CL 3.1.5525 has not fixed any of the issues I reported

I have just installed CL 3.1 and even I am surprised that nothing at all has changed :eek:. The main issues are still:

1) It does not use the Global\Access_CorsairLink mutex to interlock CL hardware access

2) there is not updated firmware at all

3) the H110iGT firmware is older then what it was shipped with

4) only one of my three CL Minis is reported

5) only one of my two RM PSUs is reported

6) only four of my six motherboard fans are reported

7) none of my 7 disks are reported

8) the GPU reporting is still screwed up

9) there are no release notes that I can find and the installation did not offer me an option to view them

:beatchairThere is a major locking issue. Looking with process explorer CL does not have the Access_ISABUS.HTP.Method mutex open. So much for the better testing! Do not run CL 3.1 and any other program that reports the motherboard sensors such as AIDA64, HWiNFO,SpeedFan, OWM, SIV, etc. as the access is not interlocked.

So much for the new and improved testing. Only reporting one CL Mini is outrageous :mad:

To be fair they did say it would be a couple weeks on firmware, which would address #2 and 3

Maybe 2 but not 3 there is no reason CL should not have the firmware my H110iGT came with. They only mentioned H100i/H80i firmware. My main concern is the CL Mini.

Wish I could say I'm surprised.

More of the same from Corsair. It appears they are more clueless than even I thought!!!

If you guys had any idea how complex the development actually is.

In a word Yes, I do and it's not that hard! How come SIV can report things when CL fails to? Corsair need to get some competent developers!

This was the standard excuse given by Corsair, but I feel it's no longer credible given SIV can report and control CL hardware and I don't even have the datasheets! With them I could do even more. For openers I would write a firmware updater which worked rather than bricking devices half the time.

If you guys had any idea how complex the development actually is.

 

These threads aren't easy for us to read, there are people on our side caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to CL development.

 

At the same time, though, you have no reason to care at all what our logistical and practical development worries are. You shouldn't care; it's not your business, not your concern, you're the end user and you deserve a product that works.

 

You're right to be disappointed. We're paying attention to the forums, taking as much feedback as we can get in. I know it seems like we're all probably sitting in a meeting room smoking cigars lit with your money, but the truth is much more mundane.

The above rings so hollow. Yes the truth is much more mundane. You've taken our money, failed to deliver what is promised, and want all of us to wait some more so you can continue to sell more hardware which requires your software that doesn't work, to more unsuspecting customers.

Yet you want us to see this from your perspective.

Red-Ray has had to reverse engineer what CL does, and has gotten SIV reporting CL attached devices in a fraction of the time the CL team has had to correct things. SIV does not implement a pretty UI, but that leaves Corsair little room for excuse, as the posters here are primarily complaining about how the reporting in CL doesn't work, rather than issues with the UI.

If Corsair were serious, they'd reach out to the person who seems to have gotten the Link hardware to work well with software, and get their help in fixing the issues. Wow, what an amazing idea, talk with someone who has gotten the hardware to work correctly. But, Corsair resists implementing a mutex so that their software coexists with other well known packages used by many enthusiasts. Corsair has even gone as far to say, they will never give Red-Ray a preview so he can test things out for them, and help them.

Sorry, but the excuses continue to flow, and we see the person who was supposed to be "responsible for this at Corsair", Cool Guy, remain remarkably absent from the forum.

If Corsair is serious about Corsair Link, how about documenting what users must do to install the software? Right now the directions lack anything about when registry edits must be performed, and lack info shipped with the software on when BIOS setting changes are required. Corsair isn't even effectively documenting what they do know. You're making it very difficult for your customers to have success with your software.

The "Change Log" is a joke! It does not document all known issues. It just does more of what Corsair has done all along, gloss over the stuff that doesn't work, and hope customers won't notice.

Early on, I felt a little sorry for Corsair. But Corsair continues to sell product and offers Corsair Link as a feature, when they know internally that it is more like a Virus upon their product, and certainly upon their customers. Continuing to sell products for over two years, when you know you have issues with the software to use it, is at best deceptive, and most likely fraud.

I'm tired of the F'n excuses. None of them are valid!

I would think if a user had issues with a product they would come to the support board to try to resolve such issues.

With that being said Id like to have some idea of the gross number of the LC's that are in the users hand as this would give a good idea if this is a major issue or simply a few isolated instances.

Of course each user has the right to a workable product but this would give users an idea if the problem could be on their particular build or if it solely Corsair related.

I recently had a issue with one of my gpu's where performance dropped completely and the hdmi wouldn't recognize my tv either but the same gpu in another build did and both had the same software/drivers.,sometimes issues lie elsewhere as it did in my situation...

red-ray

You must understand from a legal standpoint corsair cannot provide you with their code, or a preview. This is not an open source product and anyone can place something malicious in there and release it.

1) It does not use the 7) none of my 7 disks are reported

I do not know what configuration your disks are in, but Corsair Link does not support RAID arrays. Single HDD's giving SMART data are reported.

