FSDreamTeam forum
Products Support => GSX Support MSFS => Topic started by: krishawkins on September 05, 2022, 01:13:07 am
-
So how do we update GSX when the live update continues to say update how do we know when it's a new update there?
-
Good question, i'd also like to know when a update is available instead of just guessing. I really hope the updater gets a update itself in the near future too.
-
The answers are found here:
https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,26826.0.html
-
As already discussed in so many other threads, there are multiple ways of knowing when an update is released:
1) By clicking the "Release Notes" button in the FSDT Installer.
2) By checking the Sticky thread in this section, which has a last update date:
https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,26826.0.html
3) By checking this page:
https://www.fsdreamteam.com/couatl_liveupdate_notes.html
-
Why not color the update button or a message if there is a update? We still dont know if we updated already or not by looking at release notes.
Not to sound grumpy but that is the main reason to use the installer.
1) Installer checks for update
2) Checks the manifest or whatever file for version.
3) Let user know there is a update! <
4) Install..
-
Why not color the update button or a message if there is a update? We still dont know if we updated already or not by looking at release notes.
Because, as explained so many times, in order to be sure if you have the latest update or not, we need to check all your local files, one by one, and that takes about 90% of the time it takes to DO the update because, if wanted to have the update button being "smart" and showing the *actual* status of each product, such check would have to be made for each product before starting the program, taking about the same time as...just running the updater.
-
Huh... If you update the application shouldn't there be a version update made in a file and only check that file when starting the installer? Why do you need to check every file?? Checking every file (crc) is something you do when having a problem.
I'm probably stupid but the logic here is kinda weird.
-
Why do you need to check every file?? Checking every file (crc) is something you do when having a problem.
And how do I know there is problem ?
Saving a version number somewhere only give users a false sense of security, because the only way to be sure an updated completed, is to check every single file so no, the logic is not "weird", is the most reliable, it just you are not accustomed to it, because other apps prefer to have a faster startup time with the illusion "everything's fine", when you just can't be sure, unless you check all your local files, one by one.
-
So after installing and checking every file you still are not sure enough to write a it's updated tag and use that if there is a new update? Come on now.
How would you feel if MSFS did that with a million files "just to be sure"? Why not ask a user if they want to have all files checked before a update if you really want to check all files. I'm not saying it isn't the most reliable way, but is it really needed?
-
So after installing and checking every file you still are not sure enough to write a it's updated tag and use that if there is a new update? Come on now.
And what difference would make if we signaled "You are now updated!" after you made an update ? Even this was saved somewhere, it won't help much for the next startup because, there might have been another update in the meantime, so even if we got some kind of notification from the server there's "some" update, we would still need to check all your files.
And what if we don't have an update, but you accidentally remove a file or a folder, or make a change you don't know how to go back ? What if your antivirus removed a file without warning ?
Our "weird" system protected from that, because it will restore everything to its place when you click Update, even if there wasn't any update on our side. Other "easier" system would require a reinstall or a repair.
How would you feel if MSFS did that with a million files "just to be sure"? Why not ask a user if they want to have all files checked before a update if you really want to check all files. I'm not saying it isn't the most reliable way, but is it really needed?
And what do you think MSFS is doing when you see that "Checking for updates" sign at each startup ? And do you find the MSFS own update process 100% reliable ?
-
There can't be a update difference because if the user didn't update before and skipped a update you have the new version on the server with the differences already patched and included. The previous unpatched files should then be updated to the latest version also..
i.e:
If I have 1.0.0 and skipped 1.0.1 1.0.2 you should push 1.0.3 (which should include the previous patched files from 1.0.1 and 1.0.2).
And not download 1.0.1 then 1.0.2 and last 1.0.3
I know exactly what MSFS checks, and it's not all files. Because it's not needed in 99,9% of the time
-
There can't be a update difference because if the user didn't update before and skipped a update you have the new version on the server with the differences already patched and included. The previous unpatched files should then be updated to the latest version also..
i.e:
If I have 1.0.0 and skipped 1.0.1 1.0.2 you should push 1.0.3 (which should include the previous patched files from 1.0.1 and 1.0.2).
And not download 1.0.1 then 1.0.2 and last 1.0.3
As I've said, your method is not 100% reliable, because it doesn't take into account all the following possible outcomes:
- A bad download, maybe of just some files or just a single file.
