• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

FSX AI Flight Planner Bugs

In your post you have this
"Since there have been no adverse comments for some time, I have just renamed Development Release 3.2.10(k) to General Release 3.2.11 and posted it.
It should be detected automatically the next time you run AIFP, or you can obtain it directly from http://stuff4fs.com."


1. How can anyone post any adverse comments when that post is closed to comments?
2. The very first post in the thread " Introducing Release 3.3.1.0 (for PV5 Compatibility)" points to a long dead link to download at shaw.ca. Only after going thru a number of pages of comments does one come across the stuff4fs site link. It would be great if that 1st post were altered to always point to the latest version or at least the page where the version can be downloaded.

I have tested this program and have come across a number of bugs that pop up errors with no reason behind them. Especially some errors occur only in some circumstances and not in others.
I started documenting these but gave up as the errors are so inconsistent and so frequent. Let me illustrate this with a couple of errors I started to document.

v3.3.1.6
Clean Install - delete all old files and copy across all new.
Open AIFP - it finds my \Scenery\World\Traffic_xxx.bgl as the correct compiled path

From Menu
Bulk Traffic> Traffic and Parking Analyser

Image1.jpg

Notice window is NOT fullscreen
Try and resize by pulling bottom right corner and bang!
Image2.jpg

Aircraft & Airport columns become very narrow

From Traffic and Parking Analyser menu
Traffic Files-> Select Traffic Files


Window opens with a tree view. Navigate and select my \Scenery\World\scenery folder, tick Save as Default Search and click “Use Selected/Checked” button.
…Extracting Airports and aircraft from traffic files window opens with “Abort” as an option button.

Taking a long time so I click Abort and close the Traffic and Parking Analyser window and back to main AIFP window.

All lists still blank so I repeat above - Bulk Traffic> Traffic and Parking Analyser
Image3.jpg

BUG1: ERROR!!!! Why?

I also notice this same error happens in a number of other places as well.

So I click OK and the window disappears.
Sometimes but NOT always I also get a .net List box exception when I click OK.
Select this option [Bulk Traffic> Traffic and Parking Analyser]from the menu again [repeat the same] and no error!!

So from the tree view I Select the World\scenery folder and let it do its complete analysis without clicking "abort":
Image4.jpg

So the analysis took some time and returned the window above.

Sometimes, but not always the Analysis returns without resizing the Aircraft & Airport columns. If I resize the window then the columns resize.
Anyway after analysis...

Now as I click each Traffic file in the list at the left I get :

That small window – Preparing airport and aircraft for display. This happens FOR EACH BGL I CLICK in the list. This is simply a waste of time as the initial selection of the traffic folder does the SAME THING for ALL the BGL’s which is why it takes so long. So this data is not saved anywhere because when I select a single BGL in the list at left the same thing happens for that single file that has already happened for ALL the files found.

Since the program has already analysed all the BGL’s it should store the results and simply filter the display based on the first list selection. This is a bug that should be fixed.

Also the analysis returns with some Aircraft in the aircraft list in RED to signify that these Aircraft are not installed. The only option is to Print/save to txt this list of RED a/c. If we are allowed to recompile the traffix BGL's why can I not RT. click or select all red a/c and remove them from the list and recompile ? This would be the most logical approach since we don't need a/c in the list that are not installed as they cannot be shown anyway. The same thing happens with other analysis where the only option is to print/save instead of allowing a correction like when multiple a/c occupy the same bays or the departure of multiple a/c coincide. There is no point in analysis if nothing other than printing can be done although a recompile option is provided!

There are other bugs as well and I can go thru them and document them if it helps in any way.
Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Pyscen

Resource contributor
You might want to verify that you have the latest release. I believe it has been updated a number of times in the past few days.
 
There is now another dev version 3.3.1.7 I believe.

I am not experiencing the sort of problems listed in the 1st post ( I am using FSXA only not P3D v5).
 
You might want to verify that you have the latest release. I believe it has been updated a number of times in the past few days.
How can it be a number of times? I mentioned at the very top of the post I was using v3.3.1.6 and the latest I see now is v3.3.1.7.
How many times from v3.3.1.6 to v3.3.1.7 has the app been updated or did you NOT read my post?
Image5.jpg


As you can see still bugs. I clicked on "Abort" when it displayed the "Preparing Airports and Aircraft for display" window and closed the Analyser. On trying to select it again I get this error which I cannot repeat. These errors are all over the place and in most cases very difficult to reproduce.

