Sign in to follow this  
jonss1948

Buyer beware! 350i not compatible with P3Dv3

Recommended Posts

If I was Carenado, I would stop advertising this aircraft as being compatible with P3Dv3. I have a LM P3Dv3 Content Error Log which is too large to paste here (tried twice). I have 853 errors reported. The aircraft starts ok, I can program the fms, alla that but with that many reported errors I'm going no further trying to find out what doesn't work. Off to flightsimstore to get a refund.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Apparently Carenado has committed to make there aircraft Compatible for Prepar3D V3   "Properly Compatible"  But there estimate time of arrival is hazy to say the least 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would stop advertising this aircraft as being compatible with P3Dv3. Where I come from its called false advertising. I purchased in good faith, having confidence that Carenado was a reputable developer. They most probably are because they've been around for quite a while but we 'promise to make it compatible in the future' doesn't wash with me. Test the product within the platform, iron out all the bugs, beforehand. Then their compatibility claims will not come back and bite them on the bum, as in this case.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, many of the "errors" in the "Content Error Log" are false reports. This has been reported to L-M ever since they first introduced the new diagnostic feature.

This is easily confirmed by examining the "Content Error Log" for any of the "default aircraft" they have provided! :LMAO:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, many of the "errors" in the "Content Error Log" are false reports. This has been reported to L-M ever since they first introduced the new diagnostic feature.

 

This is easily confirmed by examining the "Content Error Log" for any of the "default aircraft" they have provided! :LMAO:

I have not received any content errors, other than scenery ORBX files that need updating but never an aircraft. I spent way too long doing battle with the inadequacies of FSX and I'm not going to start agonising over who's generating the errors.  I have not used default aircraft since FS9 so I am unaware of any content error logs created.when installing the default aircraft. None registered when I recently re-installed P3Dv3 into a virginal Win 10, BTW, the only errors listed in the 853 anomalies, were generated by the 350i, none pertain to any other add-ons I have installed. So, maybe the 350i does work in v3 but with so many error reported, I don't consider it unreasonable to question the validity of Carenado's claim that it is compatible.

 

Jon

You can turn off that content error log reporting in your options menu.

Thanks for that. Is the CEL considered to be a good or a bad thing?

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll disagree with Bill, you should always review whats in your ContentErrorLog.txt.  

 

For example I found these entries:

 

[error.0]
error=Error loading "Modules\MV_WXM.dll." in "C:\ProgramData\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v3\DLL.xml."
[error.1]
error=Error loading "Modules\MV_WXM.dll." in "C:\Users\Rob\AppData\Roaming\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v3\DLL.xml."
 
This means that I have duplicate entries in my two DLL.XML files -- in this case my "ProgramData" DLL.XML actually had two identical WXAdvantage entries and my "AppData\Roaming..." DLL.XML also had one entry.  These were most likely created by the aircraft installers.
 
  <Launch.Addon>
    <Name>WXAdvantage</Name>
    <Disabled>False</Disabled>
    <Path>Modules\MV_WXM.dll</Path>
    <DllStartName>module_init</DllStartName>
    <DllStopName>module_deinit</DllStopName>
  </Launch.Addon>
  <Launch.Addon>
    <Name>WXAdvantage</Name>
    <Disabled>False</Disabled>
    <Path>Modules\MV_WXM.dll</Path>
    <DllStartName>module_init</DllStartName>
    <DllStopName>module_deinit</DllStopName>
  </Launch.Addon>
 
and 
 
  <Launch.Addon>
    <Name>WXAdvantage</Name>
    <Disabled>False</Disabled>
    <Path>Modules\MV_WXM.dll</Path>
    <DllStartName>module_init</DllStartName>
    <DllStopName>module_deinit</DllStopName>
  </Launch.Addon>
 
These didn't cause an issue because they all point to the same file in the Modules folder, BUT other entries like SODE or AirportController have caused CTD's when duplicated.
 
Many of these errors are just sloppy and indeed don't cause problems, but some do.  Alabeo, Carenado, Milviz seem to produce the most errors ... a new entry I haven't seen before is:
 
[error.467]
error= Invalid Runway Surface Specified 
 
I'm guessing this is harmless and most likely a layer that's not visible so doesn't matter what the surface is defined as - but to be honest I really couldn't tell you.
 
