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.

Exactly..... And that is why after V2 comes out, I will be slowly moving over, permenetly.

I really don't understand this sudden interest in corporate contracts? There was no interest whatsoever from Xplaners towards P3D before todate and now? Hmm...makes me think.And I didn't get an answer to my question how much I have to spend to XPX to get at least believable NA with good urban areas and have some A2A level Warbirds. And MyTraffic-level AI would be great too.

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

Well said.

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.

:(

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.

Bill the FACTS are:the EULA allows use "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment.""the development licenses are for internal development use only. Deployed systems will require a full commercial license""13.3 Entire Agreement. This EULA, constitutes the entire agreement of Licensor and Licensee with respect to the subject matter of this EULA, superseding in all respects any and all prior proposals, negotiations, understandings, writings, communications and agreements, whether oral or written, between Licensor and Licensee."What may have been said elsewhere is meaningless - the EULA prevails.

Bill the FACTS are:the EULA allows use "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment.""the development licenses are for internal development use only. Deployed systems will require a full commercial license""13.3 Entire Agreement. This EULA, constitutes the entire agreement of Licensor and Licensee with respect to the subject matter of this EULA, superseding in all respects any and all prior proposals, negotiations, understandings, writings, communications and agreements, whether oral or written, between Licensor and Licensee."What may have been said elsewhere is meaningless - the EULA prevails.

So, what you are saying is that LM has a good case against microsoft for not protecting their income stream from microsofts end users who breach microsofts eula.

This is a waste of time.See you on the other side, where all the 'naughty' people go to use the P3D licence that was obtained from the LM website, with a valid credit card and with the blessing of John Nicol and the entire LM legal time.....wow, I feel like a criminal.I dont even know why people care? If LM have happily taken your money and they see no problem with it, why should anyone else?

Edited January 6, 201214 yr by Glenn Harrall

This is a waste of time.See you on the other side, where all the 'naughty' people go to use the P3D licence that was obtained from the LM website, with a valid credit card and with the blessing of John Nicol and the entire LM legal time.....wow, I feel like a criminal.

This.Our EULA:s are responsible to Lockheed Martin, who sets them for P3D, not Microsoft. I don't worry about that a bit.I may even apply for a payroll for LM if they handle this good B)Not in flight, but something I truly know, that is C something...

Again, you know this is false because you've been corrected on this point in the past. What is it with you? Did Austin Meyer kick your dog or something?X-Plane can easily model systems at least as complex as anything you'll see in FSX. Check out www.ixeg.net some time, unless you want to tell me that a 737 doesn't have complex systems. :(

A direct quote from www.ixeg.net's blog: "X-Plane system simulation is relatively simple and very limited. To simulate systems on something like the a 737, you have to bypass most of x-plane's default systems and develop your own."

bypass most of x-plane's default systems and develop your own.

Ed,Isn't that exactly what PMDG does?

Ed,Isn't that exactly what PMDG does?

While I don't work for PMDG... I can probably safely state that probably not... entire systems from one end of the aircraft to the other don't have to be built from the ground up in FS. A great deal of the base system behavior is built into FS... it's just the technical details that need fluffing up a tad. In X-Plane... there's pretty much nothing.

While I don't work for PMDG... I can probably safely state that probably not... entire systems from one end of the aircraft to the other don't have to be built from the ground up in FS. A great deal of the base system behavior is built into FS... it's just the technical details that need fluffing up a tad. In X-Plane... there's pretty much nothing.

Fluffing up a tad? That shows a total lack of respect for the PMDG team who put this bird together. Everyone knows they painstakingly hand coded everything in the 737. It took them 3 years to get it done.

Guys, stop arguing about FSX vs XPX. We all know what is what.X-Plane is fine with their graphics engine and optimization. The done well with default scenery. I really like that the clouds are 3D now, even new Flight lacks that.But even in Xp9 which is very old, I didn't see any good quality aircraft close to PMDG or even Feelthere (not wilco).There is no point of buying XPX for serious simmers (which are at least a half of us here are) because, there is no aircraft to fly. No FMC, no sort of active sky where you can plan your fuel like in real world depending on temperature and winds at cruise levels) and many other stuff. I don't see any point in arguing here...it's very silly

. Have you not seen aircraft such as the CRJ that are already out? Not everyone likes to fly airliners and delve into their complex systems, but i do. Xplane is lacking in that department AT THE MOMENT. But xplane does have some extremely good lighter aircraft, like the MU2, carenado acf, and other acf at x-aviation and the org. However....X-plane will get those complex systems, there is currently A 757, 767, two 777s, a 733, an ATR, two A320/321s, Saab 340, and i think a 744 and a 742. Most of these will be of extremely high quality and have complex systems, esp the ixeg 737. Just wait and the planes will come....

What may have been said elsewhere is meaningless - the EULA prevails.

Gerry, Lockheed-Martin's legal department gave the approval. They wrote the bloody EULA. Are you trying to out-lawyer them?You are now arguing simply for the sake of arguing. It's no skin off your nose, so once again......why do YOU care?

Fluffing up a tad? That shows a total lack of respect for the PMDG team who put this bird together. Everyone knows they painstakingly hand coded everything in the 737. It took them 3 years to get it done.

yes i believe they had to.

I think I understand now why I should support 3rd party companies in flight sim. I always thought the cost was high for addon's and was happy with the core game. It's companies like these that make flight sim tick. I'm sure MS will come up with some stuff and people will buy it but without 3rd party designers pushing the limits of the "code" it would be like EA games taking over Madden. They shut out all competition in the football gaming arena by getting an exclusive licensing contract with the NFL so no other companies can use the NFL liknesses in their games. For that reason Madden keeps getting released with the exact same graphics and stupid bugs. The NFL experience on consoles has stalled.... Pun intended. SO my long point is without 3rd party contributions the core game surly dies.... Crashes and burns more specifically.