Tom Schroeder Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Again a new interresting airport is released and again all p3dv2 users are put off to maybe coming future solutions. As being a sw developpers for more than 30 years now and having faced issues like that quit often my question is really simple: why can't there be a role out for p3dv2 users with a "dummy" objectflow lib, referencing all related calls just to "null" or similar?So we poor p3dv2-fanboys might not see objectflow (till the main problem with LM ist solved), but could enjoy all the other great benefits and the georgeousness of al of the really fantastic ORBX airports?!As you will see in my signature I'm not very happy with that large list of payed (and still unusable) Airports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenicoll Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Mmmmm..Must admit you do have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexthom Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 There are some new airports that I would like to purchas but I am now in a holding pattern waiting for solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipeorgan Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Well said Tomsell, I totally agree. While I wait for for all my Orbx regions and airports to be made useable in P3DV2.1 I am flying in Tongass Fjords (how old is that), installed with the Estonia migration tool! Come on Orbx we need a solution maybe like Tomsel has proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Hamilton Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 In the meantime, why not reinstall version 1.4 and enjoy the scenery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Again a new interresting airport is released and again all p3dv2 users are put off to maybe coming future solutions. As being a sw developpers for more than 30 years now and having faced issues like that quit often my question is really simple: why can't there be a role out for p3dv2 users with a "dummy" objectflow lib, referencing all related calls just to "null" or similar? So we poor p3dv2-fanboys might not see objectflow (till the main problem with LM ist solved), but could enjoy all the other great benefits and the georgeousness of al of the really fantastic ORBX airports?! As you will see in my signature I'm not very happy with that large list of payed (and still unusable) Airports... Install them in FSX. Fly them there. That's what you bought them for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocBird Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Install them in FSX. Fly them there. That's what you bought them for. Snave: Not a smart answer! Generally speaking I agree with Tomsel. May I, however, ask what the problem is with object flow? Or better: what would we miss? And why do we have Redding and the freeware airports but not the other airports? EDIT: Just noticed that Redding is not ready for P3D2 yet. What a pitty! So I will have to wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Actually it is a smart answer. The products are totally useable - in the sim they were designed and developed for. I've made a conscious decision to split away from FSX, which means I choose to wait for the commonality, It is neither imposed on me, nor demanded. But nobody need lose out. ALL the products are usable. This is a simple thing to remind people of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Actually it is a smart answer. The products are totally useable - in the sim they were designed and developed for. I've made a conscious decision to split away from FSX, which means I choose to wait for the commonality, It is neither imposed on me, nor demanded. But nobody need lose out. ALL the products are usable. This is a simple thing to remind people of... Great answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Again a new interresting airport is released and again all p3dv2 users are put off to maybe coming future solutions. As being a sw developpers for more than 30 years now and having faced issues like that quit often my question is really simple: why can't there be a role out for p3dv2 users with a "dummy" objectflow lib, referencing all related calls just to "null" or similar? So we poor p3dv2-fanboys might not see objectflow (till the main problem with LM ist solved), but could enjoy all the other great benefits and the georgeousness of al of the really fantastic ORBX airports?! As you will see in my signature I'm not very happy with that large list of payed (and still unusable) Airports... That is an option to think about. LM will release more updates in the future and as of JV everytime an exe is changed the dll has to be changed too. Here we have a kind of Apple iOS new release and jailbreak situation. It would be a constant wait for an dll update after an P3D2 update is out. Dont get me wrong i dont want to push any of the devs. I can wait no prob or i gotta head over to FSX eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 That's it Mickey, just accept it as a price for admission - and future development. Eventually we'll break all this cross-compatibility nonsense, and all these issues go away. It's what the P3D user base wants, and regardless of the Addon Developers wishes it may be the only commercial way to go. Dedicated product for a dedicated sim. That won't prevent anyone visiting their grandmother for tea and jam. `Unusable`, Arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Bruce Hamilton, on 04 Mar 2014 - 4:06 PM, said: In the meantime, why not reinstall version 1.4 and enjoy the scenery? Bruce, I still have a working 1.4 installation. I'm just no longer inclined to use it. Crazy, isn't it? Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spirit Flyer Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Neither of these two sides sit right with me, namely, doing a walk away into the dark, or holding a gun to John's head (which is how I read the options listed above in essence). Holding a gun to John's head, demanding instant answers and solutions will blow your own brains out the instant you make a threat or pull the trigger. Although no one has directly said so, that is what is being advocated. I surely get that drift, don't you? In the same way, ORBX not taking full advantage of this incredible opportunity by not being (seen to be) hot and heavy by making it the major PR point to do whatever it takes to make all these products usable to the core base is under promoted (I think). To re-fire the magic of the what is ORBX in the hearts and minds of the foundational loyalists (like me) will, simultaneously expand new sales potential to enormous heights. Can you imagine what might happen to sales, from the old timers like me (over 70 ORBX related purchases), and all the new ones that can be attracted to this "cult" if this "problem" turns into a bonanza of tempting offerings, by the dozens? Answer: $$$$$$$$$ Here is some free (unwelcome by some) advice to those who are getting a bit riled up: Thinking, working and acting as a full partner with ORBX is the key to success here, not agitation, confrontation or frustration. Take it or leave it, it is (just) my considered opinion. Kindest regards, with respect, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipeorgan Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Bruce, I still have a working 1.4 installation. I'm just no longer inclined to use it. Crazy, isn't it? Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipeorgan Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Install them in FSX. Fly them there. That's what you bought them for. Actually I bought them for P3dV1.X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Perfectly possible to have a separate installation for 1.4 and 2.1. And seeing as how you want to make this about you, not Tomsel. You are aware that use of the Estonia Migration Tool can be grounds for loss of your P3D licenses? As well as rendering your support here as unofficial only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiG Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 In the meantime, why not reinstall version 1.4 and enjoy the scenery? This is what I'm doing. In fact I even uninstalled P3D 2.1 since it's unusable in its current state. Even with the few add-ons that work with it, the sim is "temperamental" at best. It's kind of sad though, because OrbX in particular have talked a lot about how P3D v2 is the future of flight simming, just wait and see. Right now I'm not sure which sim is the proper path forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgreenwo Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 It's like being annoyed that your Battlefield 3 expansion packs don't work in BF4. With an abundance of threads with the same conversation here is probably the one you would need http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/74910-why-orbx-airports-using-objectflow-are-not-yet-ported-or-coming-to-p3dv2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Interesting: There are larger numbers of very happy users using 2.1 + Hotfix with no problems - in fact some of us have even posted recently that we won't go back. Sounds like your issues have something other than ORBX at their heart? Perhaps best to solve those issues first. 2.0-2.1 fixed much, Hotfix only needed because the products weren't properly compiled (not a criticism, just a highlight) and 2.2 will introduce further new features and code refinement. So there's always the opportunity to sign back in. However there is no further development on 1.4, so while you have the ability to talk to the developers just like FSX if there's an issue needing fixing, it ain't happening. 2.x is where the fix will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Schroeder Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 In fact for almost a year ORBX proudly annouced their months and months and months of ongoing testing and development in close realtion with LM. But now, after all this time and with the new LM versions2 and the following big LM patch 2.1 released, the results are for a significant percentage of users still partly unusalbe, and on other products with other partners like with the vector 1.0 desaster the beta tests were in fact done by the paying users. Thats not quite that what I understand as customer friendly but as a business model which will get the customers more and more unsatisfied. The undoubtfull necessity of making some money to keep the fires burnig is one thing, keeping an ongoing satisfied and therefore continiously buying customer base is another. Every new product gets lots of fan-comments like "wow, well done" oder "Thanks JV". Thats ok and well earned by the developpers! But I myself with 40+ payed ORBX licenses from which I actually just can use 4 (!) with P3dV2.1 am a little bit... well... unhappy and as reading cross the forums I get the impression of not being alone with that feeling. So another questions is: Irregardless of pushing more an more products like LC and new airports and scenery on the market, wouldn't it be better to fix the several errors and problems in the wide mass of already existing products first?To let me be not missunderstood: Big projects often lack of problems between the several development partners, so I don want to blame ORBX for these problems. Even LM and other related 3rd party developers are part of the current situation and as being an avowed ORBX fanboy I really hope there will soon be a solution for all this mess so that ORBX can go on with their fantastic work on making the planet flyable close to reality! And therefore I realy have to say "Thanks!!!" to JV and the ORBX staff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boleyd Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Tomsel