The "Found Duplicate Key Name" seems to be harmless also, but I don't know why they have so many?
 
There are others that I'm not sure about like:
 
[error.60]
error=Texture T38 EXTERNAL LIGHTS.DDS failed to load (FE_REQUEST_STATUS==13)
[error.61]
error=Texture MILVIZC310_LANDINGLIGHT_FRESNEL..DDS failed to load (FE_REQUEST_STATUS==13)
 
[error.44]
error=Gauge/Script Error
Type: Gauge
Name: FBS_KAP140
Error: Invalid variable (missing : - did you forget a macro?): HDGDisp1
 
[error.45]
error=Gauge/Script Error
Type: Gauge
Name: FBS_KAP140
Error: Missing gauge image file: B55_XMLGauges\KAP140_bg_On.bmp
 
With this said, I'm not sure you can associate the term "compatible" ... sloppy perhaps is more accurate.  From an end users perspective it can be difficult to determine what is a problem and what is NOT a problem.  I don't know how many support tickets these errors may generate for the 3rd party vendor, but my guess is it would be less time overall to just fix the content errors vs. responding to support tickets specific to these errors ... but that will depend on sales volume.
 
Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Rob.


From an end users perspective it can be difficult to determine what is a problem and what is NOT a problem.

My point, absolutely and sloppy could be a better term. My perspective is documented above and I'll stick by it. I can imagine the intricacies involved with correcting code and I empathise but Developers alienate people like myself who are used to paying for add-ons that are 'ready' for market and I resign myself to paying, with the expectation the installation will be seamless and a pleasant experience. In the last 2 months I have purchased add-ons to the tune of AU$ 1000.00. The 350i is the only one I've installed that has raised my ire.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to flightsimstore to get a refund.

Didn'tknow it had a refund policy in place good to know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The 350i is the only one I've installed that has raised my ire.

 

Understand, but your thread title however is somewhat mis-leading ... the 350i does work in P3D (maybe not perfectly, but it does mostly work).  I have reported these errors to Carenado many times in the past with the hope that some year they'll get around to fixing them ... I keep hoping with each new purchase.

 

Would love to know why they keep repeating the same errors over and over and over with each new release?  Anyone care to explain?  I've manually cleaned up those errors that I can fix without any "negative" impact to the aircraft, so that tells me it can be done by the dev also.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With products coming straight from FSX they have to tread very carefully if they intend manipulating any working code. Essentially the code works in FSX and P3D, and so if they disturb it to eliminate the error reports in P3D it may stop working as intended. Developers should seek to eliminate all those error reports, since they are real. However, mostly these errors are handled elegantly in the software. It’s better to describe faults or incorrect actions within the software to the developer, rather than quote error logs in P3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, I'm more concerned that you have two dll.xml files in different folders than anything else. Until P3Dv2 et seq this was never the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, I'm more concerned that you have two dll.xml files in different folders than anything else. Until P3Dv2 et seq this was never the case.

Hello Bill

 

P3D v3 has 2 dll.xml. One in ProgramData (new file structure proposed by LM) and the other "legacy" in AppData Roaming. Same goes for exe.xml.

 

P3D v3 reads both; as long as you don't have duplicated entries you are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P3D v3 has 2 dll.xml. One in ProgramData (new file structure proposed by LM) and the other "legacy" in AppData Roaming. Same goes for exe.xml.

 

P3D v3 reads both; as long as you don't have duplicated entries you are fine.

I understand that. L-M have actually created a situation whereby unless everyone "follows the new paradigm" (which frankly isn't a realistic expectation), situations where duplicate entries will occur are more likely to happen than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. L-M have actually created a situation whereby unless everyone "follows the new paradigm" (which frankly isn't a realistic expectation), situations where duplicate entries will occur are more likely to happen than not.

I agree with You. But, it is what LM decided.

New installers "should" use ProgramData.

 

Perhaps it would be wise of them to "enforce" their file structure for version 4, including addon install paths outside of the sim core.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New installers shouldn't be touching the files at all but rather utilizing the built in support provided by L-M to incorporate entries into those files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


However, mostly these errors are handled elegantly in the software. It’s better to describe faults or incorrect actions within the software to the developer, rather than quote error logs in P3D.

