WebMaximus 320 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I had an issue I reported where it was found the latest version of Aerosoft Rome for P3D only works with P3Dv3.4 and no earlier versions of P3Dv3 due to the technology that was used for the ground textures. I understand the same thing is sadly true for Madeira. I do have a couple of other airports I was planning to buy but before doing so I want to make sure they will work also with P3Dv3.2 so is there a list or information somewhere of the products that will only work with version 3.4 of P3D? Edited to add I know there used to be a P3Dv3 compatibility list but I'm not sure where to find it anymore after the webpage upgrade. I guess that page would have been a very good place to mark any products that will only support version 3.4 of P3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 11, 2017 Aerosoft Share Posted April 11, 2017 You should never assume that our add-ons work for an outdated version of the base sim. That's why we do not feel the need to make a list for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WebMaximus 320 Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 I do see your point Mathijs and I understand your situation not being able to test your products for multiple sub-versions of the simulator and especially not outdated ones. Reason for my question is I think most of your products will work just fine regardless if you're on 3.2.3, 3.3.5 or 3.4 because as you know I own quite a number of your products and so far I've only seen this problem with the latest version of Rome. So for that reason I think it's sad I don't dare to buy a couple of other products from you when chances are very good they would actually and most probably work fine even in previous builds/sub-versions of P3Dv3. I've understood by now this is a rather sensitive topic so I won't push it any further. I just think it's a pity me and others in the same situation should hold off from buying your products because of this and probably for no good reason in 99% of the cases but also a pity for you not being able to sell us these products. I just wish there was a good solution to this that would suit everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WebMaximus 320 Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 I just noticed Rome as well as Madeira are both developed by the same developer, MK Studios. So maybe one solution for us using older versions of P3Dv3 is to avoid products from MK Studios since most other developers both those in a direct relationship with Aerosoft as well as others don't seem to have a problem developing backwards compatible products that will work with any version of P3Dv3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaashaas 9 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 So Mathijs, could we expect packages that are compatible with any present version of any sim to be compatible with updates to come? In terms of forward compatibility: will Aerosoft patch them when needed? Or should we keep running outdated sims and not be able to buy anything from that point on? (Not judging, just trying to get an idea of what we as customers can expect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 12, 2017 Aerosoft Share Posted April 12, 2017 19 hours ago, WebMaximus said: I just wish there was a good solution to this that would suit everyone. The solution is not for us to create a list of all subversions and patches that a product might work with. Keep in mind that a single test can take up to a full day, for an aircraft it can take several weeks. Doing that for a new release like the A330 and the 9 (!) different versions of P3d V3 would take months. And all of that for the handful of people who do not like the latest version of the sim. It just does not make sense. 15 hours ago, Kaashaas said: So Mathijs, could we expect packages that are compatible with any present version of any sim to be compatible with updates to come? It's impossible to comment on add-ons for versions of the sim that have not yet been released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WebMaximus 320 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 21 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said: The solution is not for us to create a list of all subversions and patches that a product might work with. Keep in mind that a single test can take up to a full day, for an aircraft it can take several weeks. Doing that for a new release like the A330 and the 9 (!) different versions of P3d V3 would take months. And all of that for the handful of people who do not like the latest version of the sim. It just does not make sense. I didn't realize it was only a handful of people who abandoned 3.4 due to all VAS issues introduced in this version of P3D but if that is the case I fully understand you're not willing to invest any time nor resources into this. Still I'm wondering how other developers tackle this since the majority of products seem to work just fine with all versions of P3Dv3 and not only 3.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer OPabst 2091 Posted April 13, 2017 Developer Share Posted April 13, 2017 vor 20 Stunden , WebMaximus sagte: I didn't realize it was only a handful of people who abandoned 3.4 due to all VAS issues introduced in this version of P3D but if that is the case I fully understand you're not willing to invest any time nor resources into this. Still I'm wondering how other developers tackle this since the majority of products seem to work just fine with all versions of P3Dv3 and not only 3.4. Can I ask you why your changed your Sim to P3D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs masterhawk 799 Posted April 13, 2017 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted April 13, 2017 vor 21 Stunden , WebMaximus sagte: I didn't realize it was only a handful of people who abandoned 3.4 due to all VAS issues introduced in this version of P3D but if that is the case I fully understand you're not willing to invest any time nor resources into this. Still I'm wondering how other developers tackle this since the majority of products seem to work just fine with all versions of P3Dv3 and not only 3.4. The reason is really simple . The most developers don't use native P3D groundpoly, because it was buggy and offered not all required options. So the developers used less options or used the old FS2002 technique (SCASM). One reason for using SCASM might also be that it is supported in FSX and P3D. That saves time and money in developing. But with 3.4 there was a step forward in native P3D groundpoly. MK-Studio make native groundpoly with all offered options, so 3.4 is required for their products. My opinion without evidence: I'm sure that at some point LM will drop SCASM support. They mentioned it in the past. And then a lot of old scenerys will no longer work. We had that with release 3.1 or 3.2 when accidentally SCASM was dropped or just buggy. It was fixed with a hotfix. That was the time when LM stated again that SCASM will be dropped at some point. Just performance reason. Maybe we will see that with 4.0 or 4.x or not before 5.0. The time will come when the developers have to use