It does make me wonder why LM has been inviting everyone into the pool except PMDG?

I think the answer is simple:How can you sell these activities to some of your more critical customers. The work of companies like ORBX can't harm anyone. In fact if some of their customers feel the need of a more beutifull landscape why shouldn't they make an additional deal with ORBX on the sidelines. It only enhances their product.These hardcore plane enthusiasts can be very well used as Beta testers.PMDG on the other hand is a more critical question. They make in depth simulations of machines, that some of their other partners build.While they simulate commercial airliners, some components of these airliners are in fact dual use. Now imagine: North Korea or Iran can easily get their hands on these Programs and if they might find a basic flaw or misconception in one of these systems with the help of such a simulation, there would be trouble.That's a bit different to simulators like the A10. They can simply send qualified personal to the developers to help in the simulation, and if they don't feel comfortable (they haven't read the russian translation yet...) with a function they can simply say that they don't like it and ask for certain modifications.But how should you cope with something like PMDG. These planes are civilian, so they should be safe, but... who is qualified enough to grant permission?

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Longranger

I think the answer is simple:How can you sell these activities to some of your more critical customers. The work of companies like ORBX can't harm anyone. In fact if some of their customers feel the need of a more beutifull landscape why shouldn't they make an additional deal with ORBX on the sidelines. It only enhances their product.These hardcore plane enthusiasts can be very well used as Beta testers.PMDG on the other hand is a more critical question. They make in depth simulations of machines, that some of their other partners build.While they simulate commercial airliners, some components of these airliners are in fact dual use. Now imagine: North Korea or Iran can easily get their hands on these Programs and if they might find a basic flaw or misconception in one of these systems with the help of such a simulation, there would be trouble.That's a bit different to simulators like the A10. They can simply send qualified personal to the developers to help in the simulation, and if they don't feel comfortable (they haven't read the russian translation yet...) with a function they can simply say that they don't like it and ask for certain modifications.But how should you cope with something like PMDG. These planes are civilian, so they should be safe, but... who is qualified enough to grant permission?

You seriously lost me here? You realise we are talking about a game that anyone can buy today, in iran and north korea I suspect - at least get their hands on it. What sort of terrorist activity do you think they will do with pmdx on fsx or p3d. Maybe I read your post wrong but the tinfoil hats are all on tonight. Maybe you are taking the ######? You know that these simulations are going by the manuals, the manuals dont contain the bugs so they are not emulated, right?

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by JasonHarris

You seriously lost me here? You realise we are talking about a game that anyone can buy today, in iran and north korea I suspect - at least get their hands on it. What sort of terrorist activity do you think they will do with pmdx on fsx or p3d.

SUre, it is an unlikely scenario, but the problem is, that there is a slight chance, that something might happen. It would not even be necessary that there would be any real foundation behind it, but even rumours in the media would be uncomfortable!People are the problem: Microsoft makes games,l so it can't be bad, but Lockheed Martin does work in the defence industry and their military simulations are used to do what?The trouble is that even such rumours could be enough that their product becomes restricted, simply to get rid of the journalists. It isn't worth the trouble.Don't forget: The normal public has no idea how small the distance between a simulation game and a military simulation can be. It is simply much to expensive and takes too long to develop pure military simulators. Till you have debugged your product the hardware industry is three generations ahead and games are better than your war games.

OK, this is silly, really. You could come up with reasons like that to not do anything, what a world it would be.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by JasonHarris

While I do agree to some of the Longranger's comments, I find them overly silly.If you started looking at things like that in general, you could as well live in the box and feed off the infusion.So many things we do today, including play games, could be interpreted as "training to become a terrorist". Should we start with games like BF3, Crysis, all shooter games? Then lets continue over strategy games, which teach you how to strategically destroy your enemy... how many of those did you in your life play?Come on, this is friggin simulator. It simulates an airplane. And above that, that is a non-weapon simulation.LM bought this to make a training tool for pilots, in a good way, basically something that usually costs thousands to book and this way LM is bringing it into our homes. Cheap. Let's be thankful for that.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Kosta

While I do agree to some of the Longranger's comments, I find them overly silly.If you started looking at things like that in general, you could as well live in the box and feed off the infusion.

Sure. It is silly but I think point is clear: In the same moment, when a LM representative must answer the press about this "use" of their system, they would break the connections. Don't forget, the whole project is at the borderline of their licence. They do not see a general problem in it, but they are not in the business to produce the next version of the flight simulator. Some of their customers don't like too much publicity so any major reports could be considered harmful for their real business! They won't worry about smaller planes, if necessary they could write a press release and sell it as a project for aviation safety. But if any of the officials get a bad feeling they can revoke their decision.Don't ask what you were not offered. Take it or leave it.

This coming from Robert Randazzo of PMDG gave me the chills, so no more P3D for me when my free trial runs out at the end of this month:...The folks at Lockheed Martin have been the polar opposite (of Laminar Research - my edit). Our Commercial Division has been reaching out to them for a year without any reply back. (Well- actually we gave up on them in September...so make that nine months) Perhaps I'm just getting cranky in my old age- but if we are going to sell a bunch of commercial licenses for them I'm really not inclined to start shelling out money to buy their over-priced, dressed up FSX for every member of the development team without knowing for certain where they plan on taking the platform...

Orbx, FSDT, FSUIPC, Aerosoft, REX...I could go on.....have all had no problems with P3D deals / installers.

Yes, I am surprised PMDG seems to have these kind of problems with LM... It's odd, really.

I think there is way more behind the curtains than we know and what they can tell us.

I think there is way more behind the curtains than we know and what they can tell us.

I am sure about that but the weird thing is that you'd suspect ALL devs would react the same. With Flight every dev is disappointed. But with P3D everyone seems to be happy, only PMDG isn't.

A few reasons I can think of :- ego- lawyers- the fear that their software could be used as a commercial application without them knowing it or unable to get paid for it.

But with P3D everyone seems to be happy, only PMDG isn't.

Bingo.

- the fear that their software could be used as a commercial application without them knowing it or unable to get paid for it.

I think that's one of the top reasons, their simulation software being as detailed and in-depth as it is.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Kosta

- the fear that their software could be used as a commercial application without them knowing it or unable to get paid for it.

Could be a reason indeed, however the fact that it can be used as a commercial application is EXACTLY the reason why other devs are so happy with P3D! Who wouldn't be happy if he could sell an addon that's worth 35 'consumer dollars' for 2500 bucks, just because it is going to be used commercialy? Talking about easy money! (They aren't happy for us, the simmers: they are happy for the involved easy extra $ and the possibility to get even more out of their FSX software which didn't have a overly bright future until P3D arrived). Another reason could be that Boeing doesn't want LM to know about their planes too much... but this is beginning to sound like some conspiracy theory... :( Boeing and LM do work together quite well in real life afaik, so... Anyway, not getting paid for it can't be a reason because then other devs would be scared too.

Well, I hope they'll find a way because otherwise, it would be a terrible waste.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Jean-Paul Mes