These bugs I reported are still there.
1) The Thin columns are still there.
2)Now as I click each Traffic file in the list at the left I get :
That small window – Preparing airport and aircraft for display. This happens FOR EACH BGL I CLICK in the list. This is simply a waste of time as the initial selection of the traffic folder does the SAME THING for ALL the BGL’s which is why it takes so long. So this data is not saved anywhere because when I select a single BGL in the list at left the same thing happens for that single file that has already happened for ALL the files found.
3) New bugs as above introduced
4. Open Main AIP then Select this option [Bulk Traffic> Traffic and Parking Analyser]from the menu
5. With that window open click on the MAIN AIP window and maximize it.
Traffic and Parking Analyser window has disappeared behing the main window.
So from the main menu select Validate Traffic Files and select Scenery\World\Scenery and click "Use Selected\checked"
Now a new error:
Image6.jpg


And so it goes on.

If you want to make this program as useful as its potential, then you MUST accept the bugs found by users and if I have taken the time to show these bugs especially with screen shots and steps to recreate where possible, you should at least show an interest in acknowledging & fixing them. I am not spending time documenting these bugs just to be one up. I know knothing of the inner workings of this program. I am interested in it because it fulfills a need for fixing my traffic files.

So before you point me to another new buggy version, please acknowledge these bugs and at least take the time to reply to them, as I have taken even more of my time to document them rather than saying wrongly that the program has been updated many times when it has NOT. Then we will see.

And don't assume it is bug free just because there are no adverse comments. Most users when confronted with all these errors that cause the program to crash will simply move on to something else that actually works and not bother wasting time reporting them.

I am sorry but I have been in the application design & development field for many many years. The best way to fix an application is to listen to your users. Hope you take this the right way.
 

=rk=

Resource contributor
Hi, you know, if I encountered a bug reporting thread, that was closed, I'd assume the publisher had decided anyone with bugs had already reported them, they'd been addressed and maybe, possibly, due to my late arrival, this had been a correct assessment and any issues I was experiencing, were my own.
BUG1: ERROR!!!! Why?

I also notice this same error happens in a number of other places as well.

So I click OK and the window disappears.
Sometimes but NOT always I also get a .net List box exception when I click OK.
The reason we have to click on messages, is because the computer has encountered a situation in which it MUST abort, but it wants you to know why, so rather than just flashing a message for you to ignore, it makes you click that you have received it. That may not be the best way to alert you because the message says "index out of range," this implies an error with the scanned data. So the index, with a negative number, is somehow still greater that the size of the collection. This sounds like a basic calculation issue that AIFP might be expecting your computer to perform.
Do you see the ".net List box exception," that you typed? That implies a ".Net Framework" issue. Many software developers require us to download and install the user version of the .Net Framework for their software to work and the maintenance and updating of this software is the user's responsibility. The window sizing issues and other glitchy problems are also associated with .Net.

One might think a closed bug reporting thread and numerous helpful posters suggesting they do not share these errors, would be a clue to this. Running a Google search on the content of your error message returns a page full of .net and asp.net programming posts, provides a further clue, but I'm sure Don will be along presently to put a nail in the coffin of this bug and I am guessing it will be with a suggestion to update or install .Net.
Also the analysis returns with some Aircraft in the aircraft list in RED to signify that these Aircraft are not installed. The only option is to Print/save to txt this list of RED a/c. If we are allowed to recompile the traffix BGL's why can I not RT. click or select all red a/c and remove them from the list and recompile ? This would be the most logical approach since we don't need a/c in the list that are not installed as they cannot be shown anyway. The same thing happens with other analysis where the only option is to print/save instead of allowing a correction like when multiple a/c occupy the same bays or the departure of multiple a/c coincide. There is no point in analysis if nothing other than printing can be done although a recompile option is provided!
I do not agree with this assessment. AI Flight Planner compiles software to make routes for AI airplanes. As a feature of it's operation, it also scans ALL the AI flight plans. It does not create, nor modify those files, unless the user specifically instructs it to do so. In your case, it has encountered flight plans for which you have no listed aircraft. This is a bad state that AIFP did not create. It has sensed that there is data available, that YOU have added, that it is unable to be used, so it flags the data in red for you to decide if you want to change it back to how it is supposed to be. AIFP does not know how or why you added flight planes that have no aircraft, so it humbly assumes there is a valid reason for which it was not programmed to understand.
I would prefer AIFP remain unchanged in that regard, but perhaps Don could release a version with expanded error messages, to more deeply inform users of exactly how the changes they have made to their computers, or failed to make to their computers, affect the operation of AIFP.