both SDK for FSX and P3D for a scenery. That will not double the work, but it will be significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer OPabst 2091 Posted April 13, 2017 Developer Share Posted April 13, 2017 SCASM is only a compiler with a better handable source code language, to generate BGLC based Code, the codebase for all graphical things in the FS since FS5. With FSX a different technologie was added by Mircosoft based on there Direct X standards, but it was never fully replaced the options given by BGLC based Code. The groundlayering Problem, needed to make the aprons, lines and signs without "flicker" Effects is only one problem, which now is implemented by LM into the material definitions of P3D 3.4 There are still open parts, like the option to define season related changes of Textures or options to change graphical object based on the viewpoint, needed for PAPI's or Dockingsystems. As long as this parts are not replaced by new options in the graphic engine, BGLC is the only option to handle this things. P3D is a plattform, which change his handling with every Fix, not only in parts of supporting the "old" BGLC code, even within the form to handle directx based code it is not stayable. When a user is changing to this plattform, which is in a state of development, he must go this process, same as the developers. Users of this plattform will request always the "newest" available standards and the developers will use them as far as they are stayable and working. But this will also make it not possible, to keep the product compatible for every older Fixlevel of this plattform "still work in process". As long as the plattform is not compatible to his own older codelevels, the new addon products can't be handle it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WebMaximus 320 Posted April 13, 2017 Author Share Posted April 13, 2017 4 hours ago, OPabst said: Can I ask you why your changed your Sim to P3D? Sure Oliver although I guess the answer is quite obvious...because I like to be on the platform giving me the most enjoyment and a platform that is continuously being further developed. This however doesn't mean I will apply a fix to this platform that will stop me from being able to use it which has proven to be the case with version 3.4 both for me as well as for lots of other people. I know Mathijs said this group of people is only a handful but I honestly doubt that is the complete truth. Allow me to do a Google search for you over here showing 5540 hits on this topic using a couple of related keywords. Not sure what a handful means to you guys Personally I've tried out 3.4 twice - when it was first released and a second time using the very latest build. The second time to find out if the substandard VAS management that was introduced in 3.4 had been solved. Unfortunately that was not the case which is the reason I went back to 3.2.3 where I'm able to successfully finish a flight. Also 3.3.5 is fine AFAIK but I still decided to go with 3.2.3 since that version seemed to have the best track record when it comes to VAS management. Having technology that will allow for better ground textures etc doesn't mean much when you're not able to use the platform and when your flights end prematurely on your desktop after a CTD caused by an OOM rather than at the destination gate don't you agree? I realize the decision what tools to use is up to each developer. Sure it's a good thing to use the latest technology but if I was a developer I wouldn't use the latest technology for this reason alone if doing so would also render my product unusable for a bunch of people in my target market. Another reason using the latest technology in this case would of course be for future compatibility since LM said they will at some point drop the support for the old technology. Again though if I was a developer I would still choose to develop my products to allow for the biggest possible audience in present time. This becomes even more true if the number of benefits using the new technology is rather limited and doesn't bring much new to the table for the everyday user. I would say this is the case here looking at the number of awesome looking products all built without using this new technology only available in 3.4. That also seems to be the decision most developers took looking at the number of products in the market that work perfectly fine with any version of P3Dv3. From this rather boring debate to something much more fun...new products! Now that we came to the conclusion what is causing the ground texture issues and that this seems to be isolated to MK Studios products would that mean the below products would probably work OK also in other versions of P3Dv3 rather than 3.4? Milano Malpensa X Genoa X Pisa X They all claim P3Dv3 support on the product page but so does MA Rome which evidently only works with P3Dv3.4 since version 1.03. I did notice how Madeira now clearly states you need P3Dv3.4 on the product page which I think is great so thanks for adding that info! The same information should also be added to the MA Rome product page. To me P3Dv3 on a product page means just that...v3 and not 3.4 exclusively. Wishing you all a nice Easter guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaashaas 9 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 To me P3Dv3 on a product page means just that...v3 and not 3.4 exclusively. Wishing you all a nice Easter guys [emoji4] Same here. 'X-Plane 10 required' for example, to me means compatibility for every sub-release. Otherwise it should say 'X-Plane 10.4 or later' or 'X-Plane 10.51 only' or something. I think most people would think that. Maybe something that could be improved here. Anyway, happy easter y'all! Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 13, 2017 Aerosoft Share Posted April 13, 2017 But again, testing every release with the dozens upon dozens of XP10 version is simply impossible. It would delay any release by months and would double prices. As far as I know there were 91 version, on 3 platforms (with 12 officially supported OS versions), and let's keep things simple, 6 languages. So we would need all software installed (that will take a few weeks to configure and rather a lot of hardware). and then start testing. Say it takes 20 minutes to test. 91x3x12x3x20=196,560 minutes. That 20 weeks of 24/7 testing. And then there is an update and we start the whole cycle again. Think we'll ever get a release that way? Think you will be able to afford it? Every release is aimed at the version of the sim that is at that time current. We will always try to update so things work for the latest release but we will never update to support outdated software. I also like to close this topic. I believe everything has been said. If people decide the love FSX:SP.1 it will come with some limitation and no guarantees from us. If you find that unacceptable I can only advise you not to buy our software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 13, 2017 Aerosoft Share Posted April 13, 2017 Because we believe this topic has been answered we have closed it. If you have any more questions feel free to open a new topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.