3 hours ago, Dougal said:

The other thing that springs to mind, that makes what you're saying SO important...  What percentage of flightsim users actually use forums?  What about all the people who just buy stuff, and expect it to work out of the box?! My guess would be a lot. They're going to be in for a nasty shock me thinks.

True this about the users. Imagine thinking that the "migration tool" would make 32bit code work in v4. Yes, I've seen it asked in the context of "why doesn't work".

So far I have a vanilla P3D V4 with Chaseplane, precipitFX installed and A2A 172.  Haven't had much time to do anything else.  Are the orbx addons done correctly?

6 hours ago, AviatorMoser said:

Based off what I said. I can just find out for myself if something is working correctly or not. I don't need to abide by any sort of "rule" but I can consider it as good advice.

He has every right to post what he thinks -- especially because he has to run a support team. I just disagreed with his "rules". Because there is all kinds of stuff out there that may work fine out there even though it's not officially updated to the newest SDK. Like Manfred Jahn's C-47. Works for the most part, not perfectly, but it doesn't crash my sim, and I'm almost certain it doesn't affect PMDG's simulation.

Nothing, I'm convinced his support team has to deal with all sorts of issues.

I'm smart enough to know what's good for my body and the consequences of any risky lifestyles.

Hey I agree with you on learning from people's mistakes. I just don't agree with these so called "rules". It's more like good advice -- not essential. And that's just like, my opinion, man. :)

You're right, you have all the answers, you know it all and no one can or will change your mind.

 

How do Fly Tampa products made v4 compatible figure into this?

55 minutes ago, Boomer said:

How do Fly Tampa products made v4 compatible figure into this?

At the moment, all the FT titles are still those made for P3Dv3. Their installers will load wherever they are pointed, even if V3 isn't present, so if you point the original V3 installer at the V4 root folder, it will create a FlyTampa subfolder and install the sceneries there.

They have zip files on their web site for each of their major titles containing some upgraded scenery elements (mostly textures), that are required for the scenery to work in V4. It is also necessary to remove several textures from each scenery - mostly those related to PAPI lights.

Since the FT sceneries will install to any folder they are pointed at, they would be good candidates to set up in the approved way with xml files - but other than the new V4 compatible textures that are part of the patch downloads, I assume the bulk of the scenery elements are V3 (or earlier).

Martin over at FlyTampa has addressed RR's post and it's a good read. It's not a rebuttal, per se, but it does illustrate that there are different perspectives on some of these issues, especially where an aircraft and a scenery developer are concerned.

Also, I have to assume (may not be safe) that FB's KMSP was developed using the v4 SDK (see the FB site and product description) and it's still suffering from the PMDG landing lights + dynamic lighting + any level of AA issue. There's a ghost in the machine somewhere and the accusation that only smelly P3Dv3 scenery (or older) are contributing to this issue appears dubious, to me, at this point.

I discovered that a ported over airport from FSX/P3DV3 was causing frame rate to drop from 40fps default to 10fps altered scenery with Dynamic lighting. Must be some or much truth to the scenery/dynamic lighting debate.

          I believe  Robert provides good advices; however, I wouldn't have set those as "must do" or "rules."  Reading hundreds of topics and discussions, I see a devided community when it comes to how LM has decided to install add-ons. They now implemented a new system- via the XML doc.  Some prefer it- others don't.  I believe they are both good ideas. However, since I have 60+ add-ons to install, I decided to install one by one using the Scenery CFG method (for scenery), meaning as it used to be. I take things one-step-at-a-time.. I install an add-on: Install-Test, fly, Configure Scenery Configurator... If it works, I leave it; if it does not work, I uninstall it and move on. Bammm! I don't make my life miserable by sticking to one method and wait for developers to "update" to V-4 guidelines... I would have to wait several years for that to happen, and in most products, it may never be updated. Therefore, why wait when you can try it now- TODAY! LM might change things later; but for now, we need to work with what we currently have.

Now this is a Rule:  (back-up, back-up, back-up), before  installing the next product. 

Well lets not pick on 3rd party content providers too much, their base has always been FSX and one BGL for all platforms ... BUT and this is a BIG BUT, they do this so they can save time, money and NOT have to charge users for updates for different platform versions.  If the content providers have to recompile everything using the V4 SDK that takes time/effort, most content providers don't work for free, they have family, kids, mortgage etc.

I would love to see all 3rd party content be compiled with the V4 SDK rather than the FS2002 SDK.  In fact, I'm almost certain any PR (photoreal) scenery should be adjusted (higher resolution sources so the LODs match up with non-PR scenery) to leverage the benefits of V4's high resolution terrain texture option and TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10.

Robert's context is "How not to mess up a working P3D V4 installation" and his advice is very sound if you want a "mostly" problem free experience and good FPS with minimal stutters.

I believe the indirect reference was Estonia Migration tool and not so much Orbx FTX Central.  But I don't know?

