Sign in to follow this  
ionfresko

Plugin won't load/no sound in XP11Pb13

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I just wonder if anyone got this to work with the latest public betas? I haven't been able to get the plugin to load for some time, but it seems that others have managed to. Or has it been unabled systematically for some time? I know its beta and all that, but I just wonder if it might work nevertheless, i.e., if others have managed to. I have tried to reinstall, tried with and without additional plugins etc, to no avail. The plugin won't load regardless, and there is complete silence.

Anyone?

Share this post


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

Just a public service reminder here:  XP11 is still Beta, and with that, there are still a lot of developers waiting until the official release of XP11 is out before they release updates to their aircraft.  Anything you choose to do in the meantime is up to you, but don't expect the developers to make their fixes immediately.

 

Jim Morvay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I know that, and noted that in my reply. Hence I didn't ask or expect the developers to do anything.

I simply asked if anyone still might got the thing to work nevertheless, it has nothing to do with public service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ionfresko said:

Well, I know that, and noted that in my reply. Hence I didn't ask or expect the developers to do anything.

I simply asked if anyone still might got the thing to work nevertheless, it has nothing to do with public service.

Sorry, I thought someone might understand the humorous nature of the beginning of my reply, but I guess not.  I read through the XP forum section here and at other forums and your question is no different than many others asking about getting aircraft to work in XP11, despite XP11 being in Beta.  Many high level members of forums have reiterated that fact to no avail, more as a warning to not try and perform "DIY developing" on such things and leave it to the original developers to fix in due time.  I DO understand what you are asking though, heck I've asked similar questions in the early stages of the beta for the default aircraft, but it's risky to try and perform a fix if you aren't familiar with the way it was coded initially.  Since this is a PMDG aircraft you are inquiring about, I doubt PMDG would be taking the time to make adjustments throughout the Beta, waiting until the Beta is over with.

 

The long and the short: it COULD work, and then it may NOT. :wacko:

 

Jim Morvay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public betas are for the community to provide feedback to the developer about what works, and more importantly what doesn't work. Make sure to report the issue to them. Keep in mind that this is the sole purpose of public beta. It's not meant as a preview program that you can expect to fully enjoy, or even use functionally. It may look close to complete, but the reason it's still in beta is that it's not done, and things cannot be expected to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do seem as if you don't really understand the question: again, I'm not asking or expecting the developers to adjust anything at this stage. And I know it could work, or may not work.

Again, I'm asking if anyone got the plane working in spite being in beta. And that's typically not for the developers to bother about, as it is a beta, or high level members reminding about this being a beta. In this forum and in other X-Plane forums there are many such discussions, people suggesting things, how to get or not get betas to work in spite being betas, simply because they want to get up in the air. Also, the DC-6 has been working earlier during the beta run, so I don't think my question is completely stupid, insofar, that is, one is not expecting the developers to do his/her usual business. I mean, why does it matter to either high level members or developers if we who desire to fly the thing in spite being in beta is trying to do so, and is helping each other out, granted - again - that we are not expecting normal support from the developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ionfresko said:

In this forum and in other X-Plane forums there are many such discussions, people suggesting things, how to get or not get betas to work in spite being betas, simply because they want to get up in the air.

If we are talking about the same thing here, the issue you are addressing is whether or not the DC-6, a PMDG aircraft, developed for XP10, will still run in the current Beta cycle (PB13), is that correct? If so, and as you claim that it has worked so far, what does it have to do with a plugin?  In fact, what plugin is it exactly that you are having trouble with?  You had not specified the plugin, in your original post, so for my own reference, I am asking what isn't working?

Jim Morvay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ionfresko said:

Also, the DC-6 has been working earlier during the beta run, so I don't think my question is completely stupid, insofar, that is, one is not expecting the developers to do his/her usual business.

This is actually my point, and the point of my earlier message...

I know people had it working. I know it stopped working at some point in the beta run from watching people discuss it here and on Facebook.

The point is this:
This isn't something to go into forums and discuss to try and work around a beta limitation.
This is something to go back to Laminar about to let them know something they changed broke things.

