Will flght achieve this?

[january 19]

Actually Microsoft doesn't continue to develop for Prepar3D. Lockheed's license did include source code and the right to create derivative works. Which if you read the Lockheed Martin Press Release states "Changes under way include military scenarios and features to create custom training solutions, such as a weapons capability."Regards, Mike Mann

Mike- Guess we'll just have to wait and see what evolves in the fullness of time! In the meantime,I'm an optimist on the basis that things (in this case FLIGHT) often turn out better than expected!Cheers Alex Reid

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Mike- Guess we'll just have to wait and see what evolves in the fullness of time! In the meantime,I'm an optimist on the basis that things (in this case FLIGHT) often turn out better than expected!Cheers Alex Reid

Alex, good to see your still alive. You had a bunch of people wondering if you were ok in this thread. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/313906-january/page__gopid__1874836Maybe you should pop in and say hi :-)

[mgh 89]

Until MS reveals some specs for Flight we are all whistling in the dark. While MS is certainly a "for profit" enterprise, many such companies also fund non profit projects and activities that will enhance their reputation and public image. Look no further than the auto industry funding of racing cars- a money loser directly but a terrific display of expertise- that sells a lot of cars.

There are only 3 car makers currently involved in Formula 1 - Ferrari , Mercedes, and Renault. The BMW-Sauber team is no longer associated with BMW but has to retain the name until the end of the season. The F1 Lotus team only has a licence from the parent company to use the name Lotus and they are in dispite abiut its firther use. Ford, Honda and Toyota have pulled out in recent years. F! generates enormous publicity - daily articles in the newspaper and full prome time TCV coverasge of both practice and the race. Apart from enthusiasts, no one knows about Flight Simulator.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that MS sees Flight in this way. That is to say that Flight might very well be be produced as a means to showcase MicroSoft technological expertise. Certainly that was the case in the Bill Gates era.

I suggest the "showcase" effect doen't exist. I doubt that Microsoft's other divisions noticed any change in sales following the announcement of the closure of ACES and the abandonment of FSNext. [

[mgh 89]

Mike- One has to assume that MS continues to develop new elements/improvements or versions for Prepar3D. It would seem logical that MS would likely retain rights to such innovations and would be able to provide them in some form, to their new NON COMMERCIAL offering: FLIGHT.I would be very surprised if MS would let themselves be restricted as to what innovations they can offer to the ENTERTAINMENT market place. Only if Lockheed Martin paid for such ongoing development would MS be restricted in the use of Prepare3D enhancements.A pure guess would be that the sale of Prepare3D to LM included a provision preventing MS from offering an enhanced Flight Simulator "entertainment" product for a specified period- perhaps five years. I can't visualize MS selling perpetual rights and hence being blocked forever from developing FS- although they may have agreed to not use the term "Flight Simulator" which has a commercial connotation. Hence the use of "FLIGHT".Alex Reid

I suggest that's the wrong way round. It's far more likely that under the agreement Microsoft can't develop commercial products and Lockheed Martin can't develop entertainment products.

[Chuck_B 2]

Alex: Good to hear from you, my multimonitored friend. You had us all just a tad concerned!! http://forum.avsim.n...313906-january/

[january 19]

I suggest that's the wrong way round. It's far more likely that under the agreement Microsoft can't develop commercial products and Lockheed Martin can't develop entertainment products.

Yes- but where does the boundary lie between the two? I've seen pics of some FS setups that are remarkably comparable to commercial simulator offerings. I think the boundary between commercial & entertainment is awfully fuzzy. It's likely the boundary is defined by intended or specified usage and not especially by the content.Alex Reid

[mmann 72]

Yes- but where does the boundary lie between the two? I've seen pics of some FS setups that are remarkably comparable to commercial simulator offerings. I think the boundary between commercial & entertainment is awfully fuzzy. It's likely the boundary is defined by intended or specified usage and not especially by the content.Alex Reid

Fortunately Microsoft and Lockheed Martin don't see a fuzzy boundary. Lockheed Martin reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion. Microsoft made a few dollars as well. I don't think companies this size enter into an agreement without an army of lawyers ensuring that the language defines the boundary very well, even if it is only understood by those capable of understanding legalese!Regards, Mike Mann

[january 19]

Fortunately Microsoft and Lockheed Martin don't see a fuzzy boundary. Lockheed Martin reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion. Microsoft made a few dollars as well. I don't think companies this size enter into an agreement without an army of lawyers ensuring that the language defines the boundary very well, even if it is only understood by those capable of understanding legalese!Regards, Mike Mann

What about real world charts sold to us simmers with the overprinted message- "For Simulation use ONLY- not for real world aviation use." These are produced by the biggest "companies" of all- our Governments, for commercial use only, then overprinted with a bit of text which makes them legal for entertainment.Dual use- same product. Lots of products from very large companies specify who or how their product can be used. I'm pretty sure the box my Century of Flight came in, says something like ("For Entertainment Use Only").But we are beating this to death- let's wait to see what Flight has to offer.Alex Reid

[dmaher 0]

Alex, I agree (with above) Flight adds value to Windows and Games For Windows Live. It’ll help promote GFWL as a portal for downloadable content...the same way FS promoted Windows for gaming. So it’s difficult to figure out how MS assesses the true value of FS.BTW personally - I don’t buy for a minute Bill Gates had some special attachment to Flight Sim ;) A good CEO makes everyone feel valued and special. And the only record I’ve found where he publicly mentioned FS was actually a statement expounding Windows. I really think this is a myth we’ve propagated - whenever we crunch the numbers.