Please try to remember that AIFP is free. Our hobby is flying virtual planes, Don's hobby is creating and supporting software that allows us to customize our virtual flying. He does not get paid for any of this, even when the software works perfectly, but some people still have problems.
 
There is now another dev version 3.3.1.7 I believe.

I am not experiencing the sort of problems listed in the 1st post ( I am using FSXA only not P3D v5).
Really?
Hi, you know, if I encountered a bug reporting thread, that was closed, I'd assume the publisher had decided anyone with bugs had already reported them, they'd been addressed and maybe, possibly, due to my late arrival, this had been a correct assessment and any issues I was experiencing, were my own.
The reason we have to click on messages, is because the computer has encountered a situation in which it MUST abort, but it wants you to know why, so rather than just flashing a message for you to ignore, it makes you click that you have received it. That may not be the best way to alert you because the message says "index out of range," this implies an error with the scanned data. So the index, with a negative number, is somehow still greater that the size of the collection. This sounds like a basic calculation issue that AIFP might be expecting your computer to perform.
Do you see the ".net List box exception," that you typed? That implies a ".Net Framework" issue. Many software developers require us to download and install the user version of the .Net Framework for their software to work and the maintenance and updating of this software is the user's responsibility. The window sizing issues and other glitchy problems are also associated with .Net.

One might think a closed bug reporting thread and numerous helpful posters suggesting they do not share these errors, would be a clue to this. Running a Google search on the content of your error message returns a page full of .net and asp.net programming posts, provides a further clue, but I'm sure Don will be along presently to put a nail in the coffin of this bug and I am guessing it will be with a suggestion to update or install .Net.
I do not agree with this assessment. AI Flight Planner compiles software to make routes for AI airplanes. As a feature of it's operation, it also scans ALL the AI flight plans. It does not create, nor modify those files, unless the user specifically instructs it to do so. In your case, it has encountered flight plans for which you have no listed aircraft. This is a bad state that AIFP did not create. It has sensed that there is data available, that YOU have added, that it is unable to be used, so it flags the data in red for you to decide if you want to change it back to how it is supposed to be. AIFP does not know how or why you added flight planes that have no aircraft, so it humbly assumes there is a valid reason for which it was not programmed to understand.
I would prefer AIFP remain unchanged in that regard, but perhaps Don could release a version with expanded error messages, to more deeply inform users of exactly how the changes they have made to their computers, or failed to make to their computers, affect the operation of AIFP.

Please try to remember that AIFP is free. Our hobby is flying virtual planes, Don's hobby is creating and supporting software that allows us to customize our virtual flying. He does not get paid for any of this, even when the software works perfectly, but some people still have problems.
1. There is no bug reporting thread that is closed. There are still bugs being reported by interested users.

2. The reason the Index is out of range is a bug because it should not be out of range. There is a "Abort" button presented to the user that causes the index to be scrambled thus causing that error. Why give an Abort button to click when using it causes errors elsewhere.

3. I see the .net error message and if I actually took the timne to read it it would tell me that the application is trying to access a disposed object. and the Object name is Traffic Analyser. Now although this is a .net message it is certainly NOT a .net framework issue as you suggest. It is clearly a programming error where the programmer is trying to access an object that is already not there and has been disposed.
4. I certainly know about updating .net runtimes and my system is up to date. I don't need to check about a disposed object as obviously it is not being checked properly in this code:

Stack overflow suggests:
Try checking the IsDisposed property before accessing the control. You can also check it on the FormClosing event, assuming you're using the FormClosed event.