Contrary to your message, I don't think you're asking us to do anything officially as PMDG. As I said earlier and I'll say now: beta is there to test a product. If you're going around to various forums trying to find work arounds instead of providing feedback to the developer of that product, then you're defeating the point of the beta. Laminar needs to know something broke as part of an update. What they choose to do with that information is up to them, but if you're participating in a beta, then you should really, really be providing them feedback.

I get that you want something to work, and that you understand that it might not, and that a third-party dev isn't going to do much until the sim platform is stable. I'm simply stating that, as someone participating in a beta, your time is better served discussing the issues with the developer of that beta, and not trying to find work arounds to get something that isn't guaranteed to work, to work. It may cause them to fix their code, back the changes out, or even simply say "you know what, the benefit of this change is more important than the side effects to the 3rd party devs," who will then have to adapt when the platform is stable.

Participating in a beta is serious stuff (yes, even if it's public). You have the ability to shape software and make it better, and/or simply ensure it works properly. To be sure, a number of people can't wait to take advantage of the new XPL features, hoping they'll work with their existing software. All the same, while it's in beta, some stuff won't work, and anyone participating in that beta should be reporting those issues to the dev so that they can be addressed, and not worked around.

 

 

Think of it this way:

  • Beta 1 comes out today and a minor bug causes stuff to not load properly unless you modify a file to manually load it.
  • Nobody reports this because they all expect someone else will.
  • Beta 2 comes out and everyone's sim still works properly because they added that line.
  • Nobody reports the issue, or they all miss it because of their manual work-arounds.
  • The sim releases and everyone has to go in and modify files because nobody participating in the beta provided the necessary feedback that beta testing is meant to elicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

This is actually my point, and the point of my earlier message...

I know people had it working. I know it stopped working at some point in the beta run from watching people discuss it here and on Facebook.

The point is this:
This isn't something to go into forums and discuss to try and work around a beta limitation.
This is something to go back to Laminar about to let them know something they changed broke things.

Contrary to your message, I don't think you're asking us to do anything officially as PMDG. As I said earlier and I'll say now: beta is there to test a product. If you're going around to various forums trying to find work arounds instead of providing feedback to the developer of that product, then you're defeating the point of the beta. Laminar needs to know something broke as part of an update. What they choose to do with that information is up to them, but if you're participating in a beta, then you should really, really be providing them feedback.

I get that you want something to work, and that you understand that it might not, and that a third-party dev isn't going to do much until the sim platform is stable. I'm simply stating that, as someone participating in a beta, your time is better served discussing the issues with the developer of that beta, and not trying to find work arounds to get something that isn't guaranteed to work, to work. It may cause them to fix their code, back the changes out, or even simply say "you know what, the benefit of this change is more important than the side effects to the 3rd party devs," who will then have to adapt when the platform is stable.

Participating in a beta is serious stuff (yes, even if it's public). You have the ability to shape software and make it better, and/or simply ensure it works properly. To be sure, a number of people can't wait to take advantage of the new XPL features, hoping they'll work with their existing software. All the same, while it's in beta, some stuff won't work, and anyone participating in that beta should be reporting those issues to the dev so that they can be addressed, and not worked around.

 

 

Think of it this way:

  • Beta 1 comes out today and a minor bug causes stuff to not load properly unless you modify a file to manually load it.
  • Nobody reports this because they all expect someone else will.
  • Beta 2 comes out and everyone's sim still works properly because they added that line.
  • Nobody reports the issue, or they all miss it because of their manual work-arounds.
  • The sim releases and everyone has to go in and modify files because nobody participating in the beta provided the necessary feedback that beta testing is meant to elicit.