I would like to state that this have NEVER worked for me since Windows 7x64 and now im on Windows 8.1 x64. For instance I have 4 HDDs in my system as separate drives no RAID and Corsair Link only detects one of each.

As you can see in my system specs I have 2 Intel 520 Series Cherryville SSDSC2CW120A310 and 2 TOSHIBA DT01ACA300 3TB but Corsair Link only shows 1 Intel drive and 1 Toshiba drive :confused:

So by my understanding it will only detect separate drives if they are different models....:sigh!:

Actually now that I double checked, it does not even show any of Intel SSDs, one of which is my boot drive........so what gives?

This option was never advertised and not stated anywhere on a change log. If or when this happens we will make it a part of the change log.

I requested this (as have others) and it is not there so the point is valid. Both HWiNFO and SIV support this so CL should. When I added CL reporting to SIV the first thing I did was to define a mutex to interlock access. Initially HWiNFO did not use a mutex but Martin added this and it was there and working within 24 hours. Given this I feel Corsair should have done the same.

2) there is not updated firmware at all

Stated this in the development thread. Made it pretty clear.

Only H100i/H80i. I can find no mention of CL Mini and it's a CL Mini issue I reported.

3) the H110iGT firmware is older then what it was shipped with

It comes with the firmware we want it to. Its our product. Newer firmware files are for UPDATES, which the H110i GT does not need at this time.

Should I downgrade the firmware on my H110iGT then?

4) only one of my three CL Minis is reported

Only one device will show up in the devices tab. You will have three separate icon items for each port of the hardware displayed (Temp 1, Temp 1, Temp 1).

On the screen shot there is only one Temp 1 from one CL mini and the H80 and H100i that are connected via one of the missing CL minis are not reported at all. It does not work! Please post a screen shot showing what I would see when it does work.

5) only one of my two RM PSUs is reported

Does not support multiple RM PSU's. We have never stated otherwise. In fact we have stated in the past only one PSU was supported.

Yet again, please tell me the URL that specifies what CL supports. On the screen shot CL reports both my AX1500i and RM PSU, so it seems that it does sometimes report 2 PSUs.

6) only four of my six motherboard fans are reported

We only report the data we get back from CPUID. Some hardware configs may not be perfect.

You are telling me why there is an issue when I just want it fixed! The ASRock utility reports all 6 as does SIV, so this must be possible. Have Corsair reported this issue with the CPUID SDK to the SDK provider? I suspect not otherwise I expect I would have been asked how SIV manages to report all 6 and how the locking regime to achieve this when multiple utilities are doing this works.

7) none of my 7 disks are reported

I do not know what configuration your disks are in, but Corsair Link does not support RAID arrays. Single HDD's giving SMART data are reported.

Given AIDA64, HWiNFO, SIV, etc. report all my disks CL should.

8) the GPU reporting is still screwed up

Have a version in test that has SLI/Crossfire working. Stated as a known issue.

What about multiple GPUs that are not running in SLI mode, have you tested that? I know you have fixed it as the CPUID SDK author told me. At the time I posted I did not.

9) there are no release notes that I can find and the installation did not offer me an option to view them

Posted with software download link.

At the time I posted this was not available. Most installations have an option to view the release notes.

You have totally failed to comment on the Access_ISABUS.HTP.Method locking issue.

I also initially forgot to mention when I installed the new CL release I needed to re-create my profile. Yes, I know the release notes or whatever say this is needed, but I know this is an unnecessary requirement. I know this as SIV does not need this and once you setup your profile it's there for all future versions. Please can you explain why CL needs the profile to be re-created every time I install a new version? My guess is poor initial design!

red-ray

 

You must understand from a legal standpoint corsair cannot provide you with their code, or a preview. This is not an open source product and anyone can place something malicious in there and release it.

 

I would like to state that this have NEVER worked for me since Windows 7x64 and now im on Windows 8.1 x64. For instance I have 4 HDDs in my system as separate drives no RAID and Corsair Link only detects one of each.

 

As you can see in my system specs I have 2 Intel 520 Series Cherryville SSDSC2CW120A310 and 2 TOSHIBA DT01ACA300 3TB but Corsair Link only shows 1 Intel drive and 1 Toshiba drive :confused:

 

So by my understanding it will only detect separate drives if they are different models....:sigh!:

 

Actually now that I double checked, it does not even show any of Intel SSDs, one of which is my boot drive........so what gives?

It's the datasheets I would like and I have offered to setup an NDA. Reading code that does not work too well to deduce how hardware works is not a good regime for developing reliable software. As regards testing a pre-release/pre-beta software version there are no legal obstacles to doing this as I am currently doing so for another company having setup an NDA with them.

Some SSDs and old HDDs do not report a temperature at all and some drivers do not support SMART commands. There is little Corsair can do about this. Do any utilities report this information for your drives? What is in the SMART data from your SSDs? Were you to post a screen shot of the SIV [sMART] panel and I could tell more.

