Prepar3D v3 - dissapointment ?

[WebSimConnect]

after careful reading of the release note of V3

http://prepar3d.com/SDKv3/LearningCenter/what_is_new/new_v30.html

I have to say I am a bit disappointed. Anyone shares my feelings ?

The major disappointment is that it is still 32bit app, so it looks to me it should be still 2.6 version rather than long awaited 3.0 ... We will still have VAS limit and OOM issues. Pity.

I know nothing about Scaleform, looks this is the way they have chosen for UI, gauges and textures.
http://gameware.autodesk.com/scaleform/features

I have no idea what AVATAR mode is ...

cheers,

Marcin

 

[mariomotta]

Completely agreed with Marcin here.
Furthermore i have a couple of others rants:
it's really unusual, to say at least, to see a new major version with a so narrow list of new features and so plenty of bug fixes.
Such major version is a non sense.
So LM wants money from his users to correct their bugs ?
A correct commercial policy would have seen a free 2.6 update correcting all bugs rather than force users to pay in order to see bugs fixed.
After that a new major version would have been much more justified.
I was for a long time a project leader at SourceForge.net one of the biggest open source repository, such major version release won't be accepted there.
May be the LM team inherited the bad habits of M$ commercial policy :-(

 

[n4gix]

I must disagree with both of you. There has been a very major re-structuring and re-factoring of the code structure, as well as a massive amount of work on the core engine, all of which has gone to vastly improve release of no longer needed assets from the memory pool...

...in other words a huge reduction in the possibility of an OOM. Of course it is still possible to overload P3Dv3.x but one would have to really have to put some effort into deliberately doing so.

Until they are finished optimizing the base code, there's no point at all in refactoring P3D into a 64bit sim. Sure, in the short term OOMs would be nearly impossible, but that would only mask the underlying issues that trigger OOMs in the first place!

It's unfortunate that the massive changes that they have made are transparent to the end user, who mostly only focus on the shiny new stuff, and pay no attention to the invisible details.

 

[Clutch Cargo]

Agree with n4gix. After reading all the "brew-ha-ha" on various forums about it should be an update and not an upgrade, looks like simmers that got it are finally realizing it is quite an upgrade after all. I guess most fixes are under the hood where most are not noticed visually. But those who had VAS OOM's are now raving about it. Read they have improved clouds and water a little? (don't have it yet myself). I guess the noticeable updates is adding an avatar (why is it not call a human or person is beyond me, ha!), added opacity to the ATC window, HDR adjustments... that's all I can think of... then the dozens of fixes.

I'll definitely get it when ready. Just too many things on my plate and since I have no OOM's not in any drastic need for it. But I am all for it.

 

[lionheart]

They have done a TON of work on the sim engine.

You make such a statement and do not even know what Avatar mode is?????????????????????????????

Do you own Prepar3D or are you an FSX person? Do you have V2?

 

[Clutch Cargo]

Ah,... be nice. I don't even know what Avatar "mode" is? Is is like Orbx'x BoB?

 

[Heretic]

Youtube helps.

What I find more interesting is that exterior models can now be clicked and that both features are a part of FlightGear (inspiration for LM?).

 

[WebSimConnect]

Thanks All for your comments. Do not get me wrong. I do appreciate all the effort LM does to modernize old FSX code and bring new features. The point is I was hungry for more ... I used "a bit" disappointed phrase and I stick to it for the moment, maybe it would change once I start "eating" it ...

Bill, I have noticed "Improved memory management reducing overall VAS usage and spikes" among many "fixed" issues, it is just I am not sure what is really behind it, however when you say hitting OOM would be nearly impossible, I am a bit sceptic.

Heretic, Avatar mode is nice, looks like entertainment, does not it ? I am not sure it is allowed

Lionheart, take it easy, I said " after careful reading of the release note of V3" and V3 is out few days ...

Cluth, so BoB is dead.

best regards

Marcin

 

[toprob]

so BoB is dead.

