Jump to content

Possible conflicts with Gizmo


Hugh Grotius
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I'm a happy owner of the LES DC-3, but I've grown concerned that Gizmo apparently conflicts with plugins used by other aircraft. In particular, I'm interested in buying some of the Carenado aircraft for X-Plane. How do you recommend I deal with Gizmo when I want to run a Carenado plane? Delete Gizmo every time I want to run an aircraft that uses SASL? Seems like an awful pain.

Since I've installed Gizmo, I've also had some graphics glitches with the default Cessna 172. I see colored polygons, for brief moments, splattered around the windshield.

I've read elsewhere that Gizmo uses X-Plane's master plug-ins directory and seems to claim priority over other plug-ins that merely run in aircraft folders. Is that true? Could Gizmo be modified to run only in the X-Aviation directory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gizmo runs global. There are reasons for this, primarily in that the functions we plan and some that have been implemented are not possible without the plug-in being Global.

In three years, there are "only" two known conflicts:

1. SASL interferes with Gizmo (or vice versa depending how you choose to look at it)

2. SOME people have issues with DreamEngine, though this is rather sporadic and most people are not affected.

The issues are actually ALL related to sound. What happens here is SASL, Gizmo, and DreamEngine (as well as X-Plane for that matter) are all competing for sound slots within X-Plane's environment. As such, a clash will sometimes occur depending on the order in which a product using a specific plug-in was opened. Without getting too technical, I'll just say that had the fix been an easy one amongst developers it would have been developed and released already. There is some impending, rather large news we have coming out soon, but I cannot comment on this right at this moment.

As for "priority," Gizmo simply runs all the time, but does NOT interact with an aircraft if the aircraft does not have the required files necessary to tell Gizmo it has a "green light" to operate. So, no, it does not take priority over all/other plug-ins.

When experiencing this conflict, people have done one of two things that I have seen:

1. Create TWO X-plane installs. One will be Gizmo only, the other will be SASL only.

2. Go to your resources/plugins folder and move the gizmo.plugin folder to your desktop or anywhere of your choosing while you operate a SASL aircraft, then return Gizmo after your session.

Thus far, only the latest Carenado aircraft (Seneca) utilizes SASL. Knowing Dan however (developer for Carenado) he will want to continue to innovate their products (and rightly so) and will likely carry the SASL tradition into future aircraft. Time will tell on this one!

Lastly, with your Cessna issue, this should not be happening nor have I ever heard of it. You may want to look into updating your video drivers to the latest version if this is happening. Gizmo is a scripting language API, not a graphics adjuster!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. I guess for now I'll opt for alternative 2, moving the gizmo.plugin folder.

Do I have to restart X-Plane every time I do that, or can I do it while I'm in the simulator? E.g., suppose I'm in X-Plane flying the DC-3, and I decide to try the Seneca. Should I quit X-Plane, move the plugin folder, then re-start? Or can I just alt-tab out of X-Plane and remove the folder? The latter would be somewhat less annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camerons advice is good. He worked hard sorting through the conflicts I had with Jasons Cirrus & a couple of his, the Corvalis to name one--the double install was the only way out apart from plane switching & restarts which is more of a hassle.

I bought the Seneca last week and not the identical but similar issue/issues ensued. Gizmo most certainly conflicts with SASL (Or better to say--as with Jasons Cirrus[which seems to be plugin free]--- THE INTERNALS conflict with each other). Turning off Gizmo via Addon Manager was suggested but I found it did not work. The double install is no big deal if you have the space--I have three-- one I keep Virgin to check everything in a clinical environment. (I noticed Carenado actually suggest this Virgin install method themselves when I visited their site about the Seneca)

It all needs to be looked at seriously by all the Plane Makers & be sorted--everything should ideally run on one install--and with many other Companies suddenly taking an interest in producing for X-Plane things could get worse.

As a footnote:-- I have found the Gizmo conflict only affects one of Jasons C74's planes--(the Cirrus SR2) and one of Carenado's-- (The Seneca)--and I have nearly the whole collection of each (Most of Camerons too as it happens but have only had conflicts withe the Corvallis TT (Worst), the Sequoia, DC-3 and Marquis. They are all on a seperate install--all the rest seem to share the same hanger well

Edited by edwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Guy's should have included it yesterday but have mentioned it elsewhere. The Carenado Seneca's problems (issue/issues above posting) are not all Gizzmo related as I have just been reminded. I opened the Seneca in a Gizmo free install and got the fps fluctuations as usual (All monitors showing no overloads or problems anywhere) and once again I'm getting the freezinng of X-Plane if I try to close down the program or change over to another plane. This has been a greater problem than anything Gizmo related since day one with this otherwise great little plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gizmo runs global. There are reasons for this, primarily in that the functions we plan and some that have been implemented are not possible without the plug-in being Global.

