Serious ground layering bug in 3.3

[fluffyflops 1,858]

what ive never understood in 15 years in this hobby is why the ###### dont the big companies dont all get together and help each other out.  

 

All LM had to do was to send a copy of their 3.3 to UK2000 for example and they would of seen the problem straight away,  I understand they want to rush the patch off, put a tag line on it and flog a few more copies, but for god sake why dont they test it first.

 

I remember 10 years ago the debackle with activesky, pmdg and fsuipc and s-bends in the pmdg 747... it took years to fix it when all they had to do was stop blaming each other, hire a meeting room and thrash out the problem to fix it, but no for a bunch of computer programmers to have some human input and interaction that was all a bit too much.

 

So here we are people (like myself) have spend 4 days reinstalling their system only to find out noone bothered testing it with aerosoft and uk2000... ###### me 2016 and still LM havnt cottoned on to the idea of sending a copy to proper beta testers???

 

Surely someone from LM is on the forum and can answer me a very simple yes or no question here.

 

Did you send a copy of you software to Gary at UK2000 and to Mathias at aerosoft ?? ,like I said a very simple yes or no will do here....  

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Dont know your answer but do know some developers have access to it but choose not to use it for early checking - they dont bother - beyond me why they choose not to - oh its more work I guess

[Guest]

 

 

For UK2000 users, more information from Gary Summons, also technical background of the problem.

 

Gary was impressively honest!  He should be commended for that honesty and understand why he tried to make a single deploy to work in both FSX and P3D ... save time and it "used" to work ... a lot of developers do this and have done this.  You have to keep in mind that these devs aren't rolling in the cash and often end up working more for "passion" than the lure of additional income ... so time savers is something they'll do if they can.

 

As P3D moves forward more and more legacy processes will probably be impacted, I agree with Gary that this IS needed in order to have few bugs and better performance.

 

In the meantime, if these 3rd party products with FS2002 legacy usage is a problem, then I'd recommend stay with V3.2 until 3rd party devs have the time to update their products (if they so choice, some 3rd party products will probably not get updated as the devs may have moved on in life).

 

Thanks for the link Chris.

 

It's far better to be supportive of all involved rather than just get ###### off and start a blame game that honestly goes no where and does nothing for anyone.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Manny 1,293]

If you Only Updated with Client,  Just Uninstall Client 3.3,  and Update down to Client 3.2 

Thanks Elaine

[Guest]

 

 

So here we are people (like myself) have spend 4 days reinstalling their system only to find out noone bothered testing it with aerosoft and uk2000... ###### me 2016 and still LM havnt cottoned on to the idea of sending a copy to proper beta testers???

 

No one told you to do re-install, the choice to move to v3.3 is yours.  In fact, I've suggested people WAIT and confirm no issues with their add-ons before proceeding ... apparently that advice was ignored.

 

If 3rd party devs plan to make money from P3D V3.x, it's their responsibility to ensure they either get on the Beta program or they provide the necessary warnings to their customers that they have tested latest version of P3D.  Suggest you read Gary Summons response in the link provider earlier in this thread, he's taken on a very proactive approach and understands that P3D is moving forward.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Wothan 173]

No one told you to do re-install, the choice to move to v3.3 is yours.  In fact, I've suggested people WAIT and confirm no issues with their add-ons before proceeding ... apparently that advice was ignored.

 

If 3rd party devs plan to make money from P3D V3.x, it's their responsibility to ensure they either get on the Beta program or they provide the necessary warnings to their customers that they have tested latest version of P3D.  Suggest you read Gary Summons response in the link provider earlier in this thread, he's taken on a very proactive approach and understands that P3D is moving forward.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

If we all wait upgrading - who should then find out what works and what not ?

 

So simply waiting and let other do the dirty job is not very good recommendation.

 

Bad things sometimes happens and I´m sure it will be fixed one way or the other.

 

May an option to select "Use old style ground layering" could be an option.

This means that those not using addon scenery, or scenery thats allready compatible can use the new way and those with older sceneries that not will be updated by their developers, can use the old style - or simply toggling back and forth depending on their planned flight and the airports they are going to use.

 

Right now I keep 3.2 until this and the VAS usage issue has benn looked further into. But in the end I will upgrade.

We have now lived with a flightsim (FSX) that hasn´t be upgraded for Years and have pleaded for a successor. Now we finally got one that going in the right direction - so we should better support them. The best way to do so is to keep reporting issues and in a positive, but still critical way try to help them in the right direction.

 

FinnJ

[vgbaron 3,662]

JIC no one has seen it - this was posted by Beau Hollis of LM:

 

Beau Hollis wrote:Exact replication of the draw order generated by the legacy dx9 rendering system is not possible in the new system. We've done our best to fix specific issues as reported, but there will eventually be cases where fixing one add-on by modifying sort orders will break other add-ons. We posted a couple years back that we were dropping official support for the fs2002 routines for this vary reason, and encourage developers to stop using tools that rely on them. 

