Please don't tell me the terrain shadows are still not fixed.

 

I do hope they simply forgot to list that. Supposedly, it's an easy fix too - the problem was that they renamed a bunch of variables in the 2.3 update, and missed a few. So the shader might be trying to read the value from Terrain_Shadow_Intensity, but it's actually called Grnd_Shadow_Power now (just an example), so the value returned is just garbage, causing the black spots.

 

Came to think of it, that might actually be the reason for incorrect autogen bridge scaling too. I don't think P3D V2 had that problem until 2.3 came out (which was when they messed everything up by renaming variables).

 

The terrain shadows and autogen bridges need to be fixed before I will consider re-installing Prepar3D. Haven't touched it since August 2014 due to the broken state of the rendering engine.

I guess the R6025 error is not the fault of P3DV2.4. Do not see a bug fix for it. It might be hidden in some of the other bug fixes though.

 

Best regards,

I do hope they simply forgot to list that. Supposedly, it's an easy fix too - the problem was that they renamed a bunch of variables in the 2.3 update, and missed a few. So the shader might be trying to read the value from Terrain_Shadow_Intensity, but it's actually called Grnd_Shadow_Power now (just an example), so the value returned is just garbage, causing the black spots.

 

Came to think of it, that might actually be the reason for incorrect autogen bridge scaling too. I don't think P3D V2 had that problem until 2.3 came out (which was when they messed everything up by renaming variables).

 

The terrain shadows and autogen bridges need to be fixed before I will consider re-installing Prepar3D. Haven't touched it since August 2014 due to the broken state of the rendering engine.

 

That's what I read somewhere in the Prepar3D forums, that fixing the bug is a matter of modifying a few lines of code. Now they either forgot to list the fix in the 2.5 changelist (hopefully), aren't aware of the bug yet (which would be unbelievable because it's been posted numerous times in the forums and surely some of the beta testers have caught the bug), or can't find the solution (which would be weird because shadows were fine before 2.3).

 

2.4 was a very minor update, and I was hoping for much more with 2.5. It should have been called 2.3.2 instead.

The R6025 error is quite common across a variety of apps and a quick review of the MS knowledgebase demonstrates that even MS doesn't have a fix for all possible causes. Mostly, the cause seems to be related to either missing certain components of the Visual C runtime libraries or having a corrupted version of .Net.

Too bad about no upgrade path...I'll sit on the fence on this one given 2.4 is running nice and stable.

 

 

Too bad about no upgrade path

 

+1. Goodbye P3D.

My opinion is that we are done seeing any point upgrades of "substance" to P3d version 2. This really doesn't bother me at all, because I have 2.4 running very nicely. I'm going to have to uninstall 2.4 anyway, because TacPack for P3d only runs on the academic license and I have the pro license for P3d installed.

 

I look at all this as a positive though, as it makes me believe that LM has moved on to working on the 64 bit version 3 of P3d. I'd rather that they work on that then mess around further with version 2.

My opinion is that we are done seeing any point upgrades of "substance" to P3d version 2. This really doesn't bother me at all, because I have 2.4 running very nicely. I'm going to have to uninstall 2.4 anyway, because TacPack for P3d only runs on the academic license and I have the pro license for P3d installed.

 

I look at all this as a positive though, as it makes me believe that LM has moved on to working on the 64 bit version 3 of P3d. I'd rather that they work on that then mess around further with version 2.

Sorry, but I want a perfect 2.x.

Then, eventually, I will think whether to take the 3.x.

I do not want to repeat the negative experience of  1.4.

 

 

I look at all this as a positive though, as it makes me believe that LM has moved on to working on the 64 bit version 3 of P3d. I'd rather that they work on that then mess around further with version 2.

 

Totally agree. The future looks bright for P3D...

64bit by years end.... I have foreseen it.

Change can't come without "change" ... so if requiring a re-install is going to be a problem for people then those folks are probably best staying with something that will not change like FSX.  

 

I have 100's of 3rd party content and a re-install takes about 4 hours, maybe 8 hours if I'm doing something else while re-installing ... but the trade-off is I get 3 months of flight simulation after the re-install.  So 4 hours of work for about 100+ hours simulation ... not a big sacrifice for me ... I can spend 3 hours just commuting to/from work (total waste of time).  Also a complete re-install often cures issues people have encountered.  

 

Even FSX:SE introduced change that broke compatibility and those were extremely minor adjustments made by Dovetail ... oddly some 3rd party seemed ok with FSX:SE changes, but not ok with P3D changing -- not sure I understand that inconsistency, but so be it.

 

Progress comes with change.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Sorry, but I want a perfect 2.x.

Then, eventually, I will think whether to take the 3.x.

I do not want to repeat the negative experience of  1.4.

 

+1 Prepar3D 2.x has tons of bugs and I'd like to see at least the major ones sorted out before they proceed to developing 3.0.

 

If they do this, I will certainly not move to 3.0 of the fear that they'll never fix its major bugs as well.

 

 

Change can't come without "change" ... so if requiring a re-install is going to be a problem for people then those folks are probably best staying with something that will not change like FSX.

 

+1  I guess everyone likes to stay in their own comfort zone. It takes me about the same time as you to do a full reinstall - no big deal. I sympathize with those who have photoreal scenery but that also comes with the territory. Every product has it's downside and photoreal scenery takes time to install.

 

Fix all the bugs before moving on? You HAVE to be kidding! FS9 still has bugs for pete's sake ( sorry Pete).

 

News flash - it ain't gonna happen and it shouldn't. I guess some people won't use Windows OS any more becase MS didn't fix the bugs in WIndows xx before moving on to WIndows 10. Give me  break.

 

When the 64bit P3D comes out I really doubt if LM will do anything at all with 32 bit.

 

We FINALLY have a really good simulator in active development and STILL some of you complain.   Delete your P3D and stay with whatever you have then.

 

Vic

We FINALLY have a really good simulator

 

Speak for yourself.

I hope that the lack of performance updates in v2.5 is a good sign: LM is now devoted to get 64bit P3D v3.0 out by 2015...