Then it should have been planned and implemented differently! On principle only, a plugin that adds functionality to a specific aircraft, should not be loaded when that aircraft are not loaded. That is why Laminar Research introduced the concept of aircraft-specific plugins.

At the very least, a global plugin should not block any resources when it doesn't need them.

And how about a linux version? Is "watching bad TV" still higher on the list?

Laminar Research, the SDK team, SASL, EADT, Philipp and others all made the effort...

Regards,

Marc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it should have been planned and implemented differently! On principle only, a plugin that adds functionality to a specific aircraft, should not be loaded when that aircraft are not loaded. That is why Laminar Research introduced the concept of aircraft-specific plugins.

At the very least, a global plugin should not block any resources when it doesn't need them.

This is an informative topic and not a debate, Marc. Having known the complexities of where Gizmo is headed, the fact that it is NOT to be utilized just for aircraft (yep, not aircraft-specific!), etc is precisely why it's been done the way it has. Making accusations with regards to a subject you know little info about is not helping any of us.

And how about a linux version? Is "watching bad TV" still higher on the list?

I don't watch TV. Ben R doesn't either. There are many better things to be doing with our time, evidently and rightly so that you have no clue!

As for Linux? It hasn't been released simply for the fact that Linux is not a viable platform. We've tried it in the past and the ROI is simply not there. Perhaps in time it will change, but that time is not "now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc,

This is far from the place to argue semantics over Gizmo and SASL. Especially for someone who hasn't even purchased the DC-3

These are support forums for us and customers of the DC-3.

Seeing as you have not purchased the DC-3, please take this up in the appropriate places should you deem it worthy of your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it should have been planned and implemented differently! On principle only, a plugin that adds functionality to a specific aircraft, should not be loaded when that aircraft are not loaded. That is why Laminar Research introduced the concept of aircraft-specific plugins.

At the very least, a global plugin should not block any resources when it doesn't need them.

And how about a linux version? Is "watching bad TV" still higher on the list?

Laminar Research, the SDK team, SASL, EADT, Philipp and others all made the effort...

Regards,

Marc.

Random trivia:

Gizmo (then "XLua") introduced the concept of aircraft-specific extensions before Laminar introduced aircraft-specific plugins.

Gizmo synthesizes various events based on the changing global-state of X-Plane. It goes beyond what the SDK covers.

- An audit of exactly what would be affected by creating an acf-only-version of Gizmo is somewhere at the bottom of the todo-list.

Your assertion that it's somehow "designed wrong" is amusing.

It's. a. bug.

Linux? What's that? The iPad is a far more "worthy" target for porting to, in every conceivable way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a customer comment here, not an argument (I hope). I think it's reasonable from the end-user's perspective to wonder why a plugin has to be enabled at the top level, when it doesn't appear to be doing anything useful when flying a non-Gizmo enabled plane model. The future plans for Gizmo -- "where Gizmo is headed, the fact that it is NOT to be utilized just for aircraft (yep, not aircraft-specific!), etc is precisely why it's been done the way it has" -- don't affect the current situation. Right now, it's only a plane model enabler.

BTW, the latest conflict example I ran into is the Hydroz PBY Catalina. I have to move Gizmo out to the Windows desktop to fly that plane, otherwise there is an engine sound conflict.

I haven't bought the new Carenado Seneca yet, or any future Carenado products that might use SASL, but this is rapidly turning into a situation where instead of moving Gizmo out temporarily to fly a non-Gizmo plane, I'm going to be thinking of Gizmo as something I leave out of the system most of the time, and only move it in when I want to fly the LES DC-3. Or the MU-2 and Falcon (although I haven't moved those into v10 yet, pending updates).

Whatever future plans are in store for Gizmo as a universal plugin, it won't help if users are thinking of it as a special case to be enabled only for certain planes anyway. In other words, it's going to be treated as a plane-level plugin, whether it's intended that way or not.

