Updating

[Copper]

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apart from reading the release notes and remembering when I last updated (hoping I got an up to date version and not an outdated node).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.

[virtuali]

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- When the Live Update downloads the same files, over and overs, is TELLING your cloudflare node is outdated, which is of course an abnormal and temporary situation but, *because* the Live Updater ( instead of cheating and showing your a version number without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.

[Copper]

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.

[virtuali]

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.

[Copper]

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.

[virtuali]

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.

[Copper]

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.

[virtuali]

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.

[Copper]

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.

[virtuali]

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.

[Copper]

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.

[virtuali]

- 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.

[Copper]

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.

[trisho0]

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 ...

[fahdriyami]

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.