But the fact is that the MS Flight folder contains an archive which can be opened by WInRAR and the folders are very similar to previous versions. The changes came to sound and aircraft models. Of course there are many other changes, but they not as big as it looks like.

Wow.....

Edited January 5, 201214 yr by benorg

FCOM if you know this, then you must be a Beta Tester? If so just posting this violates your NDA. If I was you I would remove that post and not talk about it or any other part of Flight again, until and if the NDA is lifted.

I am not posting any images or videos. I am not uploading, hacking or posting beta news here. Don't think this is such a problem.tell that to that guy on youtube, which already did 3rd part ))

Edited January 5, 201214 yr by FCOM

I am not posting any images or videos. I am not uploading, hacking or posting beta news here. Don't think this is such a problem.tell that to that guy on youtube, which already did 3rd part ))

I'd go back and read that NDA if I were you, you aren't even suppose to acknowledge your a Beta Tester!

FCOM if you know this, then you must be a Beta Tester? If so just posting this violates your NDA. If I was you I would remove that post and not talk about it or any other part of Flight again, until and if the NDA is lifted.

To be fair, he's not telling us anything that Microsoft hasn't told us already. The press release openly admits that Flight uses a legacy engine.

you aren't even suppose to acknowledge your a Beta Tester!

If I was, I sure wouldn't want to acknowledge it!

You must have missed my point above. The real company missing out is LM because you have hundreds of people using fsx for commercial gains when it is not licensed for that in the EULA. Microsoft are clearly not enforcing it well enough there by depriving LM of profits from the ESP platform licensed to LM from microsoft. I think it's a silly debate that doesn't matter but if you are serious about it then the reality is that microsoft are damaging LM more than the other way around.

That's irrelevant unless you take the view that freely entered into EULA's don't matter and can be ignored if they are inconvenient.

That's irrelevant unless you take the view that freely entered into EULA's don't matter and can be ignored if they are inconvenient.

Interesting how that seems to be the case here. Don't like the Prepar3D EULA, ignore it. Sign an NDA with Microsoft for beta testing, not worth a thing!

though that you are bashing one of the most respected FSX developers of all time

Bashing? Where pray tell do you see bashing in my comment?

That's irrelevant unless you take the view that freely entered into EULA's don't matter and can be ignored if they are inconvenient.

I wrote that based on the viewpoint you put forward and I was just pointing that out to you. You stated that p3d was for commercial use only as agreed with in the microsoft contract. That agreement is there so that ESP does not impact sales of microsofts consumer products. That is a point of fact that I agree with. The flip side is that microsoft took, i am sure, a lot of money from LM to license the ESP platform that is also protected from leaking revenues to FSX. I.e. fsx is not to be used for commercial purposes. So, if you say that LM should audit its customers so they not disadvantaging micorsoft then it is only fair that MS audit it's customers to weed out the hundreds that use FSX for commercial ventures. It does not seem irrelevant to your point at all? Microsoft have been letting their EULA slip for ages at the expense of customers who have rights to ESP.

Edited January 5, 201214 yr by JasonHarris

Although I wasn't impressed with how things were handled over the holidays, I appreciate the info you have provided here. I can honestly say that Orbx has single-handedly transformed my FSX into something I won't mind flying for years to come. The fact that you are continuing development for it really is encouraging, and I will absolutely continue to buy regional scenery. I'm particularly looking forward to the Southern Rockies and the U.K.Cheers,Todd

We're not interested in X-P. It has too many warts for us to justify the time and effort, and far too small a user base. We can make FSX/P3D look and perform better than X-P even with current engine limitations, soon to be solved.

WOW, I lost ALL respect for Orbx!A very PROFESSIONAL statement.I hope this statement bites you in the %^&, and soon!

Some businesses like to leave the fate of their ventures in their own hands, not the hands of others.

Bashing? Where pray tell do you see bashing in my comment?

I may of course misunderstood you as I'm not native english speaker (convinent evade everywhere :( ), but I considered this a bit harsh, if I understood it correctly:

I'm just a little flummoxed at how narrow your vision of flight simulation actually is. Did Austin ask you for money? hehehe

Tabs, I obviously dont know your financials like you do, but I would be suprised if the overall spend on FSX addons last year was not significnatly more than what MS made from fsx sales.Am I wrong?Admittedly we're an abnormal sample here on avsim, but we are keeping a lot of small devs in business.

Selling the base code to LM must have been good for the numbers, on top of all the copies sold. I don't think most devs come even close......Probably not even combined.

But the EULA itself, which is what matters, prohibits use for personal/consumer entertainment.

Blah, blah, blah. Gerry, I honestly cannot for the life of me fathom why you even care, much less argue a patently false position. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Lockheed-Martin's entire division of corporate lawyers are more familiar with their company's IP and contractural obligations than someone from across the pond.The plain and simple FACT is that John Nicol was asked specifically about this. He consulted with corporate legal. They said unequivocally "Yes, it may be done so." End of story.