Again, this isn't an argument about what's "proper" for handling plugins, just a statement of the current situation from the customer's perspective.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a customer comment here, not an argument (I hope). I think it's reasonable from the end-user's perspective to wonder why a plugin has to be enabled at the top level, when it doesn't appear to be doing anything useful when flying a non-Gizmo enabled plane model.

If you're truly interested in this there are a number of examples about the forums as to how development and example uses have shown Gizmo's capabilities BEYOND aircraft use. It will be even more apparent once these uses hit the market.

BTW, the latest conflict example I ran into is the Hydroz PBY Catalina. I have to move Gizmo out to the Windows desktop to fly that plane, otherwise there is an engine sound conflict.

This is nothing new. As already stated, SASL products cause a problem...the PBY is a SASL product.

I haven't bought the new Carenado Seneca yet, or any future Carenado products that might use SASL, but this is rapidly turning into a situation where instead of moving Gizmo out temporarily to fly a non-Gizmo plane, I'm going to be thinking of Gizmo as something I leave out of the system most of the time, and only move it in when I want to fly the LES DC-3. Or the MU-2 and Falcon (although I haven't moved those into v10 yet, pending updates).

That's entirely your decision! :)

Whatever future plans are in store for Gizmo as a universal plugin, it won't help if users are thinking of it as a special case to be enabled only for certain planes anyway. In other words, it's going to be treated as a plane-level plugin, whether it's intended that way or not.

Not true once the products that will make it very evident of Gizmo's intended capabilities hit the market. We'll be sure to make this very apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had my conflicts with Gizmo, now with SASL & although Cameron & Jason have bent over backwards to help and fathom it all (Can't say the same for Carenado though) I'm shunting between installs to fly specific planes, a process which basically I should not be entertaining. Sadly my most favorite planes to fly are deeply involved in the various conflicts.

We should not have to leapfrog around installs, take note of this-of that- or the other. When we want to fly a purchased plane in X-Plane (Not a cheap platform we have purchased) any add ons ect. that any plane producer requires should run for the duration of the flight of that aircraft and remove itself afterwards leaving the field 'Litter free' for the next team--That after all is Cricket!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Can't say the same for Carenado though)

I think you are out of line with that comment. Are you not aware of the discussions in the support forum for Carenado at the link below? Have you looked at the Carenado support link? Have you read the documentation that came with the aircraft? Have you e-mailed Dan or Carenado directly? The fact is that SASL and Gizmo do NOT play well together. That has been made perfectly clear. For now, we just have to deal with it as end users.

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showforum=106

https://carenado.zendesk.com/home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Goran,

Sorry, I saw only the topic title and reacted to Cameron's reply, without paying attention that it was in the LES / DC-3 sub-forum.

Notice that this topic was opened because Hugh was wondering why the Gizmo plugin needs to be global. Just like the other customer comments above. In the chicken-and-egg situation, their _impression_ is that Gizmo is causing problems to non-Gizmo aircraft and not the other way round.

You're right, I don't have the DC-3, although it is high on my "impulse-buy" list. Knowing the hassle having to restart X-Plane, or even the complete computer to start with another operating system, I always pushed the impulse off (instead I ended up with lower-quality aircraft for my "impulse-buy" money). The Saab 340 (sorry, wrong sub-forum again) on the other hand will most probably get me over the reluctance, since it is the aircraft for which I started following X-Pilot 2 years ago. But I will still swear each time that I have to restart X-Plane.

Cameron and Ben have their reasons (the "Gizmo's intended capabilities" that we will see - eventually), but I hope that their reasons don't frustrate your customers too much.

And even if the X-Plane Linux market share is less than 5%, Linux compatibility is (or at least it was at a certain moment) within reach, without a lot of investment.

Well, I "hedged" by getting my new PC with Windows, so there is still hope that I will become a customer of your aircrafts. But I will swear even more when I will have to maintain 2 separate X-Plane installs.

Regards,

Marc.

PS: Cameron, I didn't accuse you of anything when I stated my feeling of how an aircraft-specific plugin should behave. And I have more than one clue that you spend your time better than "watching bad TV" (I was only referring to this: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are out of line with that comment. Are you not aware of the discussions in the support forum for Carenado at the link below? Have you looked at the Carenado support link? Have you read the documentation that came with the aircraft? Have you e-mailed Dan or Carenado directly? The fact is that SASL and Gizmo do NOT play well together. That has been made perfectly clear. For now, we just have to deal with it as end users.