- A download interrupted with the "Cancel" button, with some files updated and some not. To prevent this we'd need a rollback feature, like doing a backup of every file changed during an update, so it could go back to the previous state if the download was interrupted for any reason, taking an unpredictable amount of extra disk space, depending how large the new files were.
- A correct download, but the file arrived was outdated, because the local cloudflare cache wasn't updated, so the file you got from your local cloudflare node is intact (not a bad download), but it's not the one we have on our server.
- A file you removed by mistake
- A file you changed by mistake
- A file removed by the antivirus
- A file corrupted locally because filesystem problems.
Each and every one of these cases cannot be detected by a saved "version number", but it CAN by checking each and every file individually.
I know exactly what MSFS checks, and it's not all files. Because it's not needed in 99,9% of the time
And that's precisely why we all heard stories of users having to reinstall it from scratch, after an update. Happened to thousands of users.
-
In case of MSFS it would be nice to have the option to check all files. But not forced on every startup, for the simple reason of time to check every single file and only needed in a small percentage of cases (1000's with a problem vs a couple of million without) it really isn't suitable to waste 10-30+ minutes of file checking.
I understand your point of view but really it's kinda over the top with what if's though..
Anyway, this leads to argumenting over and over.. I like GSX Pro a lot and it would be nice to see this gets implemented as a base feature into MSFS one day, who knows..
Have a great day Umberto.
-
Installing GSX takes so incredibly long. Is that normal? Each file is loaded individually and not in packages.
-
In case of MSFS it would be nice to have the option to check all files. But not forced on every startup
That's exactly how it is now. You are not forced to click the "Update" button.
for the simple reason of time to check every single file and only needed in a small percentage of cases (1000's with a problem vs a couple of million without) it really isn't suitable to waste 10-30+ minutes of file checking.
What ? Is really taking "10-30+ minutes" to check for updates ? For a single product ? That's unheard of. When I say "it takes some time to check all files", I mean it would take like a minute or less, instead of being immediate!
-
Apart from the Update process itself:
Would it be possible to have a version number of the product shown in the "About" window in GSX as well as in the Release notes?
Currently I do not know which version I have installed and which one is the most recent apart from reading the release notes and remembering when I last updated (hoping I got an up to date version and not an outdated node).
Showing a clear version number should be the least to keep the user informed about their patch level. Also it would help reporting bugs if one could say which version is running. This is the very base of each and every bug report in IT industry - to know which version had a bug and to know which version fixed it.
-
Showing a clear version number should be the least to keep the user informed about their patch level. Also it would help reporting bugs if one could say which version is running. This is the very base of each and every bug report in IT industry - to know which version had a bug and to know which version fixed it.
This has been explained so many times: what a version number will do, if the updater doesn't verify each file, one by one, to be correct ?
What IS a "version number" ? For a product that is made of more than 25.000 files, and ( precisely for bug reports! ), even a single of of them not being update will make every discussion of "version number" completely useless. Even if we cheated by showing a version number somewhere, are you guaranteed every single file of the product is the right version ? No, of course, not without checking each time every file, and downloading it it's not the right one, which is how the Live Update works.
So, in fact, it's really easy:
- Normally, running the Live Updater will ENSURE you have the LAST version, what's the point knowing its number, when you can be sure every file IS the latest version ?
- When the Live Update downloads the same files, over and overs, is TELLING your cloudflare node is outdated, which is of course an abnormal and temporary situation but, *because* the Live Updater ( instead of cheating and showing your a version number without checking files one by one ) IS checking files one by one, this will tell you something's wrong with the download, something you'd never suspected if we just downloaded and took as good everything, with no warning, and showing a made-up version number at the end, which could only be made-up, since we just assumed each downloaded file was correct, without checking it.
- If you are in the 2nd case, which you can only know because the updater works that way ( you wouldn't even know otherwise ), you know you should use the Offline installer which DOES HAVE a version number, both in the Sticky thread with the release notes and in its readme file, and in it's File Details.
-
This has been explained so many times: what a version number will do, if the updater doesn't verify each file, one by one, to be correct ?
You didn't read my post. I need to know the version AFTER the updater has verified and updated all files. In that case a version number should describe the current state of the installed packages.
Please don't argue with me about software versioning, it's my daily job and even for your software this is doable. Literally every single software does that and it should be possible for GSX too.
There is no factual reason not to have a version on the software. The way you're working with it is plain intransparent for everyone.