So this is a programming not .net error.

"This sounds like a basic calculation issue that AIFP might be expecting your computer to perform."
Surely you are joking when you say this? My computer is not performing some calculation it is supposed to? And the reason the error appears is not that it is a programming error where the aborted Index is being used instead of being deleted but because my computer is not performing a calculation expected by AIFP?


I agree that AIFP should remain unchanged and as per what the programmed envisaged it to be. However On the main window I see a compile button and a path to my \World\scenery files. Also bglcomp.exe is included to compile BGL's.

I know that the progran has analysed my traffic files and the red ones are aircraft not installed. I already stated that in my first post. That is good but my idea with this is that I should be allowed to remove these aircraft from the traffic files and recompile them. If that is not the intention then it is a suggestion from me.

I know the program is free and the author does not get paid and kudos to him/her for that. However simply because of it being free is no reason to not accept bug fixes when presented. I know enough of that aspect. I too in my time always shared my code\methods for free as my company paying me was enough and anyone using my code was praise enough for me.

There is no point in simply compiling new versions and carrying forward bugs into the newer ones.

I am a seasoned programmer so please do not advise me that .net has to be updated or that my computer is not performing calculations it should. That is for non programmers. Not me.
 

=rk=

Resource contributor
I know that the progran has analysed my traffic files and the red ones are aircraft not installed. I already stated that in my first post. That is good but my idea with this is that I should be allowed to remove these aircraft from the traffic files and recompile them. If that is not the intention then it is a suggestion from me.
Well see here is the issue with us "programmers." You ARE allowed to remove these aircraft from the traffic files, the same way that you added them. AIFP is not responsible for 3rd party addon software, any programmer should understand this, nor is AIFP responsible for translating differences in programmer jargon, but Don is much more politic than I at explaining these nuances and I am confident that he will be along presently, he does his hobby very well. apologies for any misunderstandings.
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
First of all, thanks to the those of you who came to my defense or otherwise tried to be helpful.

Now, bernb. It's clear you like to have things "your way". Most people do, but are somewhat more tolerant when they come to a "corner"..

Regarding the forum organization. I chose this method so that there is one thread containing the complete history of AIFP releases. It is closed so that bugs are now reported in separate threads which address a specific issue and which "die" when the issue is clarified/resolved. This seems preferable to long threads addressing numerous issues. As you can see from the number of threads in the forum, AIFP users generally have had little difficulty in discerning the intent that bugs get reported in separate threads. As for the "dead" link, were I to encounter a thread 15 pages long in an unfamiliar forum, the first post of which was 10 years old, I'd be inclined to look for the last link in the thread. All that being said, perhaps a one-post thread giving a link to the latest release would be helpful to first-time users. A simple suggestion would have sufficed. Consider it done.

Regarding your "bug" reports, I'm not going to address them one-by-one. While a few are valid, previously-unreported issues that I will investigate and fix, most seem to be of the "I wish" variety. If you had happened along 8 years ago when the Traffic & Parking Analyser was introduced, perhaps some of your wish-list items could have been incorporated. As it is, most comments I receive on T&PA operation are favorable and I don't wish potentially to destabilize its operation or undo things others like. I would also point out that by using the stock traffic file as your test case, you have asked AIFP to analyse 34253 flight plans involving 119 aircraft and nearly 25000 airports which it did, flawlessly, and in the process identified over 3000 errors or undesirable conditions. I'd call that impressive!

Since its initial release over 12 years ago as a vehicle simply to perform "TTools operations" for FSX, AIFP has continually evolved to address the release of FSX:SE and 5 versions of P3D, adapt to a variety of packaging of AI Aircraft, implement numerous enhancements - including the T&PA - and otherwise meet the needs of the AI flight-planning community - being redeveloped twice in the process. Today, it contains over 50,000 lines of code and I have replaced at least that many. Is it prefect? No, of course not. But, does it serve the needs of the community. I think a wide majority would say "Yes!". In case there's any doubt, I'm proud of AIFP (and my 4 other major flight-simming tools)!

