version or two before the current version. Historically, evidence suggests this is also unlikely to happen.

 

Regards,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you can let us know what evidence you have that it does work?

 

On the  P3D site My Account lists my Download Purchases. These include my Patches, Full Downloads, and Individual Component downloads.  Can I share all of these?

 

I'm sure others may comment on your last paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you can let us know what evidence you have that it does work?

 

On the  P3D site My Account lists my Download Purchases. These include my Patches, Full Downloads, and Individual Component downloads.  Can I share all of these?

 

I'm sure others may comment on your last paragraph.

Hi Gerry,

 

No need, it does and that's all that should be said.

 

A Patch is not a purchase, rather it is a free entitlement for all those who hold a legitimate license of the primary product. If LM wished to prevent the distribution of legacy patches then they should have tied each patch to the individual licence holder's account. Either this was an oversight or their intention was to allow a degree of flexibility.

 

Yes, I too would be interested to read what others are feeling about this issue. Can it be considered right for LM to force a licence holder to reinstall everything from scratch simply because he or she failed to update when the required patch was available? There are many reasons why a patch may have been overlooked or declined at the time of release. Removing legacy patches from a licence holder's account when it has yet to be demonstrated that updating to the latest version requires a full install seems more like a punishment than a necessity or mandatory requirement. If we were moving to version 3.0 then it would be understandable and acceptable. However, thus far the version 2.x incremental updates have primarily been issued to provide us with welcome fixes and performance enhancements.

 

I think that's all I need to say on this matter.

 

Regards,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

thanks for the reply Vic (might try this as a last resort)

Actually someone has actually messaged me and kindly offered to send me their 2.2-2.3 patch - only issue is that's its the academic patch and I am running professional version  - so not sure if its going to work? - does anyone else have the professional patch that they might me willing to share (if not might see if the academic patch works).

 

Hi mac22,

 

I am in exactly the same boat, but I do have the "Academic" license. I have not found anyone who has the 2.2 to 2.3 patch however. :mad:

 

I don't suppose you would pm me with a link to that would you?

 

stratoboomer

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


No need, it does and that's all that should be said.

 

It's what you ]say and have, for some reason failed, to support you claim.

 

 

 


Can it be considered right for LM to force a licence holder to reinstall everything from scratch simply because he or she failed to update when the required patch was available?

 

Lockheed Martin meets it obligations by providing for patches. Ii's not Lockheed Martin's problem if users fail  to meet their obligations to update Prepar3D when patched in available,  regardless of any sob story.

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt that the Academic patch would work on the Pro edition. I'm pretty sure (not positive) that there is a version check in the installer.

 

I really don't see what the fuss is about. A full install periodically is a great way to reset all the garbage that might have built up when there's a system crash etc.

 

I have FTXGlobal, Vector, OpenLC, PNW, NCA, Scotland, NZ. NRM, CRM, Europe all the freeware, UTX, MyTraffic and a whole slew of payware aircraft and some I've ported from FSX in addition to various things like FSUIPC.

 

Takes me about 2- 3 hours to do a complete reinstall.

 

Also, for some, the patch didn't take properly.

 

My advice, bite the bullet and do the full reinstall. You could have had it done in a fraction of the time it has taken for this discussion, etc.

 

I have learned over time that some people spend more time looking for the easy solution than it would have taken the hard way.

 

Murphy's Law of computers says that your patch will screwup.  :)

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

Gerry, Gerry, and a Happy New Year to you to!

 

If LM won't provide access to previous updates then I see no valid reason for legitimate licence holders sharing patches with others who require them.

Just noticed my mistake - should have been a double negative to convey the correct intended meaning. Sorry about that :(

 

 

Hi Vic,

 

You actually enjoy having to spend 2-3 hours reinstalling everything - really?! It took a heck of a lot longer for me. Anyway, why destroy a perfectly good working installation?

 

I have learned that spending some time finding that easy solution can pay dividends in the longer term....and I enjoy a challenge while others might also benefit from my experience.

 

I wonder what the chances are of something going wrong during the reinstallation of a multitude of Addons as opposed to the successful application of a simple Patch Updater - either by the official route or by using the workaround (assuming it still works for the upcoming 2.5 update).

 

Murphy's Law - no argument there, but you can certainly improve the odds by recording what was done previously to achieve a successful outcome rather than being faced with reinventing the wheel each and every time.

 

Kind regards,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

LOL! You hit the nail on the head Mike - I have my reinstallation well organized so it's painless. I usually use the patch but if I feel there are a lot of different areas in the patch, I might skip it.

I look at it as a cleanup. I've seen too many things pile up through the years with FSX and now P3d that are easily solved by a full reinstall.

EVERY time you have an aborted session, whether it be P3D or Windows - there is always the possibility of crap building up leading to corrupted files etc.

To me doing a full install every now and then is simply a maintenance necessity to keep my system trouble free.

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

thanks for everyone's help on this!

in fact I never did need the academic patch (not sure it would have even worked) however someone kindly provided me with the correct professional patch and after some issues with FSUIPC4 have managed to get everything working again!

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...