This may be a little long winded but over a year ago I launched my lspdfr modded directory which then updated gtav which of course ruined everything, so I started over and installed lspdfr and was working fine but when I tried to put in modded cars it would always trigger an "update required" prompt, if I didn't do the update the game wouldn't launch, but if I did the update it would just swap back to the original vanilla car, in the end I just gave up.
But now I have the bug again so I deleted the modded install and launched the clean gta install to trigger the update I knew would come, launched and base game ran fine (of course) ,made a copy of the updated gta, (so I could mod it without having to do complete re-install if I messed it up) installed lspdfr and downloaded the latest ragehook as standard procedure, launched that and in the first time start up menu for ragehook it says
"The current game version is not supported.
Installed game version: 1737
Latest game version: 1737
Supported game versions: 1868
The installed game version (1737) is not supported. This build of RAGE Plugin Hook is made for version 1868."
How can ragehook support a game version newer than latest? And if it can why not support the current version?
When I launch the "clean" gta install, social club says rockstar has released an updated launcher so I start that update, it downloads than says the rockstar update service is unavailable, so I have to choose either offline mode or retry, if I hit offline mode vanilla game works fine, if I hit retry it does the download again and reverts back to update service is unavailable again.
I don't know if it makes a difference but I run the disc version of gta not steam, I watch install tutorial videos when im installing lspdfr (yes ive done it a number of times since its release following gta updates and a hard drive failure and stuffing up at least once no doubt), i always watch the same ones cos they've always got me up and going.
I'm sorry if there's info that isn't needed, I'm always feel like I'm walking a fine line between "under explaining" or explaining poorly and "over explaining" like I'm patronizing, but neither is the intention.