Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Potroh

Serious ground layering bug in 3.3

Recommended Posts

My guess is that the beta testing is default everything, LM are not responsible to debug everyone else`s software.

 

If it's done that way, it is wrongly done.

LM's lead developers has expressed several times in different interviews how much they try to keep compatibility as long as possible.

 

If the beta phase were done thoroughly, there should be at least one or two testers, who look for problems like this one.

 

As it is not an intentional move to remove the 2002-SDK methods, it's just a glitch, I'm certain they will find a very simple and easy way to fix it.

 

 

 

Maybe i am wrong but they already mention that they will drop the code for fs2k ground poly since 3.0.

 

Nope. They've dropped the FS2004 SDK's conditional jumps and not the even older ground-layering.

 

Potroh

Share this post


Link to post

Could you please advise which specific sceneries have been affected

Share this post


Link to post

.....but (IMO) they are responsible for notifying addon developers if they change something as significant as this. Heck, this version 3.3 seemingly came out of nowhere. How many people here actually knew that it was going to be released at the start of this month?

 

They are not. I am pretty sure that those sceneries making troubles now are not officially released with an installer for Prepar3d v3. Now, if people like us starting to install those sceneries into Prepar3d v3 using either the available migration tools or other tricks (even if it is simply giving the prepar3d folder as installation path instead of the fsx folder...), we can certainly not complain if LM changes something that renders those sceneries incompatible. However, if it is a simple bug, I am sure it will be removed by a hotfix or workaround. No reason to panic...

  • Upvote 1

Greetings, Chris

Intel i5-13600K, 2x16GB 3200MHz CL14 RAM, MSI RTX 4080 Gaming X, Windows 11 Home, MSFS

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


 
If it's done that way, it is wrongly done.
LM's lead developers has expressed several times in different interviews how much they try to keep compatibility as long as possible.
 
If the beta phase were done thoroughly, there should be at least one or two testers, who look for problems like this one.
 
As it is not an intentional move to remove the 2002-SDK methods, it's just a glitch, I'm certain they will find a very simple and easy way to fix it.
 

 

How can they beta test with all the major add ons, when patches to make some add ons even work with an new update, sometimes take weeks before they are released. ? 


 

BOBSK8             MSFS 2020 ,    ,PMDG 737-600-800PMDG DC6 , A2A Comanche, Fenix A320,    Milviz C 310 ,  FSLTL  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    FSI Panel ,  ATC  by PF3  , A Pilots LIfe V2 ,  CLX PC , Auto FPS

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

They are not. I am pretty sure that those sceneries making troubles now are not officially released with an installer for Prepar3d v3.

 

I will reserve judgement until Gary Summons responds with respect to the P3D versions of his UK2000 airports.


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


How can they beta test with all the major add ons, when patches to make some add ons even work with an new update, sometimes take weeks before they are released. ?

 

No need to test all major add-ons in a case like that.

Simply a few of them and it should have become obvious that the problem was global or general.

 

Simply because there was an announced change into the Z-bias method, it should have been checked how the change affected the majority of sceneries out there.

 

Potroh

Share this post


Link to post

LM has been very clear and has done a lot of the ground work to make it easier for Dev's to create products that are completely compatiable with P3D. It is clear that P3D is moving forward. Yes they seem to try to not break existing add ons but we can not have it both ways. The flight sim of the future is not going to exist if LM has to built it out of parts and code from the past. This hand wringing and whinning comes with every new version. If you are having problems then notify LM and the software dev and as has always been the case, a solution will be found. No one cares if you are reverting to FS-1945 because your thing- of- a-ma-bober don't blink anymore with P3D 3 point what ever.

  • Upvote 1

Sam

Prepar3D V5.3/12700K@5.1/EVGA 3080 TI/1000W PSU/Windows 10/40" 4K Samsung@3840x2160/ASP3D/ASCA/ORBX/
ChasePlane/General Aviation/Honeycomb Alpha+Bravo/MFG Rudder Pedals/

Share this post


Link to post

i`ve managed a few times to do a rolling update and found it was never as clean and smooth as a full install, that`s my regime now, i wait a few weeks and then jump on in with a vanilla setup, i never run too much add-on`s, have the basic FTX stuff, 1 or 2 fav aircraft and just focus on 1 area at a time with airports, uninstall them and move on to the next zone, i`m kinda over long haul now so stick to short hops and VFR, sim runs way better without 100`s of scenery's..

 

As do I safe approach imo

  • Upvote 1

Rich Sennett

               

Share this post


Link to post

If you take a look, basically... nothing (in P3D). The client installer replaces files and updates its registry entry - Clean exit.

 

My apps do exactly the same, remove old files, update them and, if required, update the registry entries. On uninstall everything is removed.

 

Then there is the TEMP folder, but you should regularly clean it up anyway.

I would add "in·shal·lah"

 

Chas...a bit skeptical..


My first sim flight simulator pD25zEJ.jpg

 

Take a ride to Stinking Creek! http://youtu.be/YP3fxFqkBXg Win10 Pro, GeForce GTX 1080TI/Rizen5 5600x  OCd,32 GB RAM,3x1920 x 1080, 60Hz , 27" Dell TouchScreen,TM HOTAS Warthog,TrackIR5,Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals HP reverbG2,Quest2

Share this post


Link to post

All along, LM has been stating that while "trying to keep compatibility", they are moving forward in developing a platform that can be easily accessed by developers. Something that is consistent and doesn't break the add-on with every release. Along the way, there WILL be steps taken that will render *some* add-ons incompatible until changed.

