Serious ground layering bug in 3.3

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Why not use old tools if they work, which they have done just until 3.3 with no problem !

 

Old tools keep the platform from progressing - simple as that

[abandoned account 171]

No one is disputing the leaps and bounds p3d has made. Alas the scenery issue is a big big big issue, and they shouldn't of released it knowing about it.

 

Sure if it was a small issue such as in vpilot now the messages don't come up on the sim fine ( this is an issue I found) or one sceney here or there doesn't work, but a huge issue like this, they shouldnt of released it.

 

I'll add some more to the list

 

Flytampa yyz, and Syd has the missing textures so George also wasn't told as well as uk2000 or aerosoft.

 

Also with lsgg ru scenery the stop bars keep disappearing,once again the same issue.

 

Well, "wasn't told" is not really true now, is it?. They where all told many, many, many years ago that it's time to move forward, when new SDK versions appeared. They didn't, and many, many, many years later LM finally decided that enough is enough. This is no sudden move in P3D v3.3 that LM failed to tell the 3rd party developers. If you develop against an SDK that is 15 years old, this is simply your own fault. If you demand support for 15 year old addons and at the same time want a high performance simulator without stuttering, autogen popping, VAS problems... then dream on.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Well, "wasn't told" is not really true now, is it?. They where all told many, many, many years ago that it's time to move forward, when new SDK versions appeared. They didn't, and many, many, many years later LM finally decided that enough is enough. This is no sudden move in P3D v3.3 that LM failed to tell the 3rd party developers. If you develop against an SDK that is 15 years old, this is simply your own fault. If you demand support for 15 year old addons and at the same time want a high performance simulator without stuttering, autogen popping, VAS problems... then dream on.

 

Have to agree with this totally - wait till 64bit comes around that should be an interesting topic 

 

I feel for you guys but we must move on and thank goodness we have LM to keep this hobby progressing if it was not for them I would be finding a new hobby and you wouldnt have to look at all my screenshots anymore   :wink:

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I can understand the frustration for those of you who have downloaded and installed v3.3 and subsequently discovered that some airports are not working properly, but this is why you need to keep a backup copy of the previous version. I still think that LM should have forewarned everyone that SDK2002 code was being discontinued with v3.3, and that it would affect some existing airport addons. How difficult would it have been to do this? However, I do agree that getting rid of old code is the best way forward.

[Potroh 14]

 

 

However, I do agree that getting rid of old code is the best way forward.

 

This is anything but getting rid of the old code. The old code is still there, still works, it just doesn't work as it used to.

When nothing will appear in place of those 2D or 3D objects that became problematic or useless in 3.3, then the step towards a different future will be alive. At the moment we lost something but got nothing new in place of it - apart from promises that may see the limelight in a year or two.

 

Until then this was an unnecessary change which should have been done only in a major release...

Doing a small change in the code and by this move rendering hundreds of older sceneries useless, doesn't give anything positive to the user - right now.

 

Of course we will probably see benefit in a later release, but mind it: in case the amputation is unavoidable, the entire leg should be carefully removed and not the toes - one by one...

 

I still believe this was unintentional by LM. Now that they were informed about it, they realized it wouldn't be advisable to turn back. Sort of understandable.

Had it been properly tested against the old code as well, an intermediate solution would have been very easy, and would have been a kind gesture towards those who collect airports which are not being updated anymore...

 

Potroh

[vgbaron 3,627]

Until then this was an unnecessary change which should have been done only in a major release...

Doing a small change in the code and by this move rendering hundreds of older sceneries useless, doesn't give anything positive to the user - right now.

ok - I've found something I don't agree with.

 

In theory I do agree, but you're a coder - you must see what is happening. LM is taking little steps (for them) and making small changes. Then see what shakes out. They've added a few "Add-on" folders and settings - which, right now are unused. Somewhere down the road they will release a version which will utilize those folders - as the developers adopt the changes, things will gel.

 

To the users/developers whose scenery is affected by this, it's a big deal - to me whose scenery is not affected - it's not.

 

I'm sorry - each new version of P3D has been making small changes towards what LM sees as their base platform. They have been stating that they are trying to "standardize" the add on interface for YEARS.

 

The fact that some developers and users chose not to see and hear this is just their own fault and I have no sympathy for them.