What IS a "version number" ? For a product that is made of more than 25.000 files, and ( precisely for bug reports! ), even a single of of them not being update will make every discussion of "version number" completely useless.
A version number describes a state of a product as a whole that is shipped (e.g. with the offline installer).
It should be incremented upon every release at least, best for every change.
Those are basics of software development, it's not like I'm asking for rocket science.
So, in fact, it's really easy:
Yes, it's easy, please introduce a version number so we can see which state we are on. And increment the version number upon each update you release at the very least.
-
You didn't read my post. I need to know the version AFTER the updater has verified and updated all files. In that case a version number should describe the current state of the installed packages.
I obviously read it, I just don't agree with you.
You said we should display a version number "after" the update. Ok, since the update and the check are the same process, and if files are updated they are not downloaded, the very fact it hasn't downloaded anything, indicates you have the LAST version, no matter what.
As an example:
- We release version 1.0. Program shows that number after checking all files, because they all checks updated.
- We release version 1.1, made by 100 new files. Updater tries to download them, and get 90 update files and 10 files from the old version.
Which version should we display in this case ?
Still 1.0 ? Users would be confused because they ran the update and couldn't get the 1.1
1.1 ? Users would still see those last 10 files downloaded over and over, and would be confused because they think they have the "correct" version.
Please don't argue with me about software versioning, it's my daily job and even for your software this is doable. Literally every single software does that and it should be possible for GSX too.
I'm arguing because I don't agree with you. And most software versioning out there is flawed, because it displays a version number without being sure of it, just to provide users with a fake sense of security.
There is no factual reason not to have a version on the software. The way you're working with it is plain intransparent for everyone.
It's exactly the opposite: this way is more transparent, precisely because it indicates, file by file, if there's a problem with one of them.
A version number describes a state of a product as a whole that is shipped (e.g. with the offline installer). It should be incremented upon every release at least, best for every change. Those are basics of software development, it's not like I'm asking for rocket science.
Flawed assumption that won't provide any help if sparse files in the package are not the correct version, for any reason.
Yes, it's easy, please introduce a version number so we can see which state we are on. And increment the version number upon each update you release at the very least.
We can't do that, just to make users happy, but it won't make the program any different and they would still have exactly the same issues, if the program is getting the wrong file from the server. If would be of course MORE confusing because, you'll see conflicting information between a version number that is "correct*, with some files that might not.
-
Updater tries to download them, and get 90 update files and 10 files from the old version.
If the Updater isn't able to download a whole consistent updated set of files that update it to the new version it shouldn't even consider installing the downloaded stuff. That's inconsistent.
Which version should we display in this case ?
Don't install incomplete downloads, then it's clear which version to show - the old one.
And most software versioning out there is flawed, because it displays a version number without being sure of it, just to provide users with a fake sense of security.
This is plain wrong, sorry. Download update, check checksums, if all sums up, install it. Then you are sure that your update is consistent and then the version displayed is reliable.
Downloading individual files and making partial installs even if some of the downloads fail (or downloaded old version of some files!) is something I literally never seen in my carreer working in IT. That's bad design.
All your argument is based on the very basic issue that you don't seem to be able to ensure of a consistent update being downloaded.
Which is fair if that's your approach (while I still think it's wrong), but saying other software shows wrong version numbers is ridiculous.
-
If the Updater isn't able to download a whole consistent updated set of files that update it to the new version it shouldn't even consider installing the downloaded stuff. That's inconsistent.
Sure, it should probably backup every file that is going to download, and rollback ALL of them if just ONE failed. Big waste of everybody's bandwidth and user time. But that would be the only solution that could work.
-
Big waste of everybody's bandwidth and user time.
Sorry, but big waste of bandwidth and time is the current approach which takes long and I still have no clue if it updated to any sort of partially correct version or not.
-
Sorry, but big waste of bandwidth and time is the current approach which takes long and I still have no clue if it updated to any sort of partially correct version or not.
It won't change much for the affected users, the only difference is that, instead of a version made by a mix of new/old files, they would be stuck with a complete old version.
-
they would be stuck with a complete old version.
Right now they are stuck with a partially updated version based on your explaination - without knowing it. If you ask me, that's even worse.
-
Right now they are stuck with a partially updated version based on your explaination - without knowing it. If you ask me, that's even worse.
Surely not "without knowing", the repeated download of the same files, over and over, is telling something's wrong with the server, so user would know they must use the Offline installer.