 

Realistically, LM is building the platform for the future, it is the responsibility of the developers to adapt to THAT platform, not for LM to adjust for the benefit of the developers. There will always be gray areas and some dev's will fall through the cracks. It will be up to the dev to adjust their code to fit P3D - once done, they hopefully should not have to do it again.

 

So, somewhere down the line, we will have LM's modular platform with the dev's following their guidelines and all will be well.

 

Vic

  • Upvote 10

 

RIG#1 - 7700K 5.0g ROG X270F 3600 15-15-15 - EVGA RTX 3090 1000W PSU 1- 850G EVO SSD, 2-256G OCZ SSD, 1TB,HAF942-H100 Water W1064Pro
40" 4K Monitor 3840x2160 - AS16, ASCA, GEP3D, UTX, Toposim, ORBX Regions, TrackIR
RIG#2 - 3770K 4.7g Asus Z77 1600 7-8-7 GTX1080ti DH14 850W 2-1TB WD HDD,1tb VRap, Armor+ W10 Pro 2 - HannsG 28" Monitors
 

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Realistically, LM is building the platform for the future, it is the responsibility of the developers to adapt to THAT platform, not for LM to adjust for the benefit of the developers.

 

Exactly.  We all want a sim that is improving and up to "latest and greatest" technologies/performance but then we whine and cry when this moving towards that goal breaks stuff that's 15 years old.  If you're happy with staying in the past and don't want any of your old/legacy stuff to break, don't upgrade.  Better yet, stay with or go back to FSX.  Nothing will break then for you.  But, if you want to be on the train towards improvement, some things are going to have to get thrown off of it along the way.  Unfortunately, like most things in life, we can't have it all.  This is the price we have to pay if we want the platform to move forward.

  • Upvote 3

Regards,

 

Kevin LaMal

"Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" - Shapiro2024

Share this post


Link to post

I am pretty sure that those sceneries making troubles now are not officially released with an installer for Prepar3d v3.

 

That isn't right. These are official addons for P3D V3 e.g. Taxi2Gate EDDM.

And some addons NOT published for P3D are not affected.

 

 

 

In my opinion:

if P3D decides to break compatibility with V4 then it is okif they gain huge technical advantages (x64 etc)

But braking that compatibility inside a cycle (v3) does not make much sense.

  • Upvote 3

Guenter Steiner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Betatester for: A2A, LORBY, FSR-Pillow Tester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post

My guess is that the beta testing is default everything, LM are not responsible to debug everyone else`s software.

Yes and no... Of course, they can't be responsible for other software, but they KNOW almost nobody uses just the vanilla sim...

 

They should at least test with the most popular ones at minimum, something not that hard to do being they can just call for beta testers that have them (or probably have them themselves) and especially when this is not some super weird testing but rather just something that shows up upon loading...

All along, LM has been stating that while "trying to keep compatibility", they are moving forward in developing a platform that can be easily accessed by developers. Something that is consistent and doesn't break the add-on with every release. Along the way, there WILL be steps taken that will render *some* add-ons incompatible until changed.

 

Realistically, LM is building the platform for the future, it is the responsibility of the developers to adapt to THAT platform, not for LM to adjust for the benefit of the developers. There will always be gray areas and some dev's will fall through the cracks. It will be up to the dev to adjust their code to fit P3D - once done, they hopefully should not have to do it again.

 

So, somewhere down the line, we will have LM's modular platform with the dev's following their guidelines and all will be well.

 

Vic

Then they should at least give devs a heads up so they can have a chance to adapt and release updates so we can update eveything together, not break our setups with every point release...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Along the way, there WILL be steps taken that will render *some* add-ons incompatible until changed.

 

Realistically, LM is building the platform for the future, it is the responsibility of the developers to adapt to THAT platform, not for LM to adjust for the benefit of the developers. There will always be gray areas and some dev's will fall through the cracks. It will be up to the dev to adjust their code to fit P3D - once done, they hopefully should not have to do it again.

 

So, somewhere down the line, we will have LM's modular platform with the dev's following their guidelines and all will be well.

 

Would be true and wise words (though a bit ex cathedra), but this is not the case with this present problem.

This is definitely not a "step" towards some glorious future change, it is simply a bug, a modification in the layering-system, that was not tested against compatibility.

 

The "some add-ons" in this case means ALL that have not specifically made for P3D with the P3D tools.

It is surely not intentional, or a diamond to be collected on the path to the shiny future - hence no use for the pathetic approach, this time we aren't talking about 64 bits here.

 

The devs - as you put it - can rarely do anything about it, because we are talking about sceneries that are years old. Their fixing, re-compilation and porting them to the different platform is not just a matter of will and careful development, but often it wouldn't be possible due to the other logistical factors.

 

Mentioning those "guidelines" are perfectly valid for new sceneries and other stuff too, but right now we are talking about a simple bug, that I'm 99% certain was a glitch and nothing but UNINTENTIONAL.

If it was intentional, the entire 2002SDK part would have been removed (with a proper warning), but it wasn't.

 

Potroh

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


But braking that compatibility inside a cycle (v3) does not make much sense.

 

Fully agree

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...