P3D Hotfix posted

[Drumcode 1,893]

Not complaining too much as I have just about every FSDT airport and use ASN exclusively for weather...just that lately it seems I spend more time updating, patching reinstalling then actually getting in any flying

 

 

I only just partially converted from FSX this week and I'm already slightly annoyed with LM, but I'm going to be patient as P3D looks and works awesome for me, while FSX wasn't, with or without DX10;

[gfd 15]

Tricky subject. It seems LM is in a 'd----d if you do, d----d if you don't' scenario. Clearly their first obligation is to the folks who buy their software. On the other hand, I don't know too many folks who use P3D without addons.

 

64 bit is ironic though eh? If not for addons, the need for 64 bit is questionable. 32 bit addons will not work correctly in 64 bit P3D. The Chinese have a curse 'may you live in interesting times'

[peppy197 165]

32 bit scenery would load properly into 64 bit as long as there are no dll or executables involved

 

correct?

[JTT 1]

Yes I've heard a lot of people say so.. Including PMDG it was I think? Or Aerosoft.. Don't remember. But they did say it wasn't that big of a problem as people made it look. Scenery would be compatible (or wouldn't require much of a change). Planes would have to be reworked but companies like PMDG are ahead of that and prepar3d (heheh) to update their planes for the current customers when the time comes.

[peppy197 165]

It would be comparable to the event of X-plane going 64 bit

Most scenery addons worked some did not for other reasons\

For airplanes, the sounds and moving parts such as buttons and props needed small updating, amongst other things, and it was actually possible to substitute working sounds and props from X-Planes own updated ones to make things workable though not perfectly native while waiting for more appropriate fits. Tricks I did on Carenado's PA34 for XP while waiting an update. The gauges worked sometimes...and not at others...

Xp itself updated global scenery and mesh so maybe LMwould too but your looking at a base package in the 60 plus Gigs in that case.

 

But most scenery is static and worked right away

 

And now its smoother sailing

[mgh 89]

 I suspect this problem is caused those developers who go beyond the SDK and use "undocumented" features in order to enhance their products.

 

It's  not only a problem with aircraft. A number of FS9 scenery developers were caught out by the changes to FSX.

[bic 44]

If I skip this update, will the next one include it?

[pmb 5,137]

 I suspect this problem is caused those developers who go beyond the SDK and use "undocumented" features in order to enhance their products.

 

It's  not only a problem with aircraft. A number of FS9 scenery developers were caught out by the changes to FSX.

This is most probably true. But given that Pete Dawson, FSDreamteam, ORBX, and the like have been in this business for many years now, wouldn't it be in time to make these features officially available for them (and others) to use via the SDK and in a manner staying consistent at least over minor versions and marginal hotfixes? Even more, as LM claims to concentrate on the core code and leave all the rest to third parties?

 

The FS9-FSX transition would correspond to a new major release, which would indeed be the proper point in time for housekeeping and modifying these definitions.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[olliecast 1]

If I skip this update, will the next one include it?

+1

[peppy197 165]

I'm not "skipping" this update, I am waiting till it is accommodated by the addons I use, before installing this update

[mgh 89]

 

 

This is most probably true. But given that Pete Dawson, FSDreamteam, ORBX, and the like have been in this business for many years now, wouldn't it be in time to make these features officially available for them (and others) to use via the SDK and in a manner staying consistent at least over minor versions and marginal hotfixes?

 

I see two difficulties with that.

 

First, Lockheed Martin already does that - it's just released the SDK for v2.5. It will not want to constain furher development by publishing details of Prepar3D's internal details - simply because it will to change them at any time.

 

Second, add-on developers have developed their own methods and techniques. They treat as confidential and won't want their competitors knowing about.

 

There's also a commercial aspect. My company leased a well-known engineering application. We paid for a support contract. That included being advised by the developer's staff on how to tailor it to our particular requirements. We did not expect the developer to release that information to our competitors. I'm sure  that add-on developers could do the same if they wished.

[pmb 5,137]

I see your point, Gerry. This would imply add-on developers like the ones named above would be actually content with the present situation. I can't judge this, but maybe you are right.

 

There remain a number of of customers complaining, but this probably doesn't count. However, I am convinced, the present situation will not buy us new simmers entering the field of flight simulation which we do need, don't we? (And I don't speak about FSX converts who are hard-boiled already, but really new ones.)

 

Kind regards, Michael

[mgh 89]

This would imply add-on developers like the ones named above would be actually content with the present situation. I can't judge this...

 

I can't judge this either. But a number of commercial developers have posted that they are not going to let us know how they do things because they are confidential. I can't imagine they would be happy for Lockheed Martin to publish them in an SDK.

 

EDIT

 

"There remain a number of of customers complaining..."

 

Who are they?

[Guest]

 

 

LM is in a 'd----d if you do, d----d if you don't' scenario

 

Not really, a 64bit platform does not delete or obsolete the existing 32bit platform ... it runs with it as a separate application.  32bit development may stop (and I'm sure 3rd party that binds to versions would be very happy when it does stop) as 64bit development proceeds.  The key to 64bit success will be how easy it is to convert scenery, aircraft, and airports ... and/or any tools provided with a 64bit platform (perhaps even an SDK).

 

There certainly will be a challenge moving to 64bit code, but I think the "real challenge" will be how to manage conversion of existing scenery, aircraft, airports ... you can NOT release a 64bit product with no basic scenery at all and no aircraft and no airports (that's not a product that could be sold)... so the conversion of scenery, aircraft, airports, will have to be done as part of a 64bit product ... just no way around this.  Since that conversion must be done, that implies such conversion will be available for 3rd party.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[pmb 5,137]

DIT

 

"There remain a number of of customers complaining..."

 

Who are they?

Look into the forums: First, they had to download (yes, there are still people with slow access) and re-install the whole beast from point zero. Including all the addons which is hassle galore. After they were done, there comes a patch curing some issues but causing new issues with GSX and ASN. Some re-installed a second time, other started exchanging .dlls. And others just resigned.

 

If your day-time job is coding and debugging this may be fine with you. But some want the simulator for, well, just simulation. We all have only one life, and at my age (62+) you start thinking about the remaining time of life.

 

Actually, I shouldn't complain, though. I didn't take any action concerning 2.5, yet, which seems to have been a wise decision. Instead I had fun installing and flying FSX:SE. Runs pretty cool indeed. This may not be the future, but it's certainly more fun than a weekend of debugging.

 

Kind regards, Michael