-
Right now they are stuck with a partially updated version based on your explaination - without knowing it. If you ask me, that's even worse.
Surely not "without knowing", the repeated download of the same files, over and over, is telling something's wrong with the server, so user would know they must use the Offline installer.
To notice that it's "over and over" the same file one needs to:
- Update multiple times in sequence
- Note down which files were updated
And you think this approach saves time and bandwidth?
Honestly, I'm going to download the offline installer every time, since that one is actually how it should be - a complete package with a date, containing a consistent set of files. Why is that not possible within your online updater?
Downloading the same files over and over without informing the user that something is wrong is really a waste of time and bandwidth for users. Plus, there is no hint about the offline downloader in your updater. It is just hidden in your Forums.
Please understand that the update process is totally flawed instead of looking for excuses. People should not have to do any of that to keep up to date.
And here is the perfect example of the mess that it causes:
https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,27517.0.html
Noone has an idea which version is actually installed. Neither the user nor you.
-
- Update multiple times in sequence
- Note down which files were updated
And you think this approach saves time and bandwidth?
Surely less than:
- making a first pass to just check the outdated files
- making a backup of all the ones that *will* be downloaded
- rollback ALL of them (if the correct ones), if only ONE wasn't right.
Honestly, I'm going to download the offline installer every time, since that one is actually how it should be - a complete package with a date, containing a consistent set of files. Why is that not possible within your online updater?
Because the offline is obviously a temporary help which will useless ( like all this discussion ) once all cloudflare nodes would finally catch up, and the updater would work perfectly as it always did before this of out the ordinary big release, with a combination of too many files to refresh and too many users downloading at the same time.
Plus, there is no hint about the offline downloader in your updater. It is just hidden in your Forums.
Wrong. There's a "Release notes" button in the installer.
Noone has an idea which version is actually installed. Neither the user nor you.
Always the same: no new files downloaded ? You have the latest version. As I've said, several times by now, a version number doesn't mean much about what's changed and what's fixed and where.
-
Plus, there is no hint about the offline downloader in your updater. It is just hidden in your Forums.
Wrong. There's a "Release notes" button in the installer.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
The release notes page has NO info whatsoever about the availability of an offline installer and where to find it. NOTHING.
For the rest of your opinion, sorry, as a software dev myself I can only disagree.
I'm lost for words now how anyone can see the current state as acceptable by any means, not even accepting any kind of constructive feedback by rejecting anything I said based on common practices on software development and delivery.
-
I can't edit anything with GSX Pro. When I start editing the parking position the plane can't be moved, I can't change views. After restarting Couatl, nothing happens, and I have to shut down the MSFS. Reporting LOG ...
-
I have to agree. I've brought this up before, and I know that while Umberto has a vision for how this should work, for the end user it's a nightmare.
Right now, end users are just installing/updating blind. I would rather a "false sense of security" than the feeling of "no security at all" that I feel now.
I don't know whether I'm fully updated before or after clicking the update button. Because every time I click it, I see the progress bar moving, and text flowing. Did it download updated files? Did it re-download older files? Yes, maybe, no, I don't know. Even after checking the release notes, every time I click the update button, it does something, whether its new or old.
I'm sorry, but this is just bad UX. Version numbers are necessary. Packaging the files with a version number will clear up so much confusion. I don't know of any other dev in the flight sim community that doesn't use version numbers.
-
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The release notes page has NO info whatsoever about the availability of an offline installer and where to find it. NOTHING.
The release notes will tell you there's an update available. About the Offline installer, you said it was "hidden" in the forum, which is obviously not true, since it's in a Sticky thread in the top of this section, impossible to miss and hardly "hidden". Are you trying to say that, at each release note, we should add an extra note saying the offline installer has been update too ?
I'm lost for words now how anyone can see the current state as acceptable by any means, not even accepting any kind of constructive feedback by rejecting anything I said based on common practices on software development and delivery.
Fact practices are "common" doesn't mean they are always correctly, and I think I proven multiple times why giving a version number doesn't help at all with being sure you really have the latest version, and the problem is anyway moot because, with the latest update, it's quite clear users are getting it immediately now, so most cloudflare nodes must have caught up by now.
-
In case of MSFS it would be nice to have the option to check all files. But not forced on every startup
That's exactly how it is now. You are not forced to click the "Update" button.
for the simple reason of time to check every single file and only needed in a small percentage of cases (1000's with a problem vs a couple of million without) it really isn't suitable to waste 10-30+ minutes of file checking.