We made some major performance improvements in 3.2 which relied in part on changes to optimize some draw order sorting routines. These changes caused issues with a few add-ons which had worked in 3.1 and we addressed those issues in 3.3. We also fixed a bug in the sorting routine which made draw order non-deterministic in certain cases. We believe the sort is stable now and would prefer not to modify it again. Please keep reporting these issues, as we do appreciate the feedback, but also understand that we may not be able to investigate and respond.

 

Vic

[Bobsk8 12,753]

 

 

So here we are people (like myself) have spend 4 days reinstalling their system only to find out noone bothered testing it with aerosoft and uk2000... ###### me 2016 and still LM havnt cottoned on to the idea of sending a copy to proper beta testers???

 

I have gotten bashed for stating this on prior update releases, but installing an update a day or two after it is released, one shouldn't be surprised to run into  problems, some minor and some major. In software, waiting for a couple of weeks, is the safe way to go in my opinion, and so  far, in almost 30 years of flight simming, it has worked for me. The best beta testing is done by the people that download and install the new software, and they will usually report when there is an issue, pretty quickly. 

[Stefan Muehlemann 2]

Hello.

 

This is a first appraisal without a warranty.

I keep looking forward and keep the faith in P3D and the addon-deveoper.

 

 

No flickering in:

 

- EDDF (Aerosoft)

- LSZH V.2 (Aerosoft)

- LKPR (Aerosoft)

- EDDT (Aerosoft)

- LDSP (Aerosoft)

- ENAT (Aerosoft)

- LOWL (Just Sim)

- LOWS (Digital Design)

- LFKJ (Ruscenery)

- EPWA (DRZEWIECKI)

- EETN (DRZEWIECKI)

- VQPR (FSDG)

- MIAMI CITY (DRZEWIECKI)

- NEW YORK CITY (DRZEWIECKI)

- WARSAW CITY (DRZEWIECKI)

- US CITIES BOSTON (Aerosoft)

- US CITIES LOS ANGELES (Aerosoft)

 

 

 

Texture flickering in:

 

- KMIA (Latin VFR)

- EDDM (T2G)

- TFFR (T2G)

- LEVC (Aerosoft, Simware)

- LGIR (FSDG)

- LGTS (FSDG)

- LIRF (Aerosoft)

- LSGG (Ruscenery)

- KPHX (Flightbeam Studios)

- uk2000

- LEIB (Aerosoft)

- LEPA (Aerosoft)

 

to be continued..

[abandoned account 171]

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.

[fluffyflops 1,858]

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.

[gregda 21]

There is also bad flickering in KPHX (FBS).  Some of it was going on prior to v3.3. but it has gotten much worse.  The taxiway markers flicker like mad especially, and also the jetways.

[Wothan 173]

Sorry guys but blaming LM for this issue is simply wrong and ignorant. 3rd party developers who still code for FS2002 should be ashamed of themselves if they claim that their software is anywhere near P3D compatible. Come on guys, it's been 15 years. That's fifteen. You really expect P3D to move forward and at the same time keep compatibility with 3rd party software that is developed for a 15 year old SDK? Either the 3rd party developer should tell you "sorry, no P3D support". Or, they fix their broken stuff. Yes, it's their stuff that's broken, not LM.

 

It's about time that LM removes all these legacy junk and put some pressure on the 3rd party developers who still code like it's year 2001.

I mean, every other topic on every flight simulator forum is about VAS usage, stuttering, autogen popping, blurry textures and so on.

Have you ever wondered why that is? I can give you the answer: a lot of terrible legacy code to achieve compatibility with 3rd party addons that is written against an SDK that is older than some of the poeple running the simulator.

 

Think about that the next time you have issues with VAS/textures/stuttering/performance, and at the same time demand that your 15 year old addon should run just as it did year 2001.

 

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

 

Now offcourse where 3.3 stops being compatible it will be a problem, but alot of tools used for FS are very old, but has been stable.

 

We just need to wait now to see whether LM or the various 3rd party developers are able to fix these issues, but do note that the developers who originally made som of the sceneries, who know have trouble, might be gone.

 

 

FinnJ

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

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.

 

Guess you missed the part where LM stated we are moving on and if you dont so be it - is what it is - you could back to FSX if this is not your cup of tea 

[Guest]

 

 

JIC no one has seen it - this was posted by Beau Hollis of LM

 

Thanks Vic  ... LM have confirmed the V3.3 layer issue is "by design" to help move the platform forward and aid performance ... so if there is going to be a fix it will have to come from 3rd party devs not LM.  

 

In LM's defense, they had provided warnings about using legacy FS2002 process going all the way back to V2.x days ... so for 3rd party devs this shouldn't be an unexpected "surprise".

 

3rd party devs are already being very proactive and responsive, so lets hope that trend continues.  In the mean time, if you have many of these legacy items, then it's probably best you stay with V3.2 until or IF 3rd party devs update their products.

 

Cheers, Rob.