P3D V5.4 is available

[Christopher Low 5,359]

6 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

What does "not locked" look like with a programmatic addon (or any program really) that you've built with a specific set of libraries? I fail to see the point of this discussion, this "lock" is an inevitable fact of software life.

Granted though, that SimConnect addons, built 100% to spec, should not require an update. I know that mine don't. But I remember when P3D V5 came out and suddenly color progression in the effects worked differently, and all fires and smoke in FireFighter X looked like word not allowed. This was never "fixed", Lockheed said that this new logic was there to stay. So we tried to work around it, but it was never the same visually, not like in V4. So not only there is the necessity to upgrade at times - the fun part is that you have no guarantee that your addon will even work properly ever again (that was actually the case for all stand-alone WASM modules in MSFS a few versions back - that was quite the scare for everybody).

I think what Sparkrite means is this........do you stop the software from working with any version number of a simulator beyond the latest one that it was designed for simply because the version number is higher? If so, why? Maybe the current build will work with a later version without any updates? In other words, why prevent the software from attempting to run? Is it a support issue?

Edited May 29, 2023 by Christopher Low

[Lorby_SI 2,042]

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I think what Sparkrite means is this........do you stop the software from working with any version number of a simulator beyond the latest one that it was designed for simply because the version number is higher? If so, why? Maybe the current build will work with a later version without any updates? In other words, why prevent the software from attempting to run? Is it a support issue?

Are people really doing this? Sorry, I didn't know that. Sounds weird, and would be a major headache in MSFS where the version changes every two weeks or so (when you are in the beta program). 

Personally I see no reason, because as you say, when I stick to the SDK and API specifications, I expect the new platform version to support my addon (unless it doesn't, as has happend to me on multiple occasions). But a developer will always state that a specific version of his product is only tested compatible with a specific version of the simulator. Then again, when I am hacking into the internals of the platform, outside of the written specs, all bets are off, as @jdbp wrote. That is generally something that an addon developer should avoid though and I really thought that the days of hacking data segments are over (= that Windows actively prevents that from happening, since we had that one virus a couple of years back).

Edited May 29, 2023 by Lorby_SI

[Lorby_SI 2,042]

7 hours ago, jdbp said:

Not locked simply means there is no hardcoded version check that prevents some addons from event attempting to run on new p3d releases. I was just explaining Sparkrite that there is a good reason for chaseplane to have this, while other addons don't need it.

OK, thanks. Sorry, I didn't know that developers are actually doing that. They will have their reasons I guess.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Lorby_SI

[Daube 354]

Unnecessary support requests. That's the reason.

An addon maker that has to offer support to his customers will want to limit the range of incoming support requests as much as possible. If he knows his software is made to work with ONE version of the sim, and the next version will not be compatible, he would have two choices:

1- Do nothing, and wait for the flood of support requests/complaints that will come once the next version of the sim is released

2- Develop a logic + info popup to explicitly prevent the software from working on that new version of the sim.

My guess is that choice #2 is probably the most suitable one.

Of course we're probably thinking here about very advanced addons that use "cheats" to interact with the sim, not just SDK. Think about VRS TackPack and such.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Daube

[Lorby_SI 2,042]

15 minutes ago, Daube said:

Unnecessary support requests. That's the reason.

And possibly legal considerations about warranty? When the product is officially only compatible with a specific version of the sim, then the developer and the distributor cannot be made responsible when the user consciously switches to another version. TMBK there is no legal obligation to update an addon/product when the platform changes (since it might not even be possible).

Edited May 29, 2023 by Lorby_SI

[Daube 354]

Ah yes, that may actually be the most important point indeed 🙂

[blaunarwal 432]

59 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

And possibly legal considerations about warranty? When the product is officially only compatible with a specific version of the sim, then the developer and the distributor cannot be made responsible when the user consciously switches to another version. TMBK there is no legal obligation to update an addon/product when the platform changes (since it might not even be possible).

Some developers have addons, just working with every version others not. A good expample is F1 GTN 750. They went with Prepar3D until HF1, then dropped it on HF2. RXP did go on, so everybody switched to this company. Flight one sells both products on their platform. Do you know what I think?

For me it looks like the developer, which is mostly only a merchant, pays a programmer to do a job and then sells his product. Every update and fix costs extra. Then a year and a half later, the product refuses to work with the new minor version and then the programmer from then is needed again and he wants money again for a product not giving earnings any longer. The "developer" is in despair, loosing money if he updates, loosing customers and reputation if he does not update. Maybe also the programmer does not want to work on this anymore and a new programmer gets even more expensive, if he was allowed to change the product, depending on the contracts made before.

The conclusion is, the programmer wants to have a possibility to protect his work. He may also want the possibility to earn new money for a new version. The minimal update for a new sim version is kind of a side effect, not wanted but needed to protect for a new version like from v5 to v6, which would need much more work. 