 

If I didn't manually fix some "key" errors being reported in LM's ContentErrorLog I would not be able to use P3D and it would CTD frequently.  This is using 3rd party products "designed for" P3D V3 exclusively (with the exception of the Twin Otter, I have zero FSX products installed).

 

Like I said, I can fix most of them myself and there are ZERO repercussions from doing so ... remember these are all products flying the P3D V3 flag.

 

But as always ... the ball and the chain (FSX) ... my biggest concern is moving forward ... lets suppose there will be a 64bit P3D at some point in time, lets suppose the same practices still work in a 64bit P3D, do you think devs are going to change if they don't have to?  Maybe it would be prudent for LM to enforce the "new" way and provide no support for the "old way".  It's my understanding (from several sources) that most of the 3rd party revenue is coming from P3D installs.

 

I agree with Bill to some degree with the exception that newer installers aware of new P3D changes should use the new methods, not the old.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I didn't manually fix some "key" errors being reported in LM's ContentErrorLog I would not be able to use P3D and it would CTD frequently.  This is using 3rd party products "designed for" P3D V3 exclusively (with the exception of the Twin Otter, I have zero FSX products installed).

 

Like I said, I can fix most of them myself and there are ZERO repercussions from doing so ... remember these are all products flying the P3D V3 flag.

Even so Rob, I doubt it would change their minds leaving alone or treading carefully to avoid causing problems, which is a bit different to requires show stopping fixes as you found. Hopefully it's not at all as bad for P3D as suggested in the grim situation you painted there. Hopefully the devs have sorted out those issues you found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Hopefully it's not at all as bad for P3D as suggested in the grim situation you painted there.

 

I'm not holding the brush nor doing the painting, just an end user that is a software engineer with some P3D SDK knowledge.  I respond to those with the Brush and fix issues from/for the consumer end ... ignoring the ContentErrorLog is NOT something I would recommend.

 

It takes me about 15-20 mins to correct issues that come up and I repeat this step over time as I purchase more add-ons that generate errors.  The errors I'm able correct, I do correct, this has been going on for around two years or more.  I don't think it's a "grim situation", but I also don't understand why these issues can't be cleaned up?  If it only takes me about 15-20 mins, I can't see it being that much of a burden on those with the Brush.

 

The ContentErrorLog exists as a useful tool for both devs and end users, I don't see why it's being brushed under the rug as almost "hostile".  If devs disagree with the errors being report, then bring that up with LM.

 

Cheers, Rob.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. But you wanted clarification as to why those devs appear to disregard the reports. I said they don't want to change anything if it's working OK. If you've found show stopping problems then that's to be taken up with your suppliers shurely?



Remember I said that "Developers should seek to eliminate all those error reports, since they are real." I'm not suggesting they be ignored.

There's plenty that are ignored because they amount to nothing as I think Bill was merely trying to suggest. The fact that you're handling show stopping errors Rob, isn't what we meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to L-M not a single error in that list should be ignored as it impacts the core sim's performance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to L-M not a single error in that list should be ignored as it impacts the core sim's performance.

^^^ What Ed said. +1000

 

Furthermore, a developer (of any software) should seek and find all bugs, regardless if they cause performance issues or not. I know I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and that log writing to disk as well... I think Rob's talking about a few devs that recommended turning off the logs since they have a few inconsequential warnings in the log. But "brushed under the rug as almost "hostile" isn't what they are doing, and "If devs disagree with the errors being report" I haven't seen that in my travels, maybe Rob has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Regarding the location of dll.xml;
 

a location such as

"C:\Users\UserName\AppData\Roaming\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v3"

is presented depending on the user logged in

 

whereas

"C:\Users\All Users\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v3"

otherwise known as the physical location:

"C:\ProgramData\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v3"

is presented whatever User is logged in to the system.

 

So it can be seen that different configurations will emerge depending on the User that's logged in. Remember that P3D is a professional application and requires that it can be run in a secure system without Admin privileges.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, a developer (of any software) should seek and find all bugs, regardless if they cause performance issues or not. I know I do.

Unfortunately, there are some errors reported that are so vague that they defy any attempt to locate them.

 

While I don't have an example to hand at this moment, several logs entries have mentioned a "blank space" as being the proximate cause of the error without any reference to a specific line or even surrounding text that can help pinpoint the precise "blank space" in question...

 

How does one search for a "blank space" anyway? :unknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this