Prepar3D Version 3 release information

[mallcott]

You can't say you weren't warned.

 

ORBX have rushed out patched installers, but have NOT followed L-M guidelines, and have cheerily stated that they have no intention of doing so. While they do install a folder called ORBX that can be removed from the P3D folder very easily and symbolically linked eleswhere on the users hard drives in a matter of seconds, they are NOT taking advantage of the opportunities to not disturb the default installation that v3 presents.

 

Thereafter, any problems that present imply a full reinstall of the simulator if it goes wrong, rather than a delete the files and start again for the addon.

 

That being said, start your own topic and explain in detail what you did do. There are three elements to an ORBX install that you MUST follow;

1: Install and backup your existing textures;

2: Run FTX Central V2 and Apply Group

3: Apply new v3-compatible libraries (151001 as of time of writing)

 

FWIW as it's becoming apparent that fools rush in where angels fear to tread I now have v3 Professional installed on a test rig. In the last week I have added FTX Global, OpenLC Eu, UTX Europe v2.2, HD Trees and FTX Light Configurator and haven't had a single issue apart from having to d/l the entire library rather than the usual updates-through-FTX Central, as their server was obviously swamped. All I did do was ensure that the only stuff touching that rig was already v3 updated.

[alverthein]

Mallcott...I clearly said I SCREWED UP ! I don't blame anyone...never have....for my stupidity.

[Bobsk8]

I think in about 6 months, V3 will be ready for prime time.

[Jim Robinson]

ORBX have rushed out patched installers, but have NOT followed L-M guidelines, and have cheerily stated that they have no intention of doing so.

 

I'm wondering if you can provide a list of addon publishers that have cheerily stated they do have some intention of complying with LM's guidelines, because from my observation there have been precisely zero that have made that commitment.

[stvn]

Do the seasons ever change in v3?

[mallcott]

I'm wondering if you can provide a list of addon publishers that have cheerily stated they do have some intention of complying with LM's guidelines, because from my observation there have been precisely zero that have made that commitment.

 

Obviously not, because it requires

1: A complete understanding of the new platform-based prioritising system whch only developers involved in the beta had access to, funnily enough including the very one who has cheerily conspired to ignore guidelines.

and

2: a development program that accommodates the RTM version of V3 as opposed to the beta, the last of which was just a few days prior to release.

 

I DO happen to know of two developers that are utilising the new format in innovative ways, but if you don't know I'm afraid I can't tell you.

 

Yet.

[mallcott]

Do the seasons ever change in v3?

 

Yes, of course. It's the same five seasons as previous versions. Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter-Hard Winter.

[alverthein]

I think in about 6 months, V3 will be ready for prime time.

 

Thanks, I have my V3 running again and presently enroute to LAX from JFK...with no problems in my KLM 777...as long as my PMDGs are running okay I am a happy camper....as again, that is all I fly....so I will wait a few months to see what takes place...thanks again for your advice....sorry I didn't listen before...al v

[Jim Robinson]

Obviously not, because it requires

1: A complete understanding of the new platform-based prioritising system whch only developers involved in the beta had access to, funnily enough including the very one who has cheerily conspired to ignore guidelines.

and

2: a development program that accommodates the RTM version of V3 as opposed to the beta, the last of which was just a few days prior to release.

 

I DO happen to know of two developers that are utilising the new format in innovative ways, but if you don't know I'm afraid I can't tell you.

 

Yet.

 

Well we all had a preview of what was coming at v2.5, the concept was there so the beta argument doesn't wash. I've already found two glitches in 10 days of practical testing as opposed to just assuming what "looks good on paper" must work because LM says it works - like all the armchair experts seem to enjoy doing. One glitch I found would prevent Orbx from using it, the other would prevent REX from using it. I'm sure these companies have known the limitations for two months and probably knew them 15 minutes after they got their hands on the first beta. The concept isn't rocket science.

 

It just pisses me off that people always cite arrogance, laziness, stubbornness, greed, or whatever other bullsh*t reason they can dream up while chastising Orbx for not being "compliant" when there are actual limitations in the new system that stop them from using it. Some practical testing will show anyone that, all you have to do is try to set up FTXG in an external folder and you'll see it with your own two eyes, landclass calls originating from a .bgl where the associated texture folder doesn't contain the called textures doesn't work - you would expect the sim to use textures from the external Scenery\World\Texture folder where FTXG dumps the 4 gb of hand made, hand annotated textures in that case but you don't see those, you see the default textures and autogen from the P3Dv3\scenery\world\texture folder instead in spite of everything being linked correctly in the texture.cfg and correct priorities given. That stops them dead in their tracks, period.

 

Also if anyone had a f***ing clue how difficult it is to manage content for over 100 addons that install into 4 different sims (for one price don't forget) they wouldn't say a damn thing about Orbx, they'd actually be awestruck that anything even works at all. The reason it works is because they've been refining their system for 10 years and they've spent thousands and thousands on special tools and gadgets to make it work the way it works. One sim that requires a completely different approach to install than all the others would set Orbx back so far v4 would be released by the time they got their first compliant installer for v3 complete and people are already screaming because it's taking too long. I can't imagine what Ed Correia is going through right now - and don't forget that this isn't costing anyone a damn penny except John Venema.

 

BTW, I assume people still expect a little new content from FTX every once in a while? When are they supposed to be working on that? They're consuming nearly every available resource porting stuff to the new sim and have been for the last two years. It's been a while since they've had a good cash cow, most of the crap they've been doing lately involves paying someone to port something they'll be giving away free for a purchase that was made 3 years ago.

 

I'm not opposed to the new system at all, I think it's brilliant, hopefully someone will actually use it one day but I don't see that happening until support for FSX, FSX-SE, P3Dv1.4, and P3Dv2.5 has been dropped completely by companies that are still using the old methods to install into those sims, that just doesn't make sense. I also think it's gonna take something a whole lot better than v3 to make that happen because it's not great enough to make all those other platforms obsolete in the sim community's eyes just yet.

[vgbaron]

Essentially, I agree Jim. I see the problem more with people who do not understand at all what is happening. The new folder structure is a recommendation NOT a command. Ultimately, all developers will try to comply but it will not happen overnight. The uninformed seem to expect that ALL the dev's should comply IMMEDIATELY and voice their complaints.

 

As it stands now, for Orbx to comply would require them to revamp their entire approach. Initially, working with Aces, they opted to overwrite core files to make their product function properly. Now, Aces is gone and LM is taking a slightly different approach.

 

HOWEVER, as of right now, the ONLY penalty for not observing the recommended folder structure is the POSSIBILITY of having to reinstall the product after an update.

 

I laud LM for their attempt to resolve one of the sim community's biggest gripes - I believe it will ultimately work but it will be a step by step process and WE SIMMERS need to cut the dev's some slack.

 

Vic

[n4gix]

The process for aircraft developers is much easier than it is for scenery developers. That isn't to say that it is "easy", but simply not as difficult.

 

Part of the problem of course is that the P3Dv3 SDK's explanations are just as opaque as ever MS/ACES were. It took me a few hours of playing with a batch file to get the required command line parameters set up to fully automate the process in my company's installers, and the 'good news' such as there is and what there is of it is that I won't have to do this again.

 

Done once properly, it is a simple case of copy/paste for any new installers. :cool:

 

I suspect that the future will include more robust support for the scenery.cfg "system" to allow for separate, custom folders, but at present it is not supported at all, or at least not reliably.