Jump to content

Crash into invisible object on pushback


MarkG

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I’ve just started a flight from EGLL Gate 121 Medium (Heathrow, UK) and when I pushed back, after 30 seconds or so I hit an invisible object and crash detection restarted the flight.

I’m running a clean install of Prepar3D V4 on a new Windows 10 x64 system. I don’t have any other scenery add-ons apart from yours.  As you’ll see from my account, as I bought direct, I’m running EU England, FTX Global Base pack, OpenLC Europe, Vector and Trees HD.

The only other add-ons I’m running are ASP4, ASCA, PMDG 737 NGX.

After playing around with the deselecting things in the scenery library, I’ve found that it seems to be caused by EU England

Everything has been downloaded and installed using FTX Central 3.2.1.1

All Prepar3D related paths are excluded from my AV.

Happens with stock aircraft as as well as PMDG one. Turn off EU England, and the problem has gone.

The crash happens when the tail of the aircraft hits roughly where the red rectangle is.

O2mvRgH.jpg

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi both,

 

Thanks for the welcome. 

 

Guys that's a bit of a fudge isn't it? It's a good work around, but that's exactly what it is, a work around. People shouldn't have to miss out on features of the simulator to paper over the cracks of the product. (the product is awesome by the way, so don't take that comment negatively.)

I've a dev background as well so I appreciate that these things can be a pain in the backside to find, but that's kind of the commitment you undertake as soon as you start taking money for a product. Either that or should clearly state that crash detection should be disabled as part of the prerequisites / features list.

 

I've done some more investigation, and I can tell you the exact file that contains the error is: ADE_FTX_ENG_EGLL_objects.BGL (process of elimination, when I delete it, the problem goes away.)

 

The area affected is way bigger than I originally thought. After scooting around for a bit, I've roughly marked it out. This is not just a light out of place, there's clearly quite a large defect.

 

On the right hand set of bays, that is where gate 121 is, and the left side, where the blue aircraft is, that was where gate 139 is. So without realising it, I chose two gates that are actually affected by the same shape. (which now looks suspiciously like a terminal building....)

 

znMKF25.jpg 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mark

 

For myself personally, I find the crash detection feature to be a very unrealistic gimmick and I choose to keep it off so I am able to enjoy my flight simming without having a program that knows nothing about what makes an aircraft crash control and waste my time. If there was no method of turning it off, then I am afraid there would be no way I would spend my money on that particular flight simulator. I know when I have crashed. :):)

 

Cheers

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

 

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate that, but let's not lose focus on the issue here. The feature that we're losing is irrelevant, my point being, software developers shouldn't be asking customers to make work arounds as resolutions to faults within their software, as an alternative to fixes. You should compile a bug list, and fix the software. I'm amazed none of you have jumped on this, personally, more so out of pride, it would break me to know that there was a fault in my code that was causing issues for users.

 

We're not just talking about the wrong texture or a missing hut. An entire terminal and about 14 gates are unusable.

 

Guys, If you're going to brush every bug under the carpet, that's going to catch up on you real quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

In my opinion the crash function in the flight simulator is not only completely

unrealistic, it is and has always been broken.

In this case , the "feature that we're losing" is exactly relevant.

Naturally you will disagree but despite your kind suggestion that the developers are

incompetent and disinterested, deselecting crash detection is the only solution to this

problem which is worldwide and not limited to one airport in the UK by one developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nick,

 

Just looked through the rest of the forums and this is clearly very common, and this seems to be the standard workaround of choice. In some cases, the users are told it's been like this for a very long time. If this is the case, then so be it.

 

I'm not having a go at your developers, your response suggested they/you were disinterested by going straight in for a workaround without explanation. Felt like a fob off. If you'd just said add-on scenery is incompatible with crash detection at least I would have understood it's not you, it's the combination.

 

The software looks great and I love it. My feedback based on this experience is, be upfront with people in your collateral and marketing form the beginning. Set their expectations, this would have been a non-starter if you had, and the next xxx topics that you're bound to get about this over the coming months/years will be as well. 