If you check this forum and others you'll see many not willing to pay for updates for V4 scenery.  So if users aren't willing to pay for updated V4 scenery then they'll have to accept possible consequences (low FPS, stutters, CTD).

How would any end user know an FS2002 BGL from a V4 BGL, without an active FSX installation they probably would never know ... you'd need to install both the FSX version and the P3D V4 version and then do a binary compare ... if it's identical then it's most likely and FSX/FS2002 BGL being used for both platforms, HOWEVER that's not always proof positive.

As the market shifts away from FSX and FSX-SE I think we'll see shift in what content providers use as a base SDK/PDK ... atleast that's my hope anyway.

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: ask the developer if the scenery was compiled with P3D V4 SDK ... like FlightBeams KMSP is most definitely compiled with P3D V4 SDK and it shows.

 

Perhaps it would be useful to have a stickied, up-to-date list of add-ons known to be compiled with the P3D v4 SDK. Probably a very short list right now but it'd likely grow over time. That way, people that want to follow Robert's advice would have a point of reference. Those that don't could ignore it, of course, and head off on their adventures. 

Rob, all of my photoscenery is looking great. The sharpness can be adjusted with the LOD slider.

No issues with blurry photoscenery...

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

... ask the developer if the scenery was compiled with P3D V4 SDK ... like FlightBeams KMSP is most definitely compiled with P3D V4 SDK and it shows.

That's is exactly my plan for the future. After some tests with some different scenery titles (FSDT, AS and FT)  I am going back to clean P3Dv4 and from then, I promised myself, I will only install add-ons which were compiled with V4 SDK. I hope I can keep this promise.

BTW, is there any official statement of JV (ORBX) that their products strictly follow V4 SDK?

1 hour ago, Nemo said:

That's is exactly my plan for the future. After some tests with some different scenery titles (FSDT, AS and FT)  I am going back to clean P3Dv4 and from then, I promised myself, I will only install add-ons which were compiled with V4 SDK. I hope I can keep this promise.

BTW, is there any official statement of JV (ORBX) that their products strictly follow V4 SDK?

LM has one product; some developers have........ many, many. and           many.  Will they be converted to V-4 completely? A couple might, others not. And even those who "say" they are.. will you dig into the core of their files to make sure? humm, maybe the first one...And even then you might not even be able to tell.  (Fun times- and more to come).

4 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Well lets not pick on 3rd party content providers too much, their base has always been FSX and one BGL for all platforms ... BUT and this is a BIG BUT, they do this so they can save time, money and NOT have to charge users for updates for different platform versions.  If the content providers have to recompile everything using the V4 SDK that takes time/effort, most content providers don't work for free, they have family, kids, mortgage etc.

I would love to see all 3rd party content be compiled with the V4 SDK rather than the FS2002 SDK.  In fact, I'm almost certain any PR (photoreal) scenery should be adjusted (higher resolution sources so the LODs match up with non-PR scenery) to leverage the benefits of V4's high resolution terrain texture option and TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10.

Robert's context is "How not to mess up a working P3D V4 installation" and his advice is very sound if you want a "mostly" problem free experience and good FPS with minimal stutters.

I believe the indirect reference was Estonia Migration tool and not so much Orbx FTX Central.  But I don't know?

If you check this forum and others you'll see many not willing to pay for updates for V4 scenery.  So if users aren't willing to pay for updated V4 scenery then they'll have to accept possible consequences (low FPS, stutters, CTD).

How would any end user know an FS2002 BGL from a V4 BGL, without an active FSX installation they probably would never know ... you'd need to install both the FSX version and the P3D V4 version and then do a binary compare ... if it's identical then it's most likely and FSX/FS2002 BGL being used for both platforms, HOWEVER that's not always proof positive.

As the market shifts away from FSX and FSX-SE I think we'll see shift in what content providers use as a base SDK/PDK ... atleast that's my hope anyway.

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: ask the developer if the scenery was compiled with P3D V4 SDK ... like FlightBeams KMSP is most definitely compiled with P3D V4 SDK and it shows.

 

I just bought these sceneries exactly for P3D V4. FSDT, Imaginesim, Flytampa etc. And now, I am tasting it was all in vain and money lost? Than I suggest the scenery developers to advertise in a different way:

"Becareful, this product only fully supports P3D V3 and FSX (SE), P3D V4 is only compatible in terms of installation. We cannot guarantee 100% compatibility in P3D V4 as this software has not been recompiled with the P3D V4 SDK. If you are a P3D V4 user, buy this software at your own risk!"

INSTEAD OF: YES! IT IS P3D V4 COMPATIBLE! NICE NICE NICE...

These are misleading words. I bought FSDT airports and have stutters, runway shimmering and lighting issues because of the strobe effects (white pulsing stripes during night) and floating light bulbs.

Not nice! And there is more...

 

This topic is interesting in that just a couple posts down people are trying to "shoehorn" in Realair Turbine Duke but nobody is complaining about that.

So much for the good advice.