[Sparkrite 188]

6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I think what Sparkrite means is this........do you stop the software from working with any version number of a simulator beyond the latest one that it was designed for simply because the version number is higher? If so, why? Maybe the current build will work with a later version without any updates? In other words, why prevent the software from attempting to run? Is it a support issue?

That's more or less it, in a nutshell. (Bold text is my highlighting) Instead just give a warning to the effect that the program may not run correctly with this version of P3D.

Now, I do not profess to know much about how addons interface with P3D, but I think offering the reason, ( as to why 'lock' to a version number ) that access addresses may/will change with updates, does not hold much water. Surely API's should help out here? However, I could be way off with this.

It's many years since I was programming, using very low level language/s such as assembly and even raw machine code. But even then using direct addressing was a NO NO. Instead I would employ a mix of relative or indirect addressing. But this alone was not foolproof either.😆

But at least it gave the software a 'fighting chance' to continue to work.

On a closing note, the vast majority of my P3D addons are working correctly with the latest V5.4 version, so how do they manage it?

Edited May 29, 2023 by Sparkrite

[level7 172]

5 hours ago, Sparkrite said:

On a closing note, the vast majority of my P3D addons are working correctly with the latest V5.4 version, so how do they manage it?

... wasn't this the answer on the previous page:

23 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

For all addons you have to make a decision which SDK build you use for compiling/building/creating them. That is where the "lock" comes from. You can choose to stick with P3D 5.0 SDK - but then your products will not benefit from any improvements that have been introduced. With every new point release of P3D there is a new SDK too, and there are usually fixes mentioned in the release notes concerning the SDK as well, not only in-sim. And when there are mentions of "Fixed CTD when ... does ..." then I definitely want to upgrade...

So you can either decide to stick to an old SDK version, hoping that every new P3D release is actually backwards compatible (and then scramble madly when it actually isn't 100% compatible and all customers are complaining). Or stay with the "flow" and upgrade your addons to the new SDK when/if necessary every time.

 

[Sparkrite 188]

10 minutes ago, level7 said:

... wasn't this the answer on the previous page:

 

Maybe it's just me but the 'answer' you are referring to could, at best, be termed somewhat equivocal.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Sparkrite

[jdbp 1]

3 hours ago, level7 said:

... wasn't this the answer on the previous page:

 

I doubt sdk minor version upgrades introduce such breaking changes, at this point, to justify not enabling addons in future updates. A more likely explanation is that chaseplane is using memory injection "hacks" for stuff like static cameras, and this (i guarantee you) will require an update for each new p3d build. Here is a quote from their manual confirming this:
 

Quote

Microsoft’s ESP platform (platform on which FSX and P3D are based) is very limited when compared to the platforms available on the market today. To accomplish a goal, developers often have to create their own paths to get where they want to go, and it’s not always straightforward. For example, in order to do something as simple as moving a camera across the globe in ChasePlane, it requires us to create new techniques that involve injecting data from the ChasePlane application directly into the memory of the simulator to move the camera to the right position.

 

[QuaxTheSnoopie 16]

On 5/29/2023 at 12:31 PM, Sparkrite said:

Now, I do not profess to know much about how addons interface with P3D, but I think offering the reason, ( as to why 'lock' to a version number ) that access addresses may/will change with updates, does not hold much water. Surely API's should help out here? However, I could be way off with this.

I think, it depends on the depth the addon is working with. E.g. operating system exits need to be reviewed even for patches of the same OS release and re-assembled if the include structures of the OS change (I assume this similar for P3D and its SDK).

In case of P3D, I can use former FSX BGLs not using any "special" content. But a higher sophisticated addon that uses internal sim addresses has surely to be reworked.

Many products use a "middle layer" as FSUIPC, but it doesn't offer all P3D internal whistles and bells.

So in my opinion, if an addon "locks" on a special release, there must be some reason - or vice versa: maybe some of these memory corruption crashes result from non-checking addons using internal interfaces that are deprecated some P3D releases later.

[OlliePen 88]

On 5/23/2023 at 7:19 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Why the doom and gloom? We know v6 is being developed so I see this point update as the final work on v5.

 

How do we know that v6 is being developed? Wishful thinking?

Here's my prediction: Lockheed Martin will announce at the FlightSimExpo the end of P3D as we know it and announce a new partnership with MS to develop a new, modern combat sim that incorporates streamed satellite photogrammetry. You know, the whole world at your fingertips.

You read it here first.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,980]

3 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

How do we know that v6 is being developed? Wishful thinking?

There have been enough clues a v6 is in development. Screenshots on this forum of login screens for beta testers which were hastily removed.

[OlliePen 88]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

There have been enough clues a v6 is in development. Screenshots on this forum of login screens for beta testers which were hastily removed.

Okay. 😁