Below you can see my OCZ Vector drives do not have a temperature as they do not report one so SIV reports 98% which is the Lifetime Remaining. There is a dynamic tool tip that states this and more.

1) But we cannot give you any of the information you want. It does not matter if you volunteer to sign an NDA.

 

2) But are we obligated to help an outsider develop for our products?

 

3) Are we obligated to provide them confidential information or IP

 

4) change our software to make it easier for them to work with on a developmental level? NO.

1) I will accept will not but not cannot.

2) I would not expect this.

3) No. Though many companies do.

4) I can only assume this refers to Global\Access_CorsairLink. Without this only one program can access CL hardware. As CL fails to implement a lock I have already had to program around this.

It's the datasheets I would like and I have offered to setup an NDA. Reading code that does not work too well to deduce how hardware works is not a good regime for developing reliable software. As regards testing a pre-release/pre-beta software version there are no legal obstacles to doing this as I am currently doing so for another company having setup an NDA with them.

 

Some SSDs and old HDDs do not report a temperature at all and some drivers do not support SMART commands. There is little Corsair can do about this. Do any utilities report this information for your drives? What is in the SMART data from your SSDs? Were you to post a screen shot of the SIV [sMART] panel and I could tell more.

 

Below you can see my OCZ Vector drives do not have a temperature as they do not report one so SIV reports 98% which is the Lifetime Remaining. There is a dynamic tool tip that states this and more.

Currently I have no plans to install SIV.

I know my SMART works, HardDisk Sentinel sees my drives and their smart data.

Red-ray,

Now we understand the problem. They don't understand the difference between "can not" and "will not", so how is it possible they could ever code software that works well? If they lack the inability to understand this logic, good luck writing code that works!

I know the difference between "can not" and "will not."

 

"Can not" means "there is third party IP involved that we legally cannot share with non-Corsair individuals."

I understand IP quite well. The second Cosair were to hire him as a consultant, he becomes an agent of your company, and disclosing the IP to him at that point is not an issue. For the contract to become valid requires payment, but that can be for as little as one US dollar. I wouldn't save your bacon for that little, but that is between Red-Ray and Corsair.

My paragraph above is the difference between those who want to find solutions, and those who want to make excuses!

I'm tired of Corsair's excuses, they ring hollow. Professional companies find ways to get the job done. Corsair has failed in this regard for several years now. From what I'm seeing here, I'm not buying in yet, that Corsair has turned a new leaf, and is now doing things the right way. Corsair's actions do not fit their words, and I'm making my decisions based upon actions!

Hi Guys, just to condivide my experience.

I've start with my first H50 (and corsair memory), a second H100, a Corsair LInk Commander Cooling and Lightning Kit.

I've decided to not bought another Corsair hardware for the problems had with Corsair Link, until July 2014 (started from 2012).

Only thanks to SIV and Red-Ray I've bought this Christmas-time another HX1000i and TWO Mini. ALL CONNECTED AND FULLY WORKING WITH SIV.

To your considerations... WITHOUT PROBLEMS!!!

Now, I'm waiting with a lot of patience when Corsair will be ready to do a "SOFTWARE" without bugs and problems (and I'm estimating two/four years or more with these steps of beta releases).

It would seem that while Corsair acknowledges there are problems with Link in both the firmware and software, they can't seem to fix any of it. I can't even have the Link software open, otherwise my Link LEDs "flash" every 30 seconds or so. I was told on this forum that this would be fixed via a firmware update for Commander Mini at some point in the unknown future.

Corsair is very deep in the closed-source/IP software red tape mindset. I mean, I get it, it's their product so they can do whatever they want. It just seems a bit counterintuitive to not offer some sort of "Link Developer Program" that would make it possible for third-parties to officially integrate with the Link API. It's telling that someone like red-ray comes along, reverse engineers Link and builds Link control into SIV, which actually controls Link devices better than the official Corsair software.

I'm a software engineer myself and this whole Link situation doesn't make much sense. It seems like there is just too much red tape on Corsair's end that is preventing proper software development from actually happening on this thing. If Corsair is like any other large corporation, they probably have the least amount of software engineers possible (we're expensive) on the Link project while at the same time higher ups expect and are demanding a perfect product since they are selling (and charging more) for products that integrate Link.

At the end of the day, I'm done with Link. It's a good idea with piss poor execution. I bought a Commander Mini to control the fans in my liquid cooled setup and it can't even do that properly. I'm going for an Aqueros Aquacomputer instead which is pretty highly rated. I understand now why the Commander Mini is only sold on Corsair.com... third-party vendors would be riddled with returns and negative reviews.

If you only knew how much red tape we're actually trying to cut through just to develop the damn thing.

Dustin,Im curious

Does Corsair do all the software coding from the ground up or do you have others that give you the software coding so Link can be developed?