What ? Is really taking "10-30+ minutes" to check for updates ? For a single product ? That's unheard of. When I say "it takes some time to check all files", I mean it would take like a minute or less, instead of being immediate!
Whatever... bye..
-
Right now, end users are just installing/updating blind. I would rather a "false sense of security" than the feeling of "no security at all" that I feel now.
I'm sorry, but a false sense of security is objectively worse than the currently reliable system, which will always try to get the latest files, no matter what, and it's capable to restore even missing/corrupted files.
I don't know whether I'm fully updated before or after clicking the update button.
You only need to know you are fully updated after you clicked the update button.
Because every time I click it, I see the progress bar moving, and text flowing. Did it download updated files? Did it re-download older files? Yes, maybe, no, I don't know. Even after checking the release notes, every time I click the update button, it does something, whether its new or old.
The program is telling you exactly what is doing.
And some files are intentionally downloaded every time, I somewhat not sure that, even adding a note like "these file here is supposed to always downloaded, this is not a problem" would help much.
I'm sorry, but this is just bad UX. Version numbers are necessary. Packaging the files with a version number will clear up so much confusion
Haven't even followed this discussion ? WHAT IS A VERSION NUMBER ?
The only way to know you have a "version", is if each and every file that makes the product is the last version, even a single file missing, not right, or corrupted, would make the version information completely unreliable, because you might THINK you have a some version, so you feel safe and happy, when the program might not work because SOME files might not be the correct version, and this cannot possibly be known until all files are checked one by one, and this is done *while downloading* and the check even takes longer than the download so, in order to RELIABLY tell which version you REALLY have, without cheating, would be automatically run a check for all products without downloading anything, than making a second pass to eventually download them, than making a third pass to verify what has been downloaded is correct and, eventually, roll back the *whole* update if even a single file didn't pass verification, putting the whole program back to the previous version.
That would be the only 100% safe way to tell without any doubt if 100% of the files belong to the version number shown.
Our system honestly tells you if there's a problem with the download, because you notice it's *trying* to redownload something if it KNOWS the server hasn't served the right file, but it seems you want to be cheated on, and would rather have a system that will just blindly accept whatever is coming from the download, store "version number" somewhere just for show, and consider the program "updated" no matter what, just because it downloaded something last time, which might be right or not, but we don't care, because there's a "version number".
It seems you want to be cheated on, so we'll likely do it. The customers are always right.
-
Core File 1 - v 1.0
Core File 2 - v 1.0
Core File 3 - v 1.0
These 3 files are packaged as = Program v 1.0.0.
Now let's say you update Core File 2, and assign it v 2.0. Now it becomes:
Core File 1 - v 1.0
Core File 2 - v 2.0
Core File 3 - v 1.0
The Program version is now assigned v 1.0.1. Clear and simple.
Now let's say the user goes and makes some modifications to Core File 3, and ruins everything. The user knows what they did and will either revert the changes, or delete the file, then run the installer that will detect the missing file and re-download it.
Or in another case you mentioned, the user's anti-virus went and deleted Core File 3 because it flagged it as a virus. The user will know something is up either because the anti-virus warned them about it, or they find out the hard way when they launch the program in-sim and it immediately crashes.
Either way, any typical user will either retrace their steps, or choose a repair option in the installer which should re-download and replace all files as per the latest Program version.
In this scenario, the update button in the installer will not be clickable until it detects that a new Program version is available on the server. A repair button can be added to remove all Core Files, re-download, and install them.
Most users wont mess with the Core Files anyways, only the configuration files which are usually placed in a completely different directory. So this shouldn't be a concern. If a user wants to start absolutely from scratch even with the config files, then they know to do a full uninstall and re-install.
The ask is not for version numbers for the sake of version numbers. They serve a purpose, which is clarity. I hope you find a way to make it work as reliably with versioning.
-
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The release notes page has NO info whatsoever about the availability of an offline installer and where to find it. NOTHING.
The release notes will tell you there's an update available. About the Offline installer, you said it was "hidden" in the forum, which is obviously not true, since it's in a Sticky thread in the top of this section, impossible to miss and hardly "hidden". Are you trying to say that, at each release note, we should add an extra note saying the offline installer has been update too ?
The release notes don't say if I'm up to date. As others pointed out it downloads and updates stuff every time I click update.