 

Vic

[Potroh 14]

 

 

I fail to see how this is the fault of LM. Developers who still code like it's 2001 is to blame, not LM.

 

I guess nowadays you find no developer using the old code, apart from designing airports for FSX, where this is the ONLY method that works.

If you can name a descent scenery that was published for P3D ONLY, I lift my hat in front of you...

If you look around, nowadays each and every scenery is released for both platforms. So don't bash on the developers because they NEED to release for FSX too, so they NEED to use the old method.

 

BTW, the old and the new methods are indentical, for P3D it just simply means to export or compile the very same thing with the P3D-SDK.

 

Nobody really talked about developers using the old way NOW for new stuff, it was mentioned that the change renders many elderly, but rare or important sceneries useless in P3D.

 

But:

- the genuine layering method for P3D is unreliable. Working much worse than the old one used to

- there will be no airport sceneries with SEASONS

- there are NO possibilities based on conditional jumps, i.e there will be no safegate systems and the like

[Potroh 14]

In theory I do agree, but you're a coder - you must see what is happening. LM is taking little steps (for them) and making small changes. Then see what shakes out.

 

I see Vic what is happening and I do not necessarily like it, until I also see the benefits.

Right now (as a user, not as an old-timer developer) I see that my 400+ airports, carefully collected for my full cockpit, will become useless. I do like to go forward and use the polished updates from the first day. So far... But this change makes me stay with 3.2 which is not my actual choice but something being forced on me, in the form of a tiny change, which could have been done more carefully.

 

Mind it please, it's not a major change, it doesn't AT ALL brakes the compatibility with the 2002-SDK stuff, it simply renders it useless.

Why didn't LM remove the entire code-part? Because they did not intend to, as yet. They changed something ELSEWHERE and just accidentally turned out it makes a much worse change towards the old stuff.

 

Yes, I understand the necessity to move forward, but this is not the way to do it.

Of course the afterclap explanations will focus on the future, simply because something was not done carefully and not tested carefully.

 

The average user will always take and digest the slogans and afterthought explanations aiming towards the glorious future, but myself being an old-time FS developer have seen more to be as innocent as that...

 

So to answer your sentence, I do see what is happening but don't necessarily like it...

The "little steps" concept is acceptable, understandable, but this one is anything but a little step. It's an unnecessary large move at the moment, which creates a huge gap and leaves admirable (scenery) corpses behind...

 

It's not nice to talk about his/her future (reincarnation or resurrection) of the beloved one - in a farewell speech.

 

Potroh

[Bobsk8 12,731]

I see Vic what is happening and I do not necessarily like it, until I also see the benefits.

Right now (as a user, not as an old-timer developer) I see that my 400+ airports, carefully collected for my full cockpit, will become useless. I do like to go forward and use the polished updates from the first day. So far... But this change makes me stay with 3.2 which is not my actual choice but something being forced on me, in the form of a tiny change, which could have been done more carefully.

 

Mind it please, it's not a major change, it doesn't AT ALL brakes the compatibility with the 2002-SDK stuff, it simply renders it useless.

Why didn't LM remove the entire code-part? Because they did not intend to, as yet. They changed something ELSEWHERE and just accidentally turned out it makes a much worse change towards the old stuff.

 

Yes, I understand the necessity to move forward, but this is not the way to do it.

Of course the afterclap explanations will focus on the future, simply because something was not done carefully and not tested carefully.

 

The average user will always take and digest the slogans and afterthought explanations aiming towards the glorious future, but myself being an old-time FS developer have seen more to be as innocent as that...

 

So to answer your sentence, I do see what is happening but don't necessarily like it...

The "little steps" concept is acceptable, understandable, but this one is anything but a little step. It's an unnecessary large move at the moment, which creates a huge gap and leaves admirable (scenery) corps behind...

 

It not nice to talk about his/her future, (reincarnation or resurrection) of the beloved friend - in a farewell speech.

 

Potroh

 

There is nothing wrong with 3.2 It works very well. 

[Guest]

BTW, the old and the new methods are indentical, for P3D it just simply means to export or compile the very same thing with the P3D-SDK.