No I was not aware of the support forum for the Carenado/I am now-- However as a matter of principle I no longer follow the Org. forums (As informative as they are) as I do not support Nicolas's & certain Moderators Attitude problems. I did visit Carenado's site when I first bought the plane only to be informed at that time that the issue was temporarily closed. I ALWAYS read ALL the information that comes with ANY product I buy--I was advised to do this as an apprentice many, many years ago and it has been invaluable advice.

I reiterate my view that when I buy an Aircraft in particular from the reputable well established companies as I do, the Planes should have been fully tested before they are put on the market. OK unforseeable minor glitches can be excused but the issues we are discussing here are well documentated and many were apparent way back in v9 and most still have to be resolved not endlessly debated.

As mentioned I found my own solution to the majority of the current conflict issues and appreciate the attentive help I have received from Cameron-Jason- & basically the many annonymous 'Joebloggs' charactors that put their minds into solving the issues on their own backs. However what is it that makes so many producers for the Flight Sim. markets think that X-Plane Airspace is a 'Test Place' for their products? Every time I buy a plane now I put it into the test hanger--why should I?

Practically every other product on the planet goes through intensive pre sales testing & as often as not they exist in a far more diverse and less stable or manageable environment than the relatively coveted X-Plane program. In reality I should not be endlessly scouring Forums for solutions to issues & conflicts the majority of which could and should have been dealt with before the developers marketed their products--

"The next departure at runway 3 is the non stop flight to the Guinea Pig Market--Please fasten your seatbelts--more often than not it can be a turbulent flight"

Edited by edwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on that last post, Edwin, I couldn't agree more!

However, I understand your feelings concerning the org, but I think you may be cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't approve of some of the mods behavior, either, but I choose to ignore the negative aspects of the org and enjoy the positives. There are a lot of good people there and a lot of great information at your disposal, too. While I don't condone the negative actions of anyone at the org, or here for that matter, I still use these forums and many others to keep in touch with what is going on in the X-Plane world. I try not to add to the negative energy now.

Edited by steven winslow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Goran,

Sorry, I saw only the topic title and reacted to Cameron's reply, without paying attention that it was in the LES / DC-3 sub-forum.

Notice that this topic was opened because Hugh was wondering why the Gizmo plugin needs to be global. Just like the other customer comments above. In the chicken-and-egg situation, their _impression_ is that Gizmo is causing problems to non-Gizmo aircraft and not the other way round.

You're right, I don't have the DC-3, although it is high on my "impulse-buy" list. Knowing the hassle having to restart X-Plane, or even the complete computer to start with another operating system, I always pushed the impulse off (instead I ended up with lower-quality aircraft for my "impulse-buy" money). The Saab 340 (sorry, wrong sub-forum again) on the other hand will most probably get me over the reluctance, since it is the aircraft for which I started following X-Pilot 2 years ago. But I will still swear each time that I have to restart X-Plane.

Cameron and Ben have their reasons (the "Gizmo's intended capabilities" that we will see - eventually), but I hope that their reasons don't frustrate your customers too much.

And even if the X-Plane Linux market share is less than 5%, Linux compatibility is (or at least it was at a certain moment) within reach, without a lot of investment.

Well, I "hedged" by getting my new PC with Windows, so there is still hope that I will become a customer of your aircrafts. But I will swear even more when I will have to maintain 2 separate X-Plane installs.

Regards,

Marc.

It's ok. I can understand peoples frustration because they just want a smooth, uninterrupted experience. I may be mistaken, but I have yet to see anyone complain to the SASL developers asking why SASL isn't it compatible with Gizmo. It's always "why isn't Gizmo compatible with SASL?" I would love to see Gizmo and SASL work well together. I think it'd make a lot of developers workload much easier.

Having said all this, when I saw your first post after registration was a rant, of sorts, about Gizmo and SASL compatibility, it took me a bit by surprise...even though it was a reply to Cameron, it's something that I want to avoid in these forums. I don't mind answering questions about Gizmo, but I want to avoid confrontation and heated debates. ESPECIALLY with other developers.

