Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
Collapse
Just Flight Community Forum
  1. Home
  2. Just Flight
  3. MSFS Products
  4. PA-28R Arrow III
  5. PA28 - GTN750 combination causing CTDs?

PA28 - GTN750 combination causing CTDs?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved PA-28R Arrow III
12 Posts 6 Posters 1.3k Views 2 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • E Offline
    E Offline
    Evillian
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    When did the problems start for you?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      Francis2111
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      Right after installing patch V0.4.0 and GTN750.
      On the other hand, this did not happen on every flight, but for about one in three flights.

      E 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Francis2111

        Right after installing patch V0.4.0 and GTN750.
        On the other hand, this did not happen on every flight, but for about one in three flights.

        E Offline
        E Offline
        Evillian
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        @Francis2111 But now you removed the GTN750 it never happens anymore?

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          Francis2111
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          No, now i can fly the PA-28 without any problem.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • E Offline
            E Offline
            Evillian
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            I haven't figured out yet if the problem is just the GTN750 or the combination of the GTN750 and the Arrow.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A Offline
              A Offline
              aurel
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              As I understand it, Asobo won't allow us to have custom code in DLL libraries in MFS, because they want all 3rd party code to run in sandboxes, that's why they chose to support HTML/JS and WebAssembly instead.

              This means that every CTD is, by definition, caused by bugs in the core of MFS, never by an add-on or combination of add-ons.

              Just like when your web browser crashes, it's not the fault of the website you're visiting. Even if that website contains faulty Javascript code, it's still the job of the browser to handle the site without crashing -- it might not be able to display the site's content correctly, but it should never ever crash.
              Remember the good old days, when browsers crashed all the time? In my experience, they're quite stable now and can basically handle any crap websites throw at them, and they even watch out for misbehaving code.

              While this won't make any practical difference for a user experiencing MFS CTDs, I feel it needs to be stated occasionally, so people understand that add-on developers can not "fix" the CTDs caused by bugs in MFS -- they can, at best, try to work around them.

              S C 2 Replies Last reply
              1
              • A aurel

                As I understand it, Asobo won't allow us to have custom code in DLL libraries in MFS, because they want all 3rd party code to run in sandboxes, that's why they chose to support HTML/JS and WebAssembly instead.

                This means that every CTD is, by definition, caused by bugs in the core of MFS, never by an add-on or combination of add-ons.

                Just like when your web browser crashes, it's not the fault of the website you're visiting. Even if that website contains faulty Javascript code, it's still the job of the browser to handle the site without crashing -- it might not be able to display the site's content correctly, but it should never ever crash.
                Remember the good old days, when browsers crashed all the time? In my experience, they're quite stable now and can basically handle any crap websites throw at them, and they even watch out for misbehaving code.

                While this won't make any practical difference for a user experiencing MFS CTDs, I feel it needs to be stated occasionally, so people understand that add-on developers can not "fix" the CTDs caused by bugs in MFS -- they can, at best, try to work around them.

                S Offline
                S Offline
                Sender46
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                @aurel So using your analagy of the web browser, if a website contains faulty Javascript code and the browser can't handle it, its the COMBINATION of both faulty Javascript code and the fault in the browser that causes the crash. So if the fault in the Javascript code was fixed the browser wouldn't crash.

                So based on your analagy, surely the same applies to MSFS and addons, i.e. if the addon isn't faulty it won't combine with MSFS and crash, ergo "fixing" the fault in the addon would stop the crash.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • MartynM Offline
                  MartynM Offline
                  Martyn
                  JF Staff
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #10

                  Although I haven't been able to reproduce the CTD, the next update will add logic to disable the GNS units when the GTN is enabled.

                  Martyn - Development Manager

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • A aurel

                    As I understand it, Asobo won't allow us to have custom code in DLL libraries in MFS, because they want all 3rd party code to run in sandboxes, that's why they chose to support HTML/JS and WebAssembly instead.

                    This means that every CTD is, by definition, caused by bugs in the core of MFS, never by an add-on or combination of add-ons.

                    Just like when your web browser crashes, it's not the fault of the website you're visiting. Even if that website contains faulty Javascript code, it's still the job of the browser to handle the site without crashing -- it might not be able to display the site's content correctly, but it should never ever crash.
                    Remember the good old days, when browsers crashed all the time? In my experience, they're quite stable now and can basically handle any crap websites throw at them, and they even watch out for misbehaving code.

                    While this won't make any practical difference for a user experiencing MFS CTDs, I feel it needs to be stated occasionally, so people understand that add-on developers can not "fix" the CTDs caused by bugs in MFS -- they can, at best, try to work around them.

                    C Offline
                    C Offline
                    Cristi Neagu
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    @aurel said in PA28 - GTN750 combination causing CTDs?:

                    This means that every CTD is, by definition, caused by bugs in the core of MFS, never by an add-on or combination of add-ons.

                    That would be true if FS2020 would be a proper sandbox, but it isn't. The devs have admitted that module containment isn't set up properly yet, so individual modules can still crash the sim. In other words, right now, we are getting all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

                    A 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • C Cristi Neagu

                      @aurel said in PA28 - GTN750 combination causing CTDs?:

                      This means that every CTD is, by definition, caused by bugs in the core of MFS, never by an add-on or combination of add-ons.

                      That would be true if FS2020 would be a proper sandbox, but it isn't. The devs have admitted that module containment isn't set up properly yet, so individual modules can still crash the sim. In other words, right now, we are getting all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

                      A Offline
                      A Offline
                      aurel
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      @Cristi-Neagu Thanks for that information, which of course invalidates my point. TIL.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users