Always running around airports, it was bound to happen... Alas, poor Bob...

 

[JRobinson]

Anybody finding quirks in the new addon content management system? I set up an alternate texture folder for enviro stuff, my HDE sky and clouds, also to be used as a folder where REX can dump it's load outside the P3D folder and I was planning on putting some Zinertek HD airport textures there as well. What I found is the sim will read sky textures from that folder but not the cumulus01.bmp. It gets that from the sim's texture folder instead. I tested it with a marked cumulus01.bmp and marked sky textures so I'm talking positive confirmation, not just what I think I see. I don't see the logic, either an alternate folder defined in the texture.cfg has priority or it doesn't, the sim shouldn't pick and choose which files it wants to read from varying folders. Sure you can "un-define" the sim's Texture folder in the texture.cfg but that means your external texture folder has to contain every file located in the default Texture folder instead of just a select few that you want to override. I see no way for an addon developer to take advantage of this new system in that case if you can't control the use of your files in the sim. I am a little disappointed, yes.

 

[JP "Penz" Pedersen]

I hadn't tested that Jim. That inconsistency is indeed somewhat disappointing.

I still love v3 tho.

 

[JRobinson]

Another test where I set my addon content\Texture folder as [Entry.0] in the texture.cfg and the default P3D\Texture folder as [Entry.3] the sim now uses the cumulus01.bmp from the addon folder and the sky textures from the default P3D\Texture folder. Well there's some consistency in the inconsistency anyway

 

[GaryGB]

Always running around airports, it was bound to happen... Alas, poor Bob...

Gawd, was that funny, Rob ! <ROFLMAO >

GaryGB

 

[hairyspin]

...however when you say hitting OOM would be nearly impossible, I am a bit sceptic.

He means if P3D was made 64-bit now: the sim could address terabytes of memory without problems. I don't know anyone with a rig that well endowed at present...

 

[lionheart]

Anybody finding quirks in the new addon content management system? I set up an alternate texture folder for enviro stuff, my HDE sky and clouds, also to be used as a folder where REX can dump it's load outside the P3D folder and I was planning on putting some Zinertek HD airport textures there as well. What I found is the sim will read sky textures from that folder but not the cumulus01.bmp. It gets that from the sim's texture folder instead. I tested it with a marked cumulus01.bmp and marked sky textures so I'm talking positive confirmation, not just what I think I see. I don't see the logic, either an alternate folder defined in the texture.cfg has priority or it doesn't, the sim shouldn't pick and choose which files it wants to read from varying folders. Sure you can "un-define" the sim's Texture folder in the texture.cfg but that means your external texture folder has to contain every file located in the default Texture folder instead of just a select few that you want to override. I see no way for an addon developer to take advantage of this new system in that case if you can't control the use of your files in the sim. I am a little disappointed, yes.

There is a growing negativity on this. I havent bumped into it yet, but sure I will. I use external libraries that are 'inside' the P3D folder system. This might be a problem for my work. I have yet to have a malfunction though so far. All is working well.

For people that have scenery and use 3 different simulators (for example), and route their sims 'addon' files to that folder, then perhaps this might be a big issue with P3D V3. If so, I hope they will take that out on the next update.

 

[GaryGB]

It will be interesting to see how these P3Dv3 linkage and prioritization features work as they are more fully explored and tested.


FYI: Developers who wish install their 3rd party add-on (not replacement) content outside the [P3Dv3 install path] local root and nested sub-folder chain, may wish to consider using directory (aka "folder") symbolic links via Junction v1.06 By Mark Russinovich, available from Windows Sysinternals at:

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896768.aspx


This freeware utility by one of Microsoft's top programmers can be used via a installer or configurator utility, a script, 'DOS' batch file, etc. to make and break a junction link with a remote folder (and all files within it), such that they 'appear' to be located inside the local folder (...but actually are NOT inside the local folder.).


