Rob, if you have it could you check the Ifly - P3Dv2.5 compatibility ?

 

Thanks in advance.

Good question. If I am not mistaken, I read somewhere it was made opaque for performance reasons. It is ugly, though.

 

Kind regards, Michael

I don't like it for a couple of reasons.  First, when I'm night flying and it pops open (yes, I know I can have that not happen but alas my memory doesn't always hear the details and it's nice to be able to read it), it's just plane in your face.  Second, it just looks so as you say, ugly, and dated, and clunky.  I would like to see something more resizable to something very much smaller, and w/ a transparency control, something a little more elegant & discreet as it were.

 

 

Rob, if you have it could you check the Ifly - P3Dv2.5 compatibility ?

 

I can do some basics, but not going to have the time to test out all there systems ... I know that's your primary AC, but I'm still waiting for the iFly 747 for P3D    Hopefully iFly will be doing their own testing with products that they want to sell for P3D.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Just a heads-up if you are an Orbx user: http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/91569-v25-lm-forces-a-full-reinstall-on-us/?p=832313

What, that the first build of the 2.5 closed beta has issues? 

What, that the first build of the 2.5 closed beta has issues? 

 

What I can infer is that there are big problems with Orbx products on 2.5 and will probably take them a long time to get them fixed. If you want more information, ask John.

That's not correct. It can be fixed very easily by having  the 2.5 installer (or the user) add symbolic links to the Prepar3d main folder, for each of the configuration files that have been moved to PROGRAMDATA. 

I have no idea what kind of incompatibilities exist between Orbx products and 2.5 (you should take this up with John), but it could be more than just data locations.

OrbX products, even regional scenery, have previously overwritten core FSX/P3D files. So LM re-organizing the entire folder structure would probably necessitate new installers and a new FTX Central. However the post from JV seems to imply that the sim itself is "broken", so it's not just a matter of adapting the products to the new version.

 

At this point it's probably best if OrbX issue an official statement on 2.5 compatibility, before rumors start running rampart.

with all the talk of full install forP3d v2.5,and with a large amount of Orbx scenery and Genesis mesh to reinstall I am wondering if it is possible to Transfer all my Orbx scenery on to a separate hard drive now before the release of v2.5, then use a symbolic link to connect it to P3d after updating to v2.5,is it possible ,has any one tried it,

peter

For those of you with Strobe light issues, what GPU and driver version are you using?

 

Also, be aware that if you revert back to an older driver using nVidia's uninstall/re-install process, you will be left with component version mismatches.  This caused some strange issues for me and caught me out ... so per other's recommendation I used the DDU tool to remove the nVidia driver via safe mode ... tool here: http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/display-driver-uninstaller-download.html .

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Hi Rob, I'm currently running a GTX680 (GTX980 incoming with my new rig!). I spent the weekend trying out different driver revisions starting at 337.50 (and used DDU in between...thanks for the link) - unfortunately, no joy.

 

I have the same issue. The strobes are there, but very 'anemic', so they tend to get completely overpowered by nav lights even at short distances, plus they're virtually invisible from further away. I remember LM did some experimenting with effect sizes in the recent point releases, and it seems that the strobe effect was not made consistent with other effects. A quick'n'dirty fix is to edit fx_strobe.fx in the effects folder (make a backup first) and double the values in all "X Scale=x.xx, x.xx" and "Y Scale=x.xx, x.xx" lines.

 

Tym

 

Tym, I'm going to try your suggestion. I assume this applies to the beacon and nav lights as well?

Just let me say a few very simple words.

1. We should all thank Rob for his role trying to make the bridge between us and the LM team. But it seems this effort is not enough in itself.
When people started complaining about the 50% loss of performance due to the wrong cloud sizes in 2.3, neither the team nor the beta testers realized it. We all had continuously heard we were all wrong and mistaken, whereas the possible simplest tests could easily prove that something was seriously wrong. The same stands for the rotating clouds. How many times we heard that it is non-existent, and now it finally appears on the fix-list.

To realize and admit problems like those, should take two days, not months!

 

I personally (like some also mentioned in this forum) got the strong opinion that beta testers are either not enough in quantity for the new releases, or they simply lack the necessary skills how to do an important task like that.
Perhaps the 3rd party companies are drawn into the cycles, but they tend to only care about their own product's compatibility and rarely or never give a shift for the overall performance, small enhancements or other existing bugs

.
It is a humorous scenario that the terrain shadow bug needs to be proven (here and in the LM forum) again and again, even when the new version is about to come to the limelight. It's a fact, easy to reproduce, it just seems the testers are hardly know how to find those problems, rather, some of them often try to prove a mentioned problem didn't exist, just because they personally have never come accross it during their happy flights.

