16 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

Regardless of the reason behind it, RR's post is accurate. IMHO, anyone who dismisses it because they think his reasoning was to cut down PMDG support requests is being foolish. 

I would be inclined to give his views more credence if his company actually followed Lockheed Martins advice on where and how to install addons, instead of dumping them into the P3D root directory.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Glynn said:

I would be inclined to give his views more credence if his company actually followed Lockheed Martins advice on where and how to install addons, instead of dumping them into the P3D root directory.

Yeah...i must admit, i was surprised by this as well.  A2A's installer gives you the choice of where to install (i have a separate folder outside P3D root but on the same SSD), PMDG just install directly into root\sim objects, much like Carenado and the Aerosoft DHC6.

V4 runs perfect for me. Still laughing at all this "mimimi Im gonna stay at v3 because v4 is sooooo bad and has nothing new to offer".

1 hour ago, Glynn said:

I would be inclined to give his views more credence if his company actually followed Lockheed Martins advice on where and how to install addons, instead of dumping them into the P3D root directory.

 

 

So many things come to mind when I read this - "Do as I say, not as I do" is foremost. 

There are many scenarios I can see that could easily explain the rationale for his current install method. And of all the dev's, RR is one I wouldn't begin to try to put words into his mouth so this is purely my speculation - 

How about not wanting to have the customers wait while the installers are completely rewritten but get product out now and prepare for next release compliance? That's just one plausible reason and I can come up with more but the point is still - what he says in the post is accurate to a tee.

I certainly hope the dev's in general see the writing on the wall and START to comply. For now, P3D accepts both methods and the person on the short end of that stick is the end user who has to reinstall all addons every time there's a product update.

Since I'm speculating - I can easily see down the road that the P3D core folders will be read only or some other restriction to prevent anyone tampering with core files.

What amazes me with all this "grumping" is that the process is designed to make it EASIER on the end user and make the whole P3D experience a pleasant one. How many times have you wanted to change something to test but held off because you didn't want to have to reinstall a bunch of add ons?

Just MHO,

Vic

On 6/22/2017 at 5:17 PM, Chock said:

UK2000's Liverpool airport can be forced into P3D V4 by changing the installer paths etc, and it looks like it loads in okay, but it crashes P3D after about 30 seconds of any flight, so there is obviously something untoward in the V3 version, which of course is in no way UK2000's fault because they've not said it is V4 compatible

its all over their forumn which bgls files to delete.  Whilst Ill agree chaseplane is buggy as hell, its useable, just...

The issue is people throwing scenery into p3d v4 which isnt compatible and then wondering why that mouse is spinning and event viewer says NTD.DLL.

p3d has never been perfect we all know that, but ill agree (for once) with Rob A that the issues are people expecting old scenerys to work with v4 just by throwing them into a addon scenery folder.

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

However, I still cannot install it.

Sorry mate, can't think of what the problem could be. I've never tried W10 but have W7 running nicely here so that isn't it. They are pretty good with tech support over on the P3D forums on their site.

On 6/22/2017 at 11:28 AM, edpatino said:

Hi folks:

Seems to me that something should be happening with the current installations of the new P3Dv4. I'm reading here on the forums about too many sim crashes from users everywhere. Considering also the recent recommendations from PMDG's CEO Rob Randazzo, it could be possible that most of the addons, supposedly compatible with P3Dv4, are not reallly conforming to the LM's new SDK and are not rendering the sim stable?

I'm running v4 with Active Sky for P3Dv4, Active Sky Cloud Art, many ORBX regions, FSUPIC 5, Where Are My Aircraft, MilViz Beaver etc. (all of which claim compatibility with Prepar3D v4) and haven't had the sim crash yet.

For every anecdotal account saying "v4 isn't ready yet" I bet you'll get a dozen saying "jump in, the water's fine!"

On 22.6.2017 at 6:45 PM, Drumcode said:

Exactly. I don't know where this bad reputation of v4, crashes and other nonsense is coming from. I guess this is what happens when people with outdated hardware install v4, and expect amazing results out of the box, attempt to tweak things while breaking more along the way. 

V4 is just fine and performs like a champ. Stop screwing around with it and maybe it'll work for you too.

Was just a matter of time these ppl jump in here and give their 2 cents....

To the nr1, noone talks  about orbx products... you fail to understand to topic/subject.

To the second, lol...thats all i can say, 3 letters for you there.

To both:

If your interested in the subject pls start to inform yourself about what is the problem. I would browse some forums to start somewhere. If not, no problem but dont waste other ppls time, who may believe you guys who dont know at least 1% of the matter, and have big problems after. Please.

Because if you would, you would not for sure say things like "i wonder where all these stuff is coming from". 

Theres no question, some ppl do something wrong, others have wrong versions installed (like AS16, you NEED the neta for both, as4 and asca). But there are problems, a lot of them....

5 minutes ago, SaenchaySor said:

Was just a matter of time these ppl jump in here and give their 2 cents....

To the nr1, noone talks  about orbx products... you fail to understand to topic/subject.

To the second, lol...thats all i can say, 3 letters for you there.

To both:

If your interested in the subject pls start to inform yourself about what is the problem. I would browse some forums to start somewhere. If not, no problem but dont waste other ppls time, who may believe you guys who dont know at least 1% of the matter, and have big problems after. Please.

What? 

3 hours ago, RoboRay said:

many ORBX regions,

As far as I know, there's only less than a handfull of ORBX's products announced already compatible with P3Dv4, at least officially.

Cheers, Ed

39 minutes ago, edpatino said:

As far as I know, there's only less than a handfull of ORBX's products announced already compatible with P3Dv4, at least officially.

Cheers, Ed

They've released the entire FTX Global range with the exception of Vector as they are waiting on some 64-bit code from a third party.  Any of the airports that use objectflow are also not officially supported yet, but the majority of ORBX products are officially supported for Prepar3d v4.  

1 minute ago, dgeddesjr said:

They've released the entire FTX Global range with the exception of Vector as they are waiting on some 64-bit code from a third party.  Any of the airports that use objectflow are also not officially supported yet, but the majority of ORBX products are officially supported for Prepar3d v4.  

Thanks for the info!.

Cheers, Ed

 

11 hours ago, edpatino said:

As far as I know, there's only less than a handfull of ORBX's products announced already compatible with P3Dv4, at least officially.

Cheers, Ed

ALL of the ORBX regions are compatible and officially released for P3Dv4.  The Global textures set and LandClass products are also out, along with a few smaller things like HD Trees.  What's being held back is Vector (because it depends on a third-party tool) and the ORBX airports (they depend on DLLs that still need to be converted to 64-bit code).

On 6/23/2017 at 10:55 PM, swiesma said:

V4 runs perfect for me. Still laughing at all this "mimimi Im gonna stay at v3 because v4 is sooooo bad and has nothing new to offer".

Good to know we can keep you entertained :) It's great to see it's working well for many of you but there are still lots of people reporting problems with add-ons etc so for many of us it's just not worth it if we don't have OOMs. New lighting that cuts the FPS in half or further out aurogen are not worth the effort IMHO.

We will move over in the next 1-2 years but only when it's better then what we have right now (plus all the add-ons).

Plus with many add-ons coming out for FSX first we should hopefully be next in line before V4 :)

29 minutes ago, sanh said:

We will move over in the next 1-2 years but only when it's better then what we have right now (plus all the add-ons).

 

If you haven't 'moved over' yet, how can you compare anything as 'better'?   Flightsim is a completely subjective experience.  Whatever works for you is fine - but refrain from silly statements