 

Nope, that's wrong ... they need to set the order or they'll run into more issue later on.  If what you suggest was correct, then what you're suggesting is a VERY simple fix for 3rd party developers to implement - just recompile and deploy- that 'may' work in some cases but probably NOT in most cases.

 

Being a software engineer for 34+ years, there have been many times in my career where I've needed to resolve issues that result in a mutually exclusive adjustment ... just a normal part of continued development.

 

 

 

So don't bash on the developers because they NEED to release for FSX too, so they NEED to use the old method.

 

No one is bashing on the developers, Gary has been very responsible, he and others know the situation.  Dropping of FS2002 support was provided by LM going back to V2.2 (possibly v2.3) - this was public knowledge posted on LM's forums, not "insider" knowledge.  And as Gary (UK2000) has indicated there are many bugs in FSX that needed to be fixed and are being fixed.  

 

But again, your options are to stay with P3D V3.2.  LM isn't going to stop moving the platform forward and staying tied to supporting BGLs produced by 14 year old code aimed at DX9, not now and not in the future.  Yes, FSX and P3D are diverging more and more, this IS a good thing and most 3rd party content providers realize that.

 

If you are accusing LM ... specifically Beau Hollis of lying to us then I have no interest in current or future discussions with you ...  if you would like to get into a technical discussion with LM's lead 3D graphics engineer (Beau), then I suggest you post on LM's forum as Beau does NOT post here ... but if you start getting into accusations I will cut you off.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Glynn 405]

 

 

There is nothing wrong with 3.2 It works very well.

 

And that's where I will stay for the moment Bob, after just returning to P3D (brought back by the amazing RealismShaderPack)  I cannot move forward to 3.3 and beyond and leave behind all of my expensively acquired European airports which are working well in 3.2.

So I guess that's it for me as far as buying any more 32bit addons, with 64bit hopefully around the corner, I would rather keep my powder dry until we see a real shift forward.

This change should never have happened within the 3.x releases, much better to break compatibility with the move to 64bit, that's something we could all willingly accept.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I fail to see how this is the fault of LM. Developers who still code like it's 2001 is to blame, not LM.

Thank you LM for moving forward.

It's not. Even the UK 2000 developer said so. He's committed to updating the old code in his airports, so it seems like there isn't much more to say on this topic.

 

On the subjects of layer problems with FS2002 code, I'm quite happy if LM droped old code all together from its engine. Unlike FSX which was full of display bugs you had no choice but use FS2002/ASM/SCASM code for some parts, P3D has removed these display bugs, some other developers may not be happy, but I'm fine with it. P3D is a great sim and this problem is a classic case of trying to remain compatible with old code, either by design or by accident, and also a case of developers using the principle "if it ait broke dont fix it", in this case it's not the best attitude and Im as guilty as the rest.

 

[Guest]

 

 

This change should never have happened within the 3.x releases, much better to break compatibility with the move to 64bit, that's something we could all willingly accept.

 

I'll disagree with you there, before moving to 64bit, LM need to get the base as sorted as possible.  Removing legacy issue needs to happen BEFORE moving to 64bit ... in fact, most of what LM have done since V2.x is to get the platform sorted and in a position such that they can move to 64bit.  If your expectations where that LM would re-write the entire code base when moving to 64bit, then that is NOT the case, changes yes, re-write from scratch definitely not, and that's a good thing.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[SteveW 1,792]

Unfortunately we've run out of time. The fact is that FSX continued support for older scenery versions for those good reasons, where we wanted to get more value from our old addons. However, this actually led not so much to less performance, but rather other more insidious problems arose from the complexity of mix-n-match. FSX's scenery data is overly complicated, and that's now being untangled in P3D and DTGFS.

 

But the point being that rather unforeseen, folk continued to build, sell and gather, hoards of old fangled scenery that they may not have realised would at some future stage (around now) become unsupported.

 

We must face it that we got the fair scenery support in FSX, and we can't have it again over and over or it will make the road ahead too bumpy.

[glider1 90]

 

 

in fact, most of what LM have done since V2.x is to get the platform sorted and in a position such that they can move to 64bit.

 

I am supportive of moving forward. What I don't understand is that I thought all 32 bit scenery will be dead anyway in 64bit so why get the 64 bit scenery platform sorted in a 32bit build when you can completely set new standards during the 64bit design?

 

Not being confrontational, just asking.