I fully agree on all elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexthom Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Tomsel I fully agree on all elements. I am also in agreement with Tomsel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Hi, I read a number of "Pros" for forking development via special P3D2 only versions either with functions (like flows) omitted or with an alternative development path. While I tend to agree to some of the arguments - after all I am waiting for compatible airports, too - I see a number of "Cons" to trade off: - Flows are part of the ORBX corporate identity, kind of a unique selling point. Giving them up for P3D2 would make ORBX more exchangeable with other developer's products. I doubt ORBX wants this, from a business point of view. - There's additional administrative expense maintaining two forked versions, including error reports without reference to FSX/P3D etc. - I have always been in favor of backwards compatibility to FSX, as long as possible. IMHO Prepar3d needs it for being established as the future simulation platform, which it is not for a long time yet. Keeping my huge investments over the years was one of the arguments leading me to support Prepar3d against X-Plane. It's certainly not a simple task with possibly strategic consequences, thus I'd strongly vote against a snap decision. I am convinced, JV will finally find a wise conclusion. Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Schroeder Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 Michael, you are right. Well, I also think there will be a solution. And btw I too don't want to have a completely "forked" development, which would just split up the forces.But maybe there could be just a small workaround untill the working solution is ready? Such as "blind" flow-dlls, just doing nothing but keeping the not working flow calls away. As I think the flow libraries are the same for all products, this could be a fine global workaround, just like the orbxlibs which are already available in two different versions! And when (finally) the flows and the regular libs are working in P3D2, they all together could be packed in one common lib file, like it was in the glory "fsx only" past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Tomsel, there's always the danger such temporary solutions once implemented remaining in force for eternity. Besides, these airports would lack certain (flow) elements ORBX might consider as elemental for their sceneries, on a (slowly) growing number of systems then. However, I fully agree this situation could have been foreseen. For many users, including me, promises by ORBX were an important argument to make the switch to P3D2 rapidly. ORBX was part of the P3D2 beta during the last year. This is many months ago, now. I am not a programmer, but I can hardly imagine programming things like switching seasonal changes to absorb a paramount programming force for many months now - even if LM might have implemented additional modifications in between. Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgreenwo Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Michael, you are right. Well, I also think there will be a solution. And btw I too don't want to have a completely "forked" development, which would just split up the forces. But maybe there could be just a small workaround untill the working solution is ready? Such as "blind" flow-dlls, just doing nothing but keeping the not working flow calls away. As I think the flow libraries are the same for all products, this could be a fine global workaround, just like the orbxlibs which are already available in two different versions! And when (finally) the flows and the regular libs are working in P3D2, they all together could be packed in one common lib file, like it was in the glory "fsx only" past By a temp removal of the flow tech isn't that just the same as installing the airport into P3dv2 ?. Although you won't get any official support, it is achievable. I'm not trying to create arguments here I'm just curious to understand the problem. I think it's worth noting that the vest majority of devs are holding out on P3dv2 as the whole thing is pretty much in open beta (not a bad thing as LM seem to be active listeners!). I would say Orbx have quite a few P3dv2 compatible products already vs other vendors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spirit Flyer Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sirs and Sirsettes, Here is a really dangerous thought, one that has been in the back of my head. It comes from a life of being a problem solver, not a problem avoider and I am not the only A personality type here. There isn't man for man a more talented bunch of techies than we are, anywhere! Is it possible, that we can come up with a jury rig until something officially comes from Orbx itself? Is that against the agreements, and if so, is there some maneuvering room as long as anything we come up with is solely theirs? If so, can we just pool our knowledge and technical skills and get on with it? Alternatively, maybe we just need to volunteer, I don't know. Anyone here with leadership skills that knows code? Kind regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Great idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregJ Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 In the meantime, why not reinstall version 1.4 and enjoy the scenery? Perhaps Bruce, and I am not trying to pick a fight with you in anyway shape or form...but IMHO I purchase software and hardware alike for their advancements....I choose to move forward or hold still and not step backwards...this is a case in which the consumer has purchased products with belief that the intentions are good to update in as timely manner as was promised. Patience is something I have and can wait, but hate the idea of stepping back on product development