Will flght achieve this?

[mmann 72]

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

Exactly what Lockheed Martin has in done in renaming ESP to Prepar3D. In reciprocal Microsoft dropped the "simulator" part when renaming their product.Regards, Mike Mann

[mgh 89]

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

But that's what I said in the first place - licenced copies can only be used in accordance with the terms of the licence.

[january 19]

But that's what I said in the first place - licenced copies can only be used in accordance with the terms of the licence.

At last we all seem to be singing from the same songsheet!Cheers to all- Alex Reid

[dmaher 0]

In reciprocal Microsoft dropped the "simulator" part when renaming their product.

I think we shouldn't read too much into the name.Remember all that speculation about the name 'FSX'Folks were convinced in meant Xbox.Aces got a good laugh out of that, “come on guys X just means ten!”As a brand ‘Flight’ has a contemporary style.A name like ‘Microsoft Flight Simulator X’ belongs in the 90’s ;)And ideally all these brand names work together to give MS a consistent image.'Kinect' may have influenced the name ‘Flight’ - just as much as any other factor.

[january 19]

With the sale of FS to Lockheed Martin, MS has dropped the term "Simulator"- presumably because LM will be using FS as a component of their REAL simulators. That is- "simulator" in the sense of being approved by the FAA as a Flight Training Device (FTD).Since the Microsoft Flight Sim is NOT (currently at least) FAA approved as an FTD, dropping the term "simulator" is understandable in the "entertainment" product. The marketing folks would likely refer to this as "product differentiation".Somewhere I read awhile back, that FAA certification for an FTD mandates that all buttons, switches, knobs, dials and gauges must be displayed in a fixed location. That is to say that Virtual cockpit renditions are not acceptable. I don't know if this applies to views but I would assume that virtual scenery panning & zooming is also prohibited.Thus the LM PREPARE 3D will be somewhat different than FLIGHT.Or will it? Is it possible that Virtual display will be dropped in FLIGHT, in favour of who knows what?There are a number of approaches- hardware/software- now available for using multiple monitors to achieve fixed cockpit renditions as well as displaying a panoramic view approaching that seen in a real cockpit.We live in interesting times!Alex Reid

[dmaher 0]

With the sale of FS to Lockheed Martin, MS has dropped the term "Simulator"- presumably because LM will be using FS as a component of their REAL simulators. That is- "simulator" in the sense of being approved by the FAA as a Flight Training Device (FTD).Since the Microsoft Flight Sim is NOT (currently at least) FAA approved as an FTD, dropping the term "simulator" is understandable in the "entertainment" product. The marketing folks would likely refer to this as "product differentiation".

It’s all logical, but I haven’t read it anywhere…and I remain doubtful. :( Microsoft dropped the name simulation from Flight.Microsoft also never included the name simulation in ESP.Admittedly, that’s a shady point ;) They did plant a seed that it ought to mean simulation.But at release ESP wasn’t technically an acronym….MS suggested it could stand for Enterprise Simulation Platform – but it didn’t.Later when pushed, an ESP manger I spoke with said no…it’s just ESP...it means whatever you like ;)Prepar3D (pronounced Prepared) also doesn’t include the name simulation.

[mgh 89]

With the sale of FS to Lockheed Martin, MS has dropped the term "Simulator"- presumably because LM will be using FS as a component of their REAL simulators. That is- "simulator" in the sense of being approved by the FAA as a Flight Training Device (FTD).Since the Microsoft Flight Sim is NOT (currently at least) FAA approved as an FTD, dropping the term "simulator" is understandable in the "entertainment" product. The marketing folks would likely refer to this as "product differentiation".Somewhere I read awhile back, that FAA certification for an FTD mandates that all buttons, switches, knobs, dials and gauges must be displayed in a fixed location. That is to say that Virtual cockpit renditions are not acceptable. I don't know if this applies to views but I would assume that virtual scenery panning & zooming is also prohibited.Thus the LM PREPARE 3D will be somewhat different than FLIGHT.Or will it? Is it possible that Virtual display will be dropped in FLIGHT, in favour of who knows what?There are a number of approaches- hardware/software- now available for using multiple monitors to achieve fixed cockpit renditions as well as displaying a panoramic view approaching that seen in a real cockpit.We live in interesting times!Alex Reid

FAA's requirement for PC based Aviation Training devices (PCATD) are set out in http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/ac61-126.pdf.A PCATD can be used for procedural training with an authorized instructor presenting the instruction if the hours are to be counted. It must comply with the requirements of Appendix 1 and be approved by the FAA.Appendix 1 requires some physical controls so that Flight Simulator by itself isn't an acceptable system. The system must have physical stick, rudder, and throttles together with other items appropriate to the type of aircraft. The Appendix sets out the instruments required and their accuracy/precision. Someone would have to assemble a complete PCATD system and submit it to the FAA for approval. Individual users can't do this because the EULA doesn't permit it and they are no in a position the confirm the accuracy/precision of the instruments. Only Microsoft could do this and it's chosen not to do so. It's possible Lockheed Martin could do this, or authorise others, but as always it will depend on commercial reality.

[n4gix 4,955]

Someone would have to assemble a complete PCATD system and submit it to the FAA for approval.

Gerry is quite correct. As a case in point, look at the Redbird* simulator series, who were among the early adopters of ESP. They are capable of supporting a variety of specific aircraft, but in each instance they must be individually approved by an FAA examination.I had the opportunity to "fly" in their Redbird™ FMX simulator at Air Venture 2010 and it is amazingly life-like. I was so awed by the view out the windscreen that I hardly even looked at the panel except for a quick T-scan... :( * http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/

[january 19]

Gerry is quite correct. As a case in point, look at the Redbird* simulator series, who were among the early adopters of ESP. They are capable of supporting a variety of specific aircraft, but in each instance they must be individually approved by an FAA examination.I had the opportunity to "fly" in their Redbird™ FMX simulator at Air Venture 2010 and it is amazingly life-like. I was so awed by the view out the windscreen that I hardly even looked at the panel except for a quick T-scan... :( * http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/

Fr Bill- the Redbirds are remarkable products- they confirm my thoughts on multi monitors for a realistic view. To quote their website: "If you want to train complex manoeuvers such as turns---------- or even basic pattern work, one forward looking screen is not enough."The Redbird FMX employs six view monitors- my experience with just three synched monitor views is that my flying skills improved very significantly. Enough that I would never consider simming without a wide field of view that emulates what we see in real life. Panning & zooming just doesn't cut it.Alex Reid

[Guest veeray]

http://www.scalabledisplay.com/products/software/easyblend/fxmight make the redbird that much better....

[january 19]

http://www.scalabledisplay.com/products/software/easyblend/fxmight make the redbird that much better....

Yes-Yes! Wish I had been aware of that software a year or two ago! At that time, I worked out a design to build an inexpensive spherical screen on which to project triple FlightSim views. The plan was for a screen that would fit into an ordinary room and using projectors that had a very short focal distance. The idea was to achieve not only visual wrap around laterally but also vertically- the way humans see the real world with clouds and airplanes above us!I gave up the idea on the assumption that the three images could only be synched/integrated if they were projected in a single vertical plane rather than as a spheroid. (And of course the cost of triple projectors was not insignificant!)Scalable Display appears to have the solution!Maybe in my next life!Alex Reid

[dmaher 0]

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 ;)

Lol, looks like MS and Lockheed Martin don't agree with my reasoning, go figure :( Regarding the question of MS supporting Prepar3D going forward...I understand now that it “was a one time, one way transaction” from posts on FSDeveloper.So turns out this theory doesn't hold any water :(