Sign in to follow this  
Terrydew

P3d 3.1 before year end

Recommended Posts

I hope they improve avatar mode too. I get stuck and run into invisible walls while at certain airports for some reason.

That's not the fault of the avatar - it has to do with the scenery boundaries.

 

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well, I guess we don't want to sound like the I-Phone. Every 6+ months we get a new version with the "thinking" that it's the greatest and "never-seen-before-marvel."  When in reality it's just a little plastic container with a few more icons.

Share this post


Link to post

Still getting OOMs with the latest version. I hope this is better addressed.

Share this post


Link to post

How easily are you getting OOMs? These were a big problem for me in FSX and P3D v2.4, but I have not suffered a single one yet in P3D v3.

Share this post


Link to post

FSX (which did serve me well) would OOM pretty quickly.  But then, I did shovel in every addon airport and scenery area known to man.  Happy days.  I had gone overboard.   :dance:

 

I'm now on the keep-it-simple wagon with P3D v3, enjoying stock scenery/airports as-is and concentrating more on aircraft.  The best part?  Even my marginal system and card give me an incredibly fluid flight.  Stutters and frame drops are (so far) completely gone and I'm really enjoying 'flying'.  It just works.  Jumping in and out of aircraft used to kill FSX.  I can do it all day in v3 without issue.

 

As I remember, VAS management was greatly improved in v3, but we still have only so much real estate.  Short answer is:  no OOMs  ...yet.

Share this post


Link to post

For those that want to know exactly what an installation is going to do to files before they install it, you can install it to a "sandbox" first, see what happens, and then chose which files to move over, and where.  The one I use is Sandboxie.

 

For registry changes there is another method, but addons should not be doing any serious registry changes.  

 

If you're a developer, sandboxing is a great way to understand how many things are done in software by seeing how they are installed.  Also, often when tailing software does not follow best practices as set down by a primary developer it can be used to correct those incompatibilities that emerge.   


When the 3.1 comes out, I will use Sandboxie to do a pre-install, and maybe do a few window clips or some kind of output to show what files are affected.  

 

LM shouldn't have to be worrying about their files causing problems, but certain inexperienced scenery developers think it's their place to over-write native P3D files, when there are other more conventional methods to integrate their products.  Much of the bellyaching in this forum about upgrades is not because of LM.  And those conventional best practices have been known since before FSX, but are usurped by the arrogant imposition of certain developers who think it's "their place" in the scheme of things to just do what they want even though they haven't figured out what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post

...And those conventional best practices have been known since before FSX, but are usurped by the arrogant imposition of certain developers who think it's "their place" in the scheme of things to just do what they want even though they haven't figured out what they're doing.

 

 

Sorry but you fail to understand the complexities of how some products are implemented.   Many of the developers who overwrite files are very experienced and do it because there is no other way to implement the technology that they require.    I know of one company who actually worked with Microsoft and Microsoft gave the company their blessing because there was no other way to implement the technology.

 

There are many files in FSX/P3D that sometimes needs customisation and Microsoft/LM has their products implemented in a way that it is not possible put all product's files in one container.  The gauges, font, effects and certain texture directories (for example) are shared to the whole sim.

 

Roll on now, it is better - much better from a platform point of view.  But simple economics say that it is not feasible for companies to go and make their products compatible for free  - and we won't pay for it.

 

Cheers,

Matt.

Edited by n4gix
removed excessive quote. again!

Share this post


Link to post

Well now. Water improvements, eh? I just hope that this includes "white caps" and the illusion of wave motion at altitude.

 

 

Mee tooo

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry but you fail to understand the complexities of how some products are implemented.   Many of the developers who overwrite files are very experienced and do it because there is no other way to implement the technology that they require.    I know of one company who actually worked with Microsoft and Microsoft gave the company their blessing because there was no other way to implement the technology.

 

There are many files in FSX/P3D that sometimes needs customisation and Microsoft/LM has their products implemented in a way that it is not possible put all product's files in one container.  The gauges, font, effects and certain texture directories (for example) are shared to the whole sim.

 

Roll on now, it is better - much better from a platform point of view.  But simple economics say that it is not feasible for companies to go and make their products compatible for free  - and we won't pay for it.

 

Cheers,

Matt.

I am a developer.  Orbx claim that it's so difficult to upgrade is kinda a sham.  What is lacking is the focus for a half a day to fix the problems with their older products.  I suspect because of the fear of not focusing on the money is going to lose them money. 