2. Looking at the official list of fixes in 2.5 brings another question.
Why are dozens of fixes and enhancements for the Sim Director feature, which I myself, like most users, have never ever tried and most probably less than 1-2% of average users ever touched.
What's the outstanding importance of it, compared to the other bugs in the core, the lack of fixes like the ATC window saga, and I could easily name quite a few well know discrepancies.

3. The LM team is dedicated and good in what they are doing, but other companies like the freshly emerged Dovetail, intend to employ dozens or even hundreds of experienced programmers for similar tasks. They have the Flight DX-11 code at hand, to do with it, whatever they wanted.
The 7-8 people working on P3D will hardly be able to do as much as those companies can. So what the future will be? You have to answer it to yourself, or LM should, but odds are not seemingly favorable...
2.5 might be an acceptable fix for most of us, but alas, you will certainly notice the speed of fixing important anomalies will simply not be enough if the path remains the same...

 

the strong opinion that beta testers are either not enough in quantity for the new releases, or they simply lack the necessary skills how to do an important task like that.

Frankly it is we who are the beta testers.

 

 

enhancements for the Sim Director feature

This is important for LM's training clients.  Yes LM do have other clients.

 

 

 

So what the future will be?

Like you I don't have a crystal ball.  But whatever LM does, or does not do, we shall continue to to have a very fine, almost realistic, training environment.

 

 

 

fixing important anomalies will simply not be enough

Well there's always XPlane ... or even FS9 (no issues to speak of.)  Why don't you check them out?

I haven't checked John V's comments and I don't know the extent of what changes they need to make to all their products.  But even without Orbx Objectflow.dll, Orbx products are working well (not perfect) with v2.5 Beta 2.  There are a few things that don't work such as the Control panels in some cases and I haven't tested out Orbx airports ... Vector works but just need to keep two Terrain.cfg and keep copying them from root to ProgramData.

 

Anyway here is a video using Orbx Norway, A2A, REX and latest FSUIPC.  I haven't spent much time exploring Orbx Norway, but when I have more time I think I will ... what a wonderful scenery.

 

 

I'm not trivializing Orbx workload to be v2.5 compliant ... they need to make a packaged end user friendly solution.  The basic folder structure isn't that different, LM have just moved configuration files out of the root to ProgramData ... a more appropriate location especially when planning a future for P3D.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Ah, well here we have it folks. Growing pains. Er, rather, development pains. We all wanted a new, modern, flashy simulator and we're getting it finally. But we knew this day would come and yet folks are still getting upset. LM clearly has a long-term play here so if they want to rejigger folder structures and who-knows-what-else, let them do it. In order for this simulator to really evolve, LM likely has to start breaking things. 3rd-party developers, to some extent, need to anticipate these changes (not the exact changes, of course, but merely the fact that changes will occur) and be ready. The world, pun intended, revolves around the base simulator, not the addons.

 

To add on to Appliance's pithy responses (especially re: LM's training clients - yes, I'd imagine that the majority of LM's most profitable commercial/education customers actually use SimDirector), LM's P3D team is likely but a small--very small--team of a much, much larger organization that, lo and behold, is a $40+ billion company. Bugs won't get fixed in minutes, the beta testing team will not find every single issue prior to release, etc. Team members could get pulled at any second onto reprogramming the F35's cockpit air conditioning system. Who knows? Comparing them to DTG is a clumsy exercise.

 

Call me a P3D/LM apologist but these folks are putting in some serious hours and doing some great work. Honestly, I think any of us P3D users that happen to be here chatting on AVSIM, are but mere sideshows to LM. I think we benefit hugely off of the work they're doing for larger commercial clients so I think, to an extent, we need to keep this in mind and chill out a bit...

 

 

very small--team of a much, much larger organization that, lo and behold, is a $40+ billion company.

 

I had a friend that was a tanker in the 90's.  In fact, I have a new one that was a Gulf War 1 vet that trained tankers.  I remember them telling me about, and later watching a show featuring a huge hanger size room filled with tank turret sized modules, dozens of them, at least 4 dozen IIRC, that were all linked in a simulation.  The tankers in training could view a 3d environment through their scopes, and seeing each other and manuevering about for combat training.

 

The simulation wasn't much more advanced than what FS was at the time.  That's what I think Prepar3d is for.   There is a whole alligator under these bulging eyes we see.