As Rick highlighted, you don't have a big monetary investment in AIFP. If you find it so burdensome, perhaps you should look for an alternative.
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
I have now had an opportunity to more fully analyse the "bugs" reported earlier.
  1. I have found and fixed the cause of the "cannot access a disposed object" message.
  2. The "narrow columns" issue only arises when you attempt to resize an "empty" dialog. It has been fixed.
  3. The "unable to continue" message is, as the message indicates, a consequence on an index out of range - which is often data dependent. You have indicated you are unable to reproduce it, nor can I. I have examined the code involved and can find no apparent cause. Until you can reproduce it at will and provide me with the means, I'm afraid its cause likely will remain a mystery. It is probably a consequence of multiple aborts of the initial analysis process - not a common occurrence.
  4. The "index out of bounds" message related to Asiana Airlines is likely due to the same issue as above. If you post that specific traffic file from your system, I will investigate further.
As I indicated in my previous response, the remainder of the "bugs" reported appear to be wish-list items expressing a personal preference.

I want to take issue with one other aspect of your posts. That is, your suggestion that I am not interested in being made aware of and fixing "bugs" as they are reported. Indeed, you made the first such remark before I was even awake this morning in responding to users who were attempting to be helpful by pointing out the version of AIFP you were using was not the latest. I think my record over the past 12 years demonstrates that not only am I amenable and responsive to fixing issues as they arise, I actually solicit such reports. I have to wonder why a "seasoned programmer" would take such a damning attitude in an initial report of difficulties, especially when those difficulties likely would not have arisen had he allow AIFP to finish what he had asked it to do.
 
Last edited:
I want to take issue with one other aspect of your posts. That is, your suggestion that I am not interested in being made aware of and fixing "bugs" as they are reported. Indeed, you made the first such remark before I was even awake this morning in responding to users who were attempting to be helpful by pointing out the version of AIFP you were using was not the latest. I think my record over the past 12 years demonstrates that not only am I amenable and responsive to fixing issues as they arise, I actually solicit such reports. I have to wonder why a "seasoned programmer" would take such a damning attitude in an initial report of difficulties, especially when those difficulties likely would not have arisen had he allow AIFP to finish what he had asked it to do.

That statement is well put.
May I say that myself and, I am sure, most if not all users of AIFP and your other routines will continue to be very grateful for all of the work you put in to allowing users to get more and more out of their flightsim experience. I use AIFP virtually every day and it helps me to get my aviation 'fun'. I also know that if I have any problems then I can post here in this forum and I will usually get a response from you in the next 24 hours. The routines will never be perfect but they get improved whenever any issue is raised and I have to say that the problems are usually sorted out amazingly quickly. Your dedication is much appreciated.
 
I have now had an opportunity to more fully analyse the "bugs" reported earlier.
  1. I have found and fixed the cause of the "cannot access a disposed object" message.
  2. The "narrow columns" issue only arises when you attempt to resize an "empty" dialog. It has been fixed.
  3. The "unable to continue" message is, as the message indicates, a consequence on an index out of range - which is often data dependent. You have indicated you are unable to reproduce it, nor can I. I have examined the code involved and can find no apparent cause. Until you can reproduce it at will and provide me with the means, I'm afraid its cause likely will remain a mystery. It is probably a consequence of multiple aborts of the initial analysis process - not a common occurrence.
  4. The "index out of bounds" message related to Asiana Airlines is likely due to the same issue as above. If you post that specific traffic file from your system, I will investigate further.
As I indicated in my previous response, the remainder of the "bugs" reported appear to be wish-list items expressing a personal preference.

I want to take issue with one other aspect of your posts. That is, your suggestion that I am not interested in being made aware of and fixing "bugs" as they are reported. Indeed, you made the first such remark before I was even awake this morning in responding to users who were attempting to be helpful by pointing out the version of AIFP you were using was not the latest. I think my record over the past 12 years demonstrates that not only am I amenable and responsive to fixing issues as they arise, I actually solicit such reports. I have to wonder why a "seasoned programmer" would take such a damning attitude in an initial report of difficulties, especially when those difficulties likely would not have arisen had he allow AIFP to finish what he had asked it to do.
Hi
Thank you for your detailed replies and for taking the time to look into these errors.