Points well taken Kyle, and I would agree with you, in regards to the beta usage of XP11.  I've done what I can during this beta phase, testing and reporting broken (bugged) features.  I've also been pretty disciplined to use only default aircraft, weather, etc. to ensure that when an issue came up, I knew it was with the beta and not an add-on created outside of the beta.  Unfortunately, many people seemed to get the wrong impression of the beta, to which I am still trying to figure out...beta is beta.  I'm still bugged though on what specific plugin the OP is referring to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jimm said:

Points well taken Kyle, and I would agree with you, in regards to the beta usage of XP11.  I've done what I can during this beta phase, testing and reporting broken (bugged) features.  I've also been pretty disciplined to use only default aircraft, weather, etc. to ensure that when an issue came up, I knew it was with the beta and not an add-on created outside of the beta.  Unfortunately, many people seemed to get the wrong impression of the beta, to which I am still trying to figure out...beta is beta.  I'm still bugged though on what specific plugin the OP is referring to. 

The DC-6 itself will load a plug-in to work, I believe. My XPL terminology is a little weak, though.

I think using our software is a good thing. I'm just trying to make the point that if someone stops working, it should be reported to the right people, and not simply worked around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

I'm just trying to make the point that if someone stops working, it should be reported to the right people, and not simply worked around.

I think you meant "something stops working", right? :biggrin:

Yeah, I think it's good too, regardless of the developer's product. I don't think any developer would balk at users trying to use their aircraft or weather or scenery in a new sim version, but as you say, if something is broken, report it to either the sim creator or the add-on developer, which is the sticking point here.  Putting our own band-aids on a product could compound an issue, and thus, more posts in forums from users reporting that it doesn't work right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open betas are okay but there are a lot of pitfalls...., mostly it just points to a shortcoming in the developer being able to adequately test the product with in house resources.  A complete development cycle would have an alpha test to ensure all modules were operating as expected to a set of testable criteria and then a beta would test the product in a variety of conditions likely to be encountered by users, and look for the wrong button push not anticipated by design.  Only then is a product ready for a wide beta.  This developer seems to do a design, send out to his fan base, wait for feedback, then make design changes.  This is reminiscent of an iterative design trend that occurred in the IT industry about the time I was getting my MBA during the late 80s, except it was intended for application development in-house for such things as database user interfaces.  Not a good idea for a large complex program such as a flight simulator in my opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the question about the particulars of the XP11 Beta, isn't pretty useless to report to Laminar that third-party addons don't work in this kind of beta stage? I mean, what should they do about it? They are still trying to get the product itself to work properly. .I've been reporting betas concerning X-Plane 11 itself, which I believe is the point at this stage. That Laminar is braking things during the beta run is to be expected, and I see no reason to complain to neither them nor the developer about an addon-not working in this, relatively speaking, early beta stage - there are, quite simply, no XP11 addons yet which are supposed to work, as there is no XP11 non-beta yet. I think that is to be done at 1.0, when things are to be expected to work and, hopefully, third-party developers have got the info they need, and know that this is the version they are getting their products to work with. Maybe that is how they reason: when they release 1.0, we know that this is what we got as of now, and then there is some third-party tinkering and bug reporting, and so there is 1.1 etc etc etc, as is typical of X-Plane. To some extent, X-Plane is always in some kind of half-beta, with constant updated adding and fixing and braking things constantly and simultainuosly during the full run of a version.

Thus it is either pure luck of successful tinkering one can hope for at this stage, I believe. In this particular case I meant that the plugin in the plugin folder of the aircraft doesn't load. But after some testing with a vanilla XP11 beta13 install, I've learned that both the DC-6 and other airplanes which neither didn't work, actually work. So its not specifically about PMDGs DC-6.

However, the problem now is instead that I cannot activate the new installation. I don't know if this is due to the beta-status of XP11, or if its about something else. It could well be simply the difficulties to separate between the letter O and the number 0 in the activation code. So, what I do think is a valid question to the developer: is it possible to run two different copies of the DC-6 at the same time, on the same computer? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ionfresko said:

So, what I do think is a valid question to the developer: is it possible to run two different copies of the DC-6 at the same time, on the same computer? 

I don't think the licensing service will allow that.  I would be verrry surprised if you could.  The EULA does allow you to run two copies of the product on two separate computers that you own as long as you are the user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad if thats's the case. To run two different copies on the same rig is standard procedure for X-Plane, it seems: one "normal" install, and one for tinkering/betas (like I'm doing now, would be impossible otherwise). But if allowed on two different rigs, why not two installs on one rig? Makes no sense to me.

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