I could take a day or two and write a routine that would fix their scheme once and for all, but I don't work for them, and they probably would get mad at me.

Share this post


Link to post

I know of one company who actually worked with Microsoft and Microsoft gave the company their blessing because there was no other way to implement the technology.

Matt.

If you are referring to who I think you're referring, that's incorrect, as evidenced by the venerable Arno Gerretson having recently written a utility that specifically addresses that issue. No need to reinvent that wheel Denali ;)

Share this post


Link to post

If you are referring to who I think you're referring, that's incorrect, as evidenced by the venerable Arno Gerretson having recently written a utility that specifically addresses that issue. No need to reinvent that wheel Denali ;)

Thanks.  Also, being someone who works with and for Microsoft, they don't give their blessing on anything.  If you break the rules, they'll pretty much just tell you they warned you.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, lets deal with these one by one. :)

 

I am a developer.  Orbx claim that it's so difficult to upgrade is kinda a sham.  What is lacking is the focus for a half a day to fix the problems with their older products.  I suspect because of the fear of not focusing on the money is going to lose them money. 


I could take a day or two and write a routine that would fix their scheme once and for all, but I don't work for them, and they probably would get mad at me.

I wasn't referring specifically to Orbx.  They are just one of many publishers who can't afford to immediately put tools down and upgrade all their products every time a new sim comes around.  Most publishers try, but they have to balance return on investment.

 

A day or two to write a routine might be close for many publishers, but does that include required R&D, documentation, support staff briefings, making the installer compatible to FSX, FSX-SE, Prepar3Dv2 & Prepar3Dv3, testing the installer against every platform, testing the functionality against every platform, uploading to server(s) and going back to the beginning if an issue is found?  And for some publishers, replicating this for every product they sell?  All for free?

 

If you are referring to who I think you're referring, that's incorrect, as evidenced by the venerable Arno Gerretson having recently written a utility that specifically addresses that issue. No need to reinvent that wheel Denali ;)

I think I know who you are referring  to.  Are you also referring to the Autogen utility that merges autogen customisations?  If that's the case, isn't the updated file still a standard Prepar3D file and therefore is likely to be overwritten back to a default file on an platform upgrade?

 

Thanks.  Also, being someone who works with and for Microsoft, they don't give their blessing on anything.  If you break the rules, they'll pretty much just tell you they warned you.

Depends who you talk to and how you approach them.  I work with a company that has a great rapport with them.

 

Cheers,

Matt.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Depends who you talk to and how you approach them.  I work with a company that has a great rapport with them.

 

As if that changes the consequences.  So no, it doesn't depend ...

 

Let me just say this.  Orbx makes first rate scenery.  They just don't make first rate software.  The funny thing about all these versions of P3D and FSX, theyre not any different as far as scenery as far as Orbx is concerned.  Their problem is they started off wrong from the beginning and kinda seem too stubbord and proud to admit the mistake and fix it.  I'll say it this way:  There are no incompatibility issues with Orbx products; there are incompatibility issues with Orbx Installations.    

 

The practice of having n00b developers spend time with the installers, either those who make them or making them themselves to a standard convention, establishes a core skill.  Software is not just about your program's files. All good architecture respects the established neighborhood.

 

Year and years ago, when I was hired to teach people to be comfortable with windows (sometimes with the threat of job loss for the students - older executives), every week there would be an assignment to explore some aspect of the file system and do things like guess what a file did, why it was in that place, what it was doing in Windows/System32 or Windows/INF.  How the boot order worked.   Another was to learn how to "walkaround" a program, that is to literally walk through each and every button that could be found on the menu or toolbars or clicks in a program.  Many people live on their systems but don't really know that environment.  But that file exploration has come back to me with "I learned so much from that and it's always helped me to understand what's going on with computers".  Understanding the file system is the foundation of understanding software.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Understanding the file system is the foundation of understanding software.

 

Great post Denali ! Filled with truth..

Share this post


Link to post

Let me just say this.  Orbx makes first rate scenery.  They just don't make first rate software.  The funny thing about all these versions of P3D and FSX, theyre not any different as far as scenery as far as Orbx is concerned.  Their problem is they started off wrong from the beginning and kinda seem too stubbord and proud to admit the mistake and fix it.  I'll say it this way:  There are no incompatibility issues with Orbx products; there are incompatibility issues with Orbx Installations.    