One has to assume that MS continues to develop new elements/improvements or versions for Prepar3D.

I absolutely agree :) I think, the chief selling point of Prepar3D is the available FS content plus the active and enthusiastic FS workforce. Otherwise Lockheed Martin would have had an engine coded from scratch. And be another 'beltway' simulation solution with little content and expensive insider-contractors. As odd as it sounds, Prepar3D will stay in close step with the Microsoft 'flying-game' going forward. I suspect the code components LM will add and manage will be very specialized for training solutions...possibly not even of much use for the majority of home simulators. There isn’t a whole lot of evidence yet for this theory ;)Danny

[mgh 89]

What about real world charts sold to us simmers with the overprinted message- "For Simulation use ONLY- not for real world aviation use." These are produced by the biggest "companies" of all- our Governments, for commercial use only, then overprinted with a bit of text which makes them legal for entertainment.Dual use- same product. Lots of products from very large companies specify who or how their product can be used. I'm pretty sure the box my Century of Flight came in, says something like ("For Entertainment Use Only").But we are beating this to death- let's wait to see what Flight has to offer.Alex Reid

What is your point? If something's licenced for entertainment only then that's it surely - it can't be used commercially?

[january 19]

What is your point? If something's licenced for entertainment only then that's it surely - it can't be used commercially?

Depends on the fine print in the agreement!!It is very common for a product to be special branded and sold wholesale to a major customer for his retail distribution in that special brand, while the original manufacturer also retails the product in his own house brand or using a variety of brand names. The agreement may also specify where the brands may be marketed, the product name AND TO WHOM IT WILL BE SOLD.Ergo: I, the producer, will sell only to retail customers under my brand and you will sell the same product only to wholesale customers under your brand name. You are authorized to customize my product for your customers but I have the option to purchase and use such customization for my retail customers.So same product, different distributors and different branding.For an example consider tire manufacture and distribution where not only a variety of physical branding occurs but even warranty liability may be shifted from manufacturer to the retailer. Same tire, different brands, different groups of customers, different sellers, different warranties - BUT SAME TIRE.Alex Reid

[Tierborn 191]

Bill Gates still sits on the MS Board.http://www.microsoft...ss/bod/bod.aspxHe was also the sole reason Apple exists today. "He gave them a huge infusion of cash in 1998. Apple is only allowed to exist so MS can skirt monopoly laws."

in the PC windows vs. MAC OS market . Windows has a 91% market share and Apple only has a 5% market share .... by any other definition .. MS has a monopoly.  Would a single bank be allowed to own 91% of all of the banks?  So Apple might exist to create the "illusion" that MS doesn't have a monopoly  .. but it really does.

[Guest veeray]

Would a single bank be allowed to own 91% of all of the banks? So Apple might exist to create the "illusion" that MS doesn't have a monopoly .. but it really does.

Yeah but the original assumption was Microsoft would use it's OS monopoly in other markets. What has happened is Apple has been more sucessful in creating new markets. They didn't surpass MIcrosoft by selling MACs....

[mgh 89]

Depends on the fine print in the agreement!!It is very common for a product to be special branded and sold wholesale to a major customer for his retail distribution in that special brand, while the original manufacturer also retails the product in his own house brand or using a variety of brand names. The agreement may also specify where the brands may be marketed, the product name AND TO WHOM IT WILL BE SOLD.Ergo: I, the producer, will sell only to retail customers under my brand and you will sell the same product only to wholesale customers under your brand name. You are authorized to customize my product for your customers but I have the option to purchase and use such customization for my retail customers.So same product, different distributors and different branding.For an example consider tire manufacture and distribution where not only a variety of physical branding occurs but even warranty liability may be shifted from manufacturer to the retailer. Same tire, different brands, different groups of customers, different sellers, different warranties - BUT SAME TIRE.Alex Reid

Irrelevant ,because what you describe in covered by the agreement.If the "fine print" , ie EULA, says it may only be used for entertainment purposes then it can't be used commercvially.

[january 19]

Irrelevant ,because what you describe in covered by the agreement.If the "fine print" , ie EULA, says it may only be used for entertainment purposes then it can't be used commercvially.

The EULA on MY CD prevents ME from using that copy commercially but certainly does not prevent MS from selling USE of the same code to a commercial enterprise under whatever terms MS wishes to impose- one of which likely would be that such commercial user will neither use nor resell it for entertainment purposes.(or more simply- the entertainment market is mine and I will only sell for this purpose, but you can sell the same product to the industrial market if you change the product name.)Alex Reid