PA28 - GTN750 combination causing CTDs?
-
I am having new CTD issues during flights and currently i'm testing what causes it. Now i removed the GTN750 add-on and it seems the CTDs have stopped.
In the GTN750 thread on the MSFS forums (https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/gtn750-project/377721/341) people are experiencing the same problems with the JF PA28 + GTN750 combination.
Is it possible that this is caused by all the GPS units being loaded simultaneously in the Arrow? The developer of the GTN750 mentioned there is an Asobo bug that gives problems when 4 maps are loaded at the same time. Because fast switching between GPS unit configurations is possible they all seem to be loaded simultaneously in the background.
Are other people here also having CTD issues on longer flights with the PA28 + GTN750 combination?
-
I had the same problem, solved by removing the GTN750.
-
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. -
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.@Francis2111 But now you removed the GTN750 it never happens anymore?
-
No, now i can fly the PA-28 without any problem.
-
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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
@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.
-
@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.
@Cristi-Neagu Thanks for that information, which of course invalidates my point. TIL.