 

Why isn't this pointed out and in the prerequisites for use of the software? Why isn't this in the manuals for the software, near the recommended settings or known incompatibilities? If Orbx categorically cannot be used successfully with crash detection engaged, and you know about it, then why not declare it?

 

Thanks for your advice with this,

 

Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would gather from all of the crash of a thread above (geddit) that this is the only solution simply because ORBX don't want to look into it further.

 

I say that because Nick made no reference to MakG's apprent find i.e. the file  ADE_FTX_ENG_EGLL_objects.BGL 

 

Fair enough, their call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BG2518 said:

I would gather from all of the crash of a thread above (geddit) that this is the only solution simply because ORBX don't want to look into it further.

 

I say that because Nick made no reference to MakG's apprent find i.e. the file  ADE_FTX_ENG_EGLL_objects.BGL 

 

Fair enough, their call.

 

Thank you for your valuable observation.

That file is the scenery objects for the airport, so disabling it would

naturally leave no scenery objects there and nothing to cause spurious crashes.

That is not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MarkG said:

Hi Doug,

 

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate that, but let's not lose focus on the issue here. The feature that we're losing is irrelevant, my point being, software developers shouldn't be asking customers to make work arounds as resolutions to faults within their software, as an alternative to fixes. You should compile a bug list, and fix the software. I'm amazed none of you have jumped on this, personally, more so out of pride, it would break me to know that there was a fault in my code that was causing issues for users.

 

We're not just talking about the wrong texture or a missing hut. An entire terminal and about 14 gates are unusable.

 

Guys, If you're going to brush every bug under the carpet, that's going to catch up on you real quick.

 

Hi Mark, and thank you very much for your comments,

 

I believe your efforts would be best applied to the root cause. The software that really needs to be fixed in my opinion is the simulator that has the function to turn off one of its faults, which developers should not be expected to completely compensate for.

 

Cheers

 

Doug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MarkG said:

Hi Doug,

 

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate that, but let's not lose focus on the issue here. The feature that we're losing is irrelevant, my point being, software developers shouldn't be asking customers to make work arounds as resolutions to faults within their software, as an alternative to fixes. You should compile a bug list, and fix the software. I'm amazed none of you have jumped on this, personally, more so out of pride, it would break me to know that there was a fault in my code that was causing issues for users.

 

We're not just talking about the wrong texture or a missing hut. An entire terminal and about 14 gates are unusable.

 

Guys, If you're going to brush every bug under the carpet, that's going to catch up on you real quick.

 

Just to add, when Orbx started to develop airports, crash detection was given the priority you suggest here, and airports were made compatible with crash detection.  However, as time went on, the limitations of this approach became obvious, and as the number of objects included with airports exponentially increased, it was proving impossible to categorise and remove all crash boxes from all scenery objects successfully. Gradually the scenery evolved to be incompatible with crash detection, accepted by the vast majority of customers, as the feature within the sim is recognised as unrealistic and buggy. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for the additional info. Yes, I've gathered from Nick that it's an incompatibility thing rather than a fault with Orbx now.

 

As I said to Nick though, document it. I put 'invisible' into your forum search and it's full of the same kind of stuff. This is clearly old news from the way you all speak and it's been going on for a while, yet there's no mention of it any where. (I.e. Web site, instruction manual, product compatibility matrix or perquisites section etc.)

 

Even a sticky at the top of this topic in the meantime would just save everyone the time taken.

 

You must be sick of repeating yourselves by now. :)  Set peoples expectations early on, and 99% of these conversations will disappear. It will improve peoples perception of Orbx, as it won't be perceived as a problem with the software, just part of the setup and it'll reduce your ticket count. You have my sympathy on that count, I used to be front line support as I alluded to above, and there's nothing quite as special as answering the same query for the 25th time that month. :blink: It's definitely time to break a KB out at that point and stem the flow!! ;D

 

Thanks for your help though, its appreciated. 

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...