 

 

So true. The best example showing how of crap their software is (depite being great scenery), is all that region switching PITA with FTX Central...

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think their software is crap.  It's middle of the road, unfortunately.  It looks nice; they're artists that's for sure. Their concentration is obviously on scenery dev, which works for everyone with excellent results ... well ... mostly.  I don't wanna paint a negative picture here, or seem like the grouch about them here.  I just know that there is a different way.

Share this post


Link to post

So true. The best example showing how of crap their software is (depite being great scenery), is all that region switching PITA with FTX Central...

 

That's been gone for quite some time now - set "Hybrid" mode and your done...

Share this post


Link to post

That's been gone for quite some time now - set "Hybrid" mode and your done...

Not true. Hybrid mode will give you a different appearance in the full FTX region with some objects missing compared to activating the region. And Hybrid mode will kill your VAS. Doesn't work if you fly complex aircraft add-ons. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as you think it is...

Share this post


Link to post

So true. The best example showing how of crap their software is (depite being great scenery), is all that region switching PITA with FTX Central...

Actually, I find FTX Central 2 to be a very elegant solution to what would otherwise be a very difficult problem, assuming, that is, we want the best and most realistic portrayal of each region. Also, FTX Central 2 offers much more and, as it's name implies, these features are all contained and accessible under the one roof. I congratulate the ORBX Developer/s and I, for one, appreciate all these efforts which are making my Flight Simming life so much easier.

 

Maarten Boelens of SimLauncher X fame is another Developer who doesn't receive enough credit. His programming marvel is offered to the community free of any charges and incorporates numerous very useful features including the ability to switch FTX regions without needing to open FTX Central!

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

I too think FTX Central 2 works really well. Should add though that I don't have any local FTX regions installed but only the global FTX products.

 

I've seen another developer who doesn't even include a normal uninstallation routine while the installation itself requires manual editing afterwards for the product to work. So IMHO I don't think it's fair to point our finger at Orbx as a poor software developer.

Share this post


Link to post

Orbx works for me just fine. No problems.

 

But regarding the topic: No problems at the moment - no need to update to 3.1. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post

no need to update to 3.1. Simple as that.

The only reason I am seriously considering the upgrade is the significant water improvements they are promising. My water texture is static and dull. I've lost the appearance of water movement.

 

As for Orbx - it may not be ideal, but I'm willing to put up with FTX Central. Orbx completely revolutionised our simming experience. If I had to put up with default or bland photoreal textures for the last few years I think I'd have stopped simming altogether.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I know who you are referring  to.  Are you also referring to the Autogen utility that merges autogen customisations?  If that's the case, isn't the updated file still a standard Prepar3D file and therefore is likely to be overwritten back to a default file on an platform upgrade?

 

Yes thats the utility I meant. You are right it currently overwrites a default file, but...

1. It does so after merging all available autogen info at runtime, therefore meaning that it does not restrict a user to a particular one set of definitions, which most custom autogen developers do (inc orbx I believe, although they have included some other devs with theirs), thereby avoiding the limitation of one particular set of sim definitions being in place .

2. The fact this is possible (and theoretically always has been), through decompile of spb files, and merging the results, demonstrates by definition that the argument that there was no alternative technology was patently not true. It may have been the only way MS would allow Orbx to do their stuff at the time, but that cannot be said to hold true now, and especially not with LM. So when denali says he thinks the way orbx (and possibly other devs as well, not singling anyone out) could do things differently now, it probably has some traction.

 

I think the way LM have allowed config files for various elements in v3 (inc one for autogen, although not fully implemented yet) shows they recognise the limitations and benefits of different architectures. I've posted a thread on the P3D forum with LM about this as well.

 

Technologically speaking as far as I can see there is now no argument in favour of restricting end users to the use of only one set of autogen definitions. There would however be a value potentially to restricting that use if you wanted to tie users into your, and only your, scenery products? I think it will be illuminating to see over time how all devs approach this issue :) I'm hopeful, but not optimistic..

 

Cheers K

Share this post


Link to post

Question - jumping from FS9 to P3D - do you have to pay for every incremental upgrade in P3D or just the major ones ? Do you have to buy the full product each time or is the a discount for previous purchases ???

 

Thanks...

 

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this