On a lighter note, I'm flattered to know you started following X-Pilot because of the Saab. Contrary to some peoples opinion who have asked me about it, it is not vaporware and has actually been heavily worked on for the last 5 months. There was a small break in its development last year, but I think, in total, it has about a years worth of programming already invested in it. Theo and I have taken that time opportunity to actually remodel and retexture about half of it.

With regards to Ben and Cameron having their reasons for Gizmo being global as opposed to aircraft specific...

I don't know all their plans, but I do know if they have future plans, then they must be big. And I can only surmise that these plans will benefit developers and simmers and will have a huge impact on the community as a whole. Cameron is a straight shooter, and will not crap on about something. His only interest is to make X Plane grow. It has been that way since he started XPFW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goran, first let me preface this by saying that I'm getting a major kick out of flying your DC-3, it's a wonderful model. It's worth swapping out plugins to fly this model, in case any onlookers who haven't purchased the DC-3 are wondering about that. It's the best DC-3 in X-Plane, and I say that as someone who has bought and supported the other available payware model and flown it as a money-making vintage airplane in FSEconomy for a couple of years now. This is something special. Well, there is that autopilot drift thing :), but still... an amazing model and well worth the money.

Okay, after that preamble...

I may be mistaken, but I have yet to see anyone complain to the SASL developers asking why SASL isn't it compatible with Gizmo. It's always "why isn't Gizmo compatible with SASL?"

What you're seeing is that, as an end-user, we're frustrated with having to deal with this issue at all. This isn't our job. We bought a payware plane, we want to use it without conflicts. It's asking a lot from both the Gizmo and SASL sides of the conflict for the end-user to deal with any of this.

What will end up happening, is just a practical choice of how many planes use Gizmo in our aircraft sub-folders, and how many use SASL. If we spend more time flying planes that use SASL, then Gizmo-enabled planes get demoted to a status where we move that plugin to the Desktop. And that will kill off any plans to use Gizmo for features that aren't plane-specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if the X-Plane Linux market share is less than 5%, Linux compatibility is (or at least it was at a certain moment) within reach, without a lot of investment.

Well, I "hedged" by getting my new PC with Windows, so there is still hope that I will become a customer of your aircrafts. But I will swear even more when I will have to maintain 2 separate X-Plane installs.

That's an assumption on your part, Marc. It's not fact. Trust us when we say that we've invested much time (almost too much) in porting to Linux. It's NOT as easy as you are assuming, even if you've programmed your own works for X-Plane. Gizmo is a whole other beast in it's dependencies and compiling needs. Investment is dependent on how much money we must pay someone to do the port...it's not a cheap investment in comparison to the ROI. It's simple business when you look at the numbers, and suffice to say...I'm sad about it. I DO like Linux, but I too must face this reality.

PS: Cameron, I didn't accuse you of anything when I stated my feeling of how an aircraft-specific plugin should behave. And I have more than one clue that you spend your time better than "watching bad TV" (I was only referring to this: http://forums.x-pilo...ort/#entry23850).

Understood, Marc. It was figurative speech to be sure (coming from Ben, that is).

What you're seeing is that, as an end-user, we're frustrated with having to deal with this issue at all. This isn't our job. We bought a payware plane, we want to use it without conflicts. It's asking a lot from both the Gizmo and SASL sides of the conflict for the end-user to deal with any of this.

What will end up happening, is just a practical choice of how many planes use Gizmo in our aircraft sub-folders, and how many use SASL. If we spend more time flying planes that use SASL, then Gizmo-enabled planes get demoted to a status where we move that plugin to the Desktop. And that will kill off any plans to use Gizmo for features that aren't plane-specific.

Hi, Paraffin,

We understand that and see it wholeheartedly. It is not something that can be fixed at this moment, and it's not something we enjoy having our customers endure. Had it been an easy fix we would have solved this a long, long time ago. That said, we are very confident with our use of Gizmo and its future. While I can't let all of the cats out of the bag I can assure you that all of this has been methodically planned out as best we can while we get to the end goal. A goal that we are quite sure will revolutionize many aspects of X-Plane and how we interact with it as users.

X-Plane is a growing market, and these are parts of the growing pains. It's unfortunate, no doubt, but we are trudging on with confidence. It's hard to have faith in all of this for you guys on the outside, I'm sure, but it's all we can ask for from our customers at this time. We'll ultimately get to a very happy place...that I'm sure of!

Happy flying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...