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

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 

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

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!

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

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!

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

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.

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

Off to flightsimstore to get a refund.

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

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.