Serious ground layering bug in 3.3

[SteveW 1,792]

The 32 vs 64 bit situations amongst programs are discussed in an oversimplified way. These differences are within the executing code representing the sizes of numbers on the CPU, nothing to do with the data of facets and textures. It is often assumed that 64bit simulators would require 64bit addons, of course in certain ways they do but there's plenty of scope for 32bit addons in a 64bit sim.

 

Rob's meaning I think is about the underlying way data and programs work together. When we use 64bit we can access more data, and so the situations arising can mean a lot of work restructuring the way things go together, to incorporate more data access, and to improve the extensibility of these programs going forward.

[Potroh 14]

 

 

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.

 

Come on Rob, yes you are a software engineer since WWII, as I'm a designer since WWI, but if I can politely ask you: don't try to teach me in scenery design please...

If you know how it's done, yes, if there are five layers, then 5 numbers indeed need to be changed by five clicks.

That's why I mentioned a simple "recompile" because writing a forum answer here definitely takes much more time that those 5 clicks + testing.

 

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.

 

No use to bring individual designers or companies into this discussion. All well versed designers know, that producing a P3D only version is no big deal.

As far as the dropping support goes, first the FS2004 ASM compatibility was partially dropped and now the 2002 has followed.

I would have understood it at 3.0 but at 3.3 it is a bit strange and doesn't sound as a well thought over decision. Too heavy consequences...

 

 

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.

 

It's evening for you in the US, so can't say you woke up with your left foot, so what happens with you? Who is accusing LM or Beau of anything????

Do you really think your moderator or tester status is equal to using the weight of your voice to take every word as an assault or attack, if other round sentences do not meet your expectations or do not match the agenda you try to represent?

 

I understand that you dislike my opinion, but this is not the tone you should ever use as a moderator. You should respect differing opinions and mine have been expressed in a very polite and very pragmatic manner.

Cutting me off??? Come on Rob, are you unable to bear this much of non-personal criticism towards a company decision which is not even yours?

 

Potroh

[Guest]

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?

 

It's unlikely scenery needs to be converted to 64bit (if you look at DTG Flight School - it's a 64bit executable using Orbx scenery - conversion would only be necessary if 64bit specific data types were used), the issue here is one of work efficiently under DX11.

 

 

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.

 

Sounds like you missed the quote from Vic (here) who was quoting Beau's response to this issue?  Because if you don't believe Beau telling us it was by design with his reasons for that, then the only other way for me to interpret your response was that you think Beau is a liar?  You apparently believe Beau made a mistake and is now "covering up" for it?  So yeah, that's pretty rude and on LM's forum I would cut that type of indirection off regardless of how politely it was worded.  On AVSIM I've done nothing as such and you've expressed you opinion multiple times.

 

I don't like or dislike your opinion, but I will present the reality of the situation which is what you seem to NOT like.  I sympathize with your predicament, but this was NOT a surprise to me so I can't imagine it would be a surprise to current 3rd party devs either.  None of us can help you there, if you want to continue this rant then so be it ... as far as I'm concerned with information received from LM, and information received from 3rd party developers the issue is done, it is what it is, and resolution is in the works for some 3rd party devs.

 

You can debate whether LM should have done this now in 3.3 or later until the cows come home, but it's not going to change anything.  The best solution for you will be to stay with 3.2 until those products you want are made compatible with P3D V3.3.  I can understand why they did this and the path forward, and I hope you can too, I just think you didn't like it being in V3.x, fair enough.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[glider1 90]

 

 

The 32 vs 64 bit situations amongst programs are discussed in an oversimplified way. These differences are within the executing code representing the sizes of numbers on the CPU, nothing to do with the data of facets and textures. It is often assumed that 64bit simulators would require 64bit addons, of course in certain ways they do but there's plenty of scope for 32bit addons in a 64bit sim.

Rob's meaning I think is about the underlying way data and programs work together. When we use 64bit we can access more data, and so the situations arising can mean a lot of work restructuring the way things go together, to incorporate more data access, and to improve the extensibility of these programs going forward.

 

It's unlikely scenery needs to be converted to 64bit (if you look at DTG Flight School - it's a 64bit executable using Orbx scenery - conversion would only be necessary if 64bit specific data types were used), the issue here is one of work efficiently under DX11.

 

So what P3D have done in 3.3 by dropping support for old scenery makes good sense in this light. I was thinking too black and white in terms of 32 and 64. Thanks for the clear explanations

[captain_adf 16]

I for one am most certainly not interested in laying blame. I am however rather frustrated that my long awaited and long planned move to p3d may need to wait even longer because of this new development with 3.3. Had I the foresight to have purchased last week, I would now have access to a 3.2 installer. But I didn't, I had been planning to purchase on or about mid June, when I will be assembling my new system.

 

I will probably go ahead with my purchase of p3d anyway, it is the future after all. I know this. But it won't be as satisfying as I'd hoped and will clearly need to keep FSX around until the airport issues are cleared up.

 

On the other hand, if new users would have the ability to install previous versions, this wouldn't be so aggravating.

[amalishkin 10]

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..

PANC Aerosoft.

Dutch Harbor

[Egbert Drenth 250]

 

Aggravating..... really?

