Further PMDG seems to be threatening to re-write their EULA to make beheading, mandatory seizure of property, or worse if the poor bloody consumer who had paid full tote odds dares to transfer their property in the privacy of their own home.

:(

Curious when Microsoft is going to lock out all the talk about Prepar3D usage on their Flight forum?

But. in the end, let me just say this:It's our own fault. It's our own big mouth and yadda EULA this, yadda PMDG that, which brought them together in the first place and pushed them to make the lock. If everyone would have just shut it, we probably could have used it for quite a long time.Of course, could have happened nonetheless, but still, talking about it and asking PMDG to make decisive decision did not help.

No Word Not Allowed, I believe you're looking in the wrong places to find fault.Robert had stated in an earlier post with much *passion* that Prepar3D was no longer a factor because he had tried multiple times to get in contact with the folks involved with the platform, and they had not made a single reply or attempt to contact PMDG. Many eyebrows, including mine, went up when reading this statement. We knew of the Prepar3D forums and even the people involved, and that they in fact were *very* reachable. All you did was call Robert out on it, and I say "good for you". From the tone of the initial post of Robert regarding PMDG and Prepar3D, it is possible for reasons unbeknownst to us that there may exist other conflicts that they have chosen to take such a hard stance toward Prepar3D other than the ones provided to us. For all we may know, Prepar3D may have been discussed and ruled out long before this new information came out.I too respect PMDG's decision to not use their products in Prepar3D if they do not wish to do so. I have many other aircraft that need my time that I barely have touched yet. The upcoming PMDG DC-6 looks very good, but I will not spend a dime on it as it will be restricted to use in FSX, a platform that has a lower reliability rate than planes built in the early 1920's. I can not do anything about the aircraft I have already purchased over the years, but I certainly can over the ones I purchase tomorrow. I pointed this out to Robert a few weeks ago which he joked about me jumping off cliffs without a parachute, only now all I had stated then, is now true. It appears I was better prepared than he surmised.Aerosoft is now in the works of creating a high end complex redo of their DeHavilland Twin Otter. It will be designed for Prepar3D, FSX, and eventually X-Plane. I look forward to using this Prepar3D approved aircraft around the Pacific Fjords of Orbx. You all should too.

Step back for a moment and consider the Technical side of this PMDG/FSX/P3D discussion.(1) FSX Sim Code is now "set in stone" -- it will never change, as there is no fuher FSX development, or a FS ELEVEN.(2) P3D is an evolving product, with regular (?) Updates and ehansements.(3) PMDG have coded their newer aircraft "outside the box", ie They do not fully follow the FSX SDK, but have used FSX specific hacks to achieve advanced functionality.Given the above:( a ) Any product developed by Hacking into FSX, stands a very good chance of "breaking" and not working in P3D, if P3D evolves, even if P3D still remains compatible with the FSX SDK.( b ) Any product developed for P3D, would have to be re-tested as each new P3D version is released. (time comsuming = costly), especailly if re-work is necessary to attain and maintain compatiblity. This becomes even more technically risky, if one has developed "outside of the SDK Box".( c ) Currently, and in the forseeable future, sales to the FSX community, produce far more income than sales to the very small Commercial P3D market, and without the risk of being called to be accountable for commercial accuracy etc.( d ) The limited number of Commercial customers would not tollerate being treated as badly as some the many "gaming" customers will tolerate, or be ignored.Based on the above, it seems pretty clear to me why it would be logical that PMDG would NOT persue the Commercial P3D market.

Edited February 28, 201214 yr by FSMP

The more one reads these posts the more difficult it is to decide which direction to go. As a longtime user of FSX (and earlier) versions it's still frustrating suffering the issues we probably all experience with FSX which are not likely to change.Currently I'm trying out P3D on the same disk as my FSX and there are definitely some noticeable improvements. A certain popular 737 definitely runs more smoothly and responds quicker. Built in scenery also seems more realistic. Most software seems to run or is being offered with SBSL. (except Aivlasoft EFB which is a pity) So I'm about to upgrade my processor again to an i7 and use SSD disks in the hope of being able to improve FSX performance - or should I go the P3D route - hmmm what a dilemmaAny last suggestions before I start reloading softwareMike

I fly both. I realise situations and machines vary, but I keep both in good condition and on separate disks and away from the OS.In truth I am coming to enjoy P3D the better, for its smoothness and performance without tweaks.However it is still buggy, with one CTD on exit produced by FSUIPC that really does irritate - and others from retro fitted add-ons. So there is still a long way to go. And of course scenery in particular with seasonality is not there as yet natively.If version2 whenever it happens turns out a real leap forward, then I will have no problems coughing up the price for a permanent installation (think of how much FSX has cost me in hardware and software over the last five years!!!)But we do urgently need the 1.x for the bugs that have been acknowledged and are known.If you've upgraded to an i7, then make sure that you have another Vraptor or SSD installed to keep the games apart. (Not that they really need to be).