You said the link to the offline installer is in the release notes and claimed I was wrong, but in fact you were wrong. And YES if you have such issues delivering updates to users without ANY hint on the offline installer in your updater or release notes you HAVE to make users aware of this issue and the offline installer.
Do you realize that not all of your customers read forums???
I'm lost for words now how anyone can see the current state as acceptable by any means, not even accepting any kind of constructive feedback by rejecting anything I said based on common practices on software development and delivery.
Fact practices are "common" doesn't mean they are always correctly, and I think I proven multiple times why giving a version number doesn't help at all with being sure you really have the latest version, and the problem is anyway moot because, with the latest update, it's quite clear users are getting it immediately now, so most cloudflare nodes must have caught up by now.
I'm still getting stuff downloaded when pressing Update button. Despite no update for 3 days and me updating your software every day at least once.
How do you expect me to trust the updater process now? HOW?
-
Core File 1 - v 1.0
Core File 2 - v 1.0
Core File 3 - v 1.0
These 3 files are packaged as = Program v 1.0.0.
Now let's say you update Core File 2, and assign it v 2.0. Now it becomes:
Core File 1 - v 1.0
Core File 2 - v 2.0
Core File 3 - v 1.0
The Program version is now assigned v 1.0.1. Clear and simple.
It's a waste of time I realized to make Umberto understand that he is wrong telling all of the IT industry sticking to version numbers for decades does it wrong.
Seems like there is neither any kind of acceptance of the issues the lack of information causes neither the willingness to change anything about it.
For customers, it's a total mess. And counting the complaints about this, Umberto should have realized it by now.
There is enough literature and best practices how to do proper versioning, packaging and delivery. If one wanted to learn, one could.
Better spend hours on the forum explaining why IT industry is wrong and GSX updater is totally clear and transparent. Right.
-
My installer update some files over and over again. When I know that I am up-to-date because I don't know. Nothing tells me. And if I click on update, the installer download the same files again, so I think, the installer do something wrong, but I don't know.
-
Now let's say the user goes and makes some modifications to Core File 3, and ruins everything. The user knows what they did and will either revert the changes, or delete the file, then run the installer that will detect the missing file and re-download it.
The updater already does that, without the users even having to *worry* about version numbers.
But that's not even the point, the point is, as I already tried to explain so many times, there's only ONE 100% safe way to be sure the displayed version number is correct, and it's
- Make a first pass to check all local files, make a list of the ones that needs updates.
- Make a BACKUP of all these files, ensuring you have enough space for them
- Download all files
- Make another pass to be sure ALL files have the correct hashes
- Rollback ALL files from the Backup, so the "version number" would match a completely integral set of files.
This is called a "fault tolerant" update.
No product I know, at least in the Flight sim space, ever uses this method. Want to make an easy experiment on, let's say, the PMDG OC, which DOES have a version number ?
Just intentionally corrupt any file, like the airplane.cfg, check for updates and see what happens. Nothing, it will still tell you have the latest version, it won't try to redownload the corrupted file and even if you remove it, it won't try to download the missing file.
But you have your "version number", sure.
And before you keep saying "the user knows he has removed the file", that's clearly irrelevant: this was just an EXAMPLE that anybody can try, that's why I said to corrupt or remove a file intentionally, but what if the file is removed or corrupted accidentally, without your knowledge, without even KNOW which file is affected ?
You have a version number, so you think you have the latest version, the program doesn't work because an important file is missing/corrupted (for ANY) reason, and you don't even KNOW which file it is, so your only option is Reinstall.
But you have a version number...
-
My installer update some files over and over again. When I know that I am up-to-date because I don't know. Nothing tells me. And if I click on update, the installer download the same files again, so I think, the installer do something wrong, but I don't know.
That's exactly the opposite how what is happening. It's BECASUE the updater is downloading the same files, over and over, you KNOW you need the Offline installer! Unless they are the ones which are supposed to be always downloaded, for which we added a note in the Offline installer.
https://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,26826.msg175607.html#msg175607
NOTE: The Airport Services and the Jetways sceneries are supposed to be downloaded every time, this is normal.
If the installer didn't tell you that, and "just" displayed a version number because it "assumed" the downloaded file should be the latest version "because I've just downloaded it", you wouldn't even suspect something's wrong with the download, so you'll use the wrong file without even knowing, leading to possible malfunctions, caused by the false sense of security of the installer told you have the latest version.