only to enjoy something that I have paid for to work with the current iteration. A fix will come of that I am sure....but in the meantime....a work around seems like a great idea; unless of course it is something that will cause more frustration to uninstall when the time comes for a permanent solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfko Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I think it won't be a good idea to give up on ObjectFlow. See Alex' Post (#12) in this topic in the P3Dv2 support forum http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/74906-so-the-new-redding-is-not-compatible-with-v2x/?hl=%2Bmissing+%2Bxyz#entry687646 I for my part would definitely NOT like to see e.g. a snow covered airport in summer respectively to see green deciduous trees in winter, Not even as a temporally limited solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spirit Flyer Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I wonder if Orbx would not commission an unofficial 'skunkworks" with us freeloaders helping out, so to speak. However, I don't want to publically participate in this idle speculation until I know how John sees all this. I am not a suckup, anyone should know that, but only he has a well rounded knowledge of the possible vs. wishful, yet uninformed opinion. Kind regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjpollitt Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ah well I think I will avoid P3D v2 + completely for now and stick with FSX. Seems like too many problems with all these new advancements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boleyd Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Why not simply put an option in FTX Central to disable the DLLs. I have and it works. However, since there may always be other consequences beyond that eye candy, I refrain from more purchases. I have enough ORBX addons for now to keep me going. As for the Flow features being a signature item, I have no major interest in that. Nice but little relationship to flight. And, as was pointed out, you really have icons of humans given the difficulty of making them closer to reality. Turn off the DLLs by option. I only have FSX and P3Dv1.4 for testing. If something works there it goes into V2.1. I fully endorse the Lockheed Martin project as being at least parallel to FSX and the ONLY product to go beyond it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I'll be brutally honest. The guy who wrote ObjectFlow for us is a third party contractor, who I have never met and was referred to me as someone who could code the DLL we needed. OF has always been a problem child for us, because it needed constant updating each time LM made changes to P3D. And yes, we've spent quite some money paying for these mods over the past few years. Since P3Dv2 was in beta I asked him to grab the beta and code for the new platform. Progress was slow, I rarely hear from him and when I did ask for a status he did not have much to say other than to tell me he cannot get it working. On Tuesday I offered him a substantial cash bonus to get it working this month but in 36 hours I have had no reply. Perhaps he is on vacation. Now, this is not a public crucifixion of this person; his code is excellent when it works and I don't know what difficulties he is having trying to get something to work in P3Dv2. Maybe LM really have screwed things up or tightened the rules substantially. Maybe this chap does not have spare time to do the coding? Who knows? But it leaves Orbx very exposed and without a forward porting path for a large part of its airport library. What to do? I am now moving to Plan B or Plan C, which is to strip the OF functionality from airports which use them and port them temporarily or to put pressure on LM to add OF style functions natively into P3Dv2.x In all honesty the fault is mine: we should have developed the OF tech in-house, not rely on a third party out of our control. Lesson learnt, it won't happen again. So you have it from the horse's mouth; we have to deal with it and soon. I am on the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthijs Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Tomsel I fully agree on all elements. I agree, I have the same feelings but i'm sure JV and his team will find a solution. Hopefully very soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Thanks John, for the clear words, much appreciated. There are few CEOs being able to statements like this one. I am convinced you and your great team will find a proper solution. Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenicoll Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Excellent post JV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipeorgan Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Tomsel, I completely agree with everything that you have said. Well done as it seems that JV is now taking action to resolve this outstanding issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca22au Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Thanks JV. Go with Plan B or C, strip Object Flow and give us a port to P3Dv2. LM also must get thinking about how to cope with the necessary programming, as without Orbx compatibility a substantial part of their market is at risk. Orbx can also of course make it clear that customers will get a patch when the fix is in. As to your coder JV I suspect you know what your chances are of him/her producing anything!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spirit Flyer Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well said and well done! Thank you John. Do what you have to do and we will stand behind you regardless of the time consequences (some more, some less). Excellent leadership and responsibility to your stakeholders. Please count me in to help in any way possible. Kind regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.