At the outset I am sorry if there was any indication that I was pointing an accusatory finger at you. It is just that after I had read your post entitled
"Please, Please, Please, When you Report an Issue"
I decided to try and document the errors I came across properly so that you could be informed and IN YOUR TIME make whatever rectifications you felt was needed.
So I took screen shots and tried to be as detailed as possible. I never expected you to reply to each item one by one. But at least an acknowledgement that you would look at them when convenient was all I expected in return.

But your reply was so offhand simply saying that there were many version changes when there was only one simply put me off.
(By the way the large letters above are simply a copy paste and nothing else)

I was also irked by this =rk= guy telling me that the .net dispose error was because I needed to update .net and the Index error was my computer not responding as it should which was utter rubbish.

I realise that I also included a sort of wish list but it is simply that - a wish. It is up to you if you want that wish to come true. I can only wish. So please don't take offense at a wish.

The only thing I was unable to repeat was the .net error about disposing of an object. The others happen every time.

The index error as in my first post - This is repeatable every time. What I believe is happening is that when I click "Abort" the index creation is stopped and the index is not complete but when a bgl file is selected, the list is being filtered on a corrupt or incomplete index hence the error. Maybe I am wrong but that error is repeatable..

The index out of bounds refers not specifically to Asiana Airlines but to any item in that list. That too is repeatable and I believe it is caused by the main window menu opening other windows that are NOT modal and then using incomplete data from these windows. The steps to repeat this too is clear in my 2nd post.

While I do not want that you address each item individually, a simple "I will look into these" if at all and do so at your convenience will be sufficient. I never ever expect you to drop everything and attend to me.

Just one more point:
"had he allow AIFP to finish what he had asked it to do "

I realise that I asked it to analyse my traffic files but it also presented me with an "Abort" button. So I did ask AIFP to do somethin - So when I clicked it, the index generation or whatever was "aborted" but the program did not recover and tried to use a non existent/incomplete/corrupt index hence the error. Also I was I was simply pointing that out in the steps which are repeatable so that you can be aware that such an error occurs.

Thank you for your time.
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
You're welcome (I think). But, I would note:
These errors are all over the place and in most cases very difficult to reproduce
are your words.

On the chance that your final statement above is not meant to be facetious, my goal is to make AIFP the best it can be. I take every problem report seriously. Unfortunately, because of different machine configurations and different data, I can't always replicate the issue on my system; I have to rely on the reporting user - or others - to provide additional information. Telling me you've already told me what I need to know isn't helpful, nor are your assessments of the general nature of the problem, such as
The reason the Index is out of range is a bug because it should not be out of range.
and
I believe it is caused by the main window menu opening other windows that are NOT modal and then using incomplete data from these windows
I know what the general nature of the problem is; I need help in locating it.

I believe I have fixed the "disposed object" issue. But the "index out of range" still eludes me. If you are prepared to help, please send me/post a traffic file (or a set of files) that will demonstrate the issue together with detailed steps to make it happen. If you'd rather use e-mail, send it/them to don at stuff4fs dot com. If you don't wish to help, then let's end this thread here.
 
You're welcome (I think). But, I would note: are your words.

On the chance that your final statement above is not meant to be facetious, my goal is to make AIFP the best it can be. I take every problem report seriously. Unfortunately, because of different machine configurations and different data, I can't always replicate the issue on my system; I have to rely on the reporting user - or others - to provide additional information. Telling me you've already told me what I need to know isn't helpful, nor are your assessments of the general nature of the problem, such as and I know what the general nature of the problem is; I need help in locating it.

I believe I have fixed the "disposed object" issue. But the "index out of range" still eludes me. If you are prepared to help, please send me/post a traffic file (or a set of files) that will demonstrate the issue together with detailed steps to make it happen. If you'd rather use e-mail, send it/them to don at stuff4fs dot com. If you don't wish to help, then let's end this thread here.
Sure I will help. That was my intention anyway. I will recreate the steps for the index out of range error and email it to you as a .doc file to avoid messing up this forum. That way you can take your time to fix it.
Thanks for putting a sticky link to the new updates and for fixing the disposed problem.
Cheers.
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
With Bernard's help, I have isolated the issue (FP validation not connected to the T&PA) and will re-release shortly.
 
Top