I agree it is inconvenient, but aggravating? Be happy that:

• LM is actively developing P3D and adds new features and performance enhancements
• P3D is already so much better then FSX
• LM is activiely fixing bugs and releases hot fixes, something that we have never seen with Microsoft/FS

My 2 cents,

(My remarks are for this whole thread, I only used your posting to reply)

 

[captain_adf 16]

Poor choice of words on my part, "aggravating" is not appropriate. Rather a better word would be along the lines of "challenging". For all the reasons you cite I am immensely grateful for LM's pioneering work with p3d. I recall all too vividly the sadness when Aces was shut down and how the prospect of losing this sim was a real downer.

 

Lots of quality choices still remain and I'm confident there will be a solution soon in the works for the best devs (like Gary at uk2000).

 

As noted earlier this will not deter me from finally purchasing p3d this month. It just puts a slight damper on my enthusiasm: I had so looked forward to kmem to egss in the trip 7. If Stansted isn't in the cards this summer then Copenhagen or Oslo will be. Must adapt to the situation!

[KL Oo 700]

 

 

Do you really think your moderator or tester status is equal to using the weight of your voice to take every word as an assault or attack, if other round sentences do not meet your expectations or do not match the agenda you try to represent?
 
I understand that you dislike my opinion, but this is not the tone you should ever use as a moderator. You should respect differing opinions and mine have been expressed in a very polite and very pragmatic manner.
Cutting me off??? Come on Rob, are you unable to bear this much of non-personal criticism towards a company decision which is not even yours?
 
Potroh

 

Potroh,

 

I don't post very much here, but I've read every this thread from start to this point as this issue is of interest to me. 

 

Rob has done nothing but provide accurate, creditable and verified information on this point. He's acknowledged the issue, indeed he's reported it to LM (which it appears you aren't interested in doing).  To suggest he's using is Moderator status as a weight to forward his own agenda is ridiculous and in my opinion immature. I don't beleive he has an agenda other than providing usable advice and knowledge to the rest of us.

 

You clearly don't like the change in 3.3. I can understand why you're frustrated. But LM have indicated that they needed to do this to move the platform forward. Developers have already started to acknowledge the change including UK2000's Garry Summons who stated ""Forgot to add, there is no reason why I cant use modern code for the ground tiles in P3D. Basically the reason why I dont is that it causing flashing issues in FSX, so its a case of me being lazy and wanted to use the same file for both sims.

So I will start to make all P3D ground tiles use modern code now, this will fix the issue for sure") . 

 

Your suggestion that LM 'mistakenly' broke the code is incredibly difficult for me to accept and to be honest, somewhat bewildering.  

 

That said, you always have the choice of remaining with version 3.2 - It is fantastic!

[wizzards 99]

maybe a change of title to this thread is in order,from what i read it aint no bug but simply progress,maybe it should read should read "LM make further progress in P3d"

Peter

[Glynn 405]

 

 

Let me say what many of these polite and very wise guys don't want to say. Stop your whinning!!! Go away. Your whinning is why your mother don't like you. If you don't want to move forward just play around with FSX for another 15 years. Go away.

 

Reported,

[Stefan Muehlemann 2]

Here is my post in the fly tampa forum:

 

http://www.flytampa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8824

[Potroh 14]

 

 

Sounds like you missed the quote from Vic (here) who was quoting Beau's response to this issue? Because if you don't believe Beau telling us it was by design with his reasons for that, then the only other way for me to interpret your response was that you think Beau is a liar? You apparently believe Beau made a mistake and is now "covering up" for it? So yeah, that's pretty rude and on LM's forum I would cut that type of indirection off regardless of how politely it was worded. On AVSIM I've done nothing as such and you've expressed you opinion multiple times.

 

No Rob, I didn't miss what Beau said in their forum.

What he said is perfectly understandable.

Were you, as a tester, aware of this change? Were you aware of it's immediate abrogation to quite many scenery products? The answer is easy: no, you were not, just as usual you asked me to prove the existence of the problem.

So if even you were not aware of the consequences, my stipulation saying that it may have been an unintentional change, and the change was not tested against older airports, is still valid.

 

As many users expressed here and elsewhere, LM has been kind and straight forward enough towards the users on the road, so if they knew it will happen with 3.3, they would have definitely warned you, the testers and the users alike.

Now that the problem is acknowledged by LM, you try to sail away from the pragmatic issue, mainly by personally attacking myself here.

But I admit, this is your territory. If you are happier by not having frank and pragmatic, even speculative discussions on the topic, then let it be.

 

good-bye

Potroh

[ideoplastic 86]

When I decided to switch to Prepar3D it was with full knowledge that this simulator would undergo further development and that at various points in time some things such as sceneries or aircraft  would just not work or would be subject to further changes. I do not regret this decision and I am quite happy to report any issues to developers in the hope they will get fixed, but if that is not the case also quite happy to abandon for good those particular items and the vendors responsible for not wanting to update their products to suit the Prepar3D platform. In the end there will always be someone who will be ready to take up the opportunity to develop and update products for this platform. We just have to be patient. Let us not get angry by the various temporary difficulties we experience everytime there is a new version release. Be content that we will at some point in the not too distant future have the best simulator in the market. Please forget any disagreements and be happy. :smile:  :smile:  :smile:  :smile:  

[Nemo 1,305]

What I don't understand is the meaning that we would need hundreds of airports to enjoy our hobby. This includes my meaning and behavior as well. But now, although I switched back to V3.2, I am considering to update again and only flying airports which a properly working. There should be more than enough keeping my busy for months. If than later the one or other will be updated - Good!

 

Only thing that bothers me when I recently purchased an airport which is now not usable with v.3.3. I will be more careful in the future and will also consider the behavior/support of some developers and distributors before I'll make a purchase decision.