CAVEAT: The risk with such types of Reparse points (which are the mechanism on which NTFS junctions are based) is that 'delete' operations on the local folder may also impact files in the remote folder.


Although not infallible, setting the "READ-ONLY" attribute flag on 3rd party source files in remote folders might help protect them from mishaps.



A somewhat better option, IMHO, is use of symbolic link (aka "SymLink") clones placed as 0-byte 'hard links' in [P3Dv3 install path] local root and nested sub-folders as links to individual files physically located in a remote folder; the advantage is that delete operations on the local folder may impact only the symbolic link (aka "SymLink") clones in the local folder ...and do not impact the actual "source" files in the remote folder.



IMHO, the best implementation of this system is Link Shell Extension by Hermann Schinagl:

http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/linkshellextension.html

The disadvantage of Link Shell Extension (in its current form), is that it is not accessible by a command mode method, and instead requires manual procedures performed via the right click context menu in Windows Explorer Shell Extensions.


I would like to find another such utility accessible by a command mode method, which can create and delete such symbolic link (aka "SymLink") clones (...anybody know of one which which is free to use for both personal and commercial pourposes, and is accessible by a command mode method ?)


Obviously both the "P3Dv3 3PD" and end-user communities would benefit from a 'rich' feature set in P3Dv3 for linkage and prioritization of add-on content, which would eliminate the complexities (and risks) associated with exercising ones legal right to use obscure features that already exist in the Windows NTFS file system (and which should, IMHO, not be interpreted as "EULA work-arounds").


Some related references:

How to create and manipulate NTFS junction points

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/205524


Overview to Understanding Hard Links, Junction Points and Symbolic Links in Windows

http://comptb.cects.com/overview-to...unction-points-and-symbolic-links-in-windows/


Complete Guide to Symbolic Links (symlinks) on Windows

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/


NTFS symbolic link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_symbolic_link


Hope this helps !

GaryGB

 

[WarpD]

Wow... first, the new changes for addon installations needs to be embraced. There is no valid reason to not do so. If it has a problem, then that's where L-M needs to be informed.

Second... using symbolic links to install addons doesn't make any sense. The end user is going to be horribly confused by all the new 'shortcut' links that show up that they can't access because of security rights. To me it just smacks of serious problems with end users for something that's really not needed. It also would require changes to the core sim folder(s) that is what L-M is trying to prevent.

 

[JRobinson]

Frankly if I wasn't embracing the changes I'd probably be figuring out how to hack FTX and Carenado into the new sim right now instead of playing around with these .cfgs.

EDIT: OK now I'm hacking FTX and Carenado into the new sim.

 

[GaryGB]

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/prepar3d-v3-dissapointment.435243/#post-723429

Wow... first, the new changes for addon installations needs to be embraced. There is no valid reason to not do so. If it has a problem, then that's where L-M needs to be informed.

Second... using symbolic links to install addons doesn't make any sense. The end user is going to be horribly confused by all the new 'shortcut' links that show up that they can't access because of security rights. To me it just smacks of serious problems with end users for something that's really not needed. It also would require changes to the core sim folder(s) that is what L-M is trying to prevent.

Are you stating that to use symbolic link aka "SymLink" (...and not "SimLink") clones placed as 0-byte 'hard links' in [P3Dv3 install path] local root and nested sub-folders as links to individual files physically located in a remote folder, "It also would require changes to the core sim folder(s)" ?

IIUC, 0-byte 'hard links' don't' really exist within folders as physical space-taking objects; rather they are "virtual objects" which only exist within the NTFS file system itself as "Re-parse Points", and an icon is displayed within a target folder as a 'virtual object placeholder' for any linked remote files.

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

GaryGB

 

[WebSimConnect]

He means if P3D was made 64-bit now: the sim could address terabytes of memory without problems. I don't know anyone with a rig that well endowed at present...

Shame on me, sorry I misinterpreted Bill's statement anyway I hoped along with improved memory management LM eventually would make 64bit version ...

Marcin