FSX support for Prepar3D

[XPX64man 130]

Yeah, what do I know...Silly me... :Whistle:

 

Hey, don't feel bad. That's what these forums are for. :Peace:

[Ost Kampfer 2]

Actually FSXman I don't - and I hope the majority here don't - believe these forums are a place to accuse someone of not understand anything about what they are talking. One of the core reasons many uses these forums is because of the complete opposite: the quality of these posts with the attendant level of discussion.

 

Accusing jrhoads of not know what he is talking about is patently wrong. You may disagree (or agree) with his opinions but as a commercial member he clearly speaks with experience of his market place. Personally I agree with jrhoads on his point, for as said in an earlier post, one upshot of this tool will possibly be to force manufacturers to tougher and more restrictive DRM.

 

While passions run high on the tool of this thread dragging the debate down with personal comments doesn't help.

[Crusader2 0]

Just a little confused but that is not that unusual for me . Paavo , after reading over the excellent diagrams and explanations you gave above I think I understand what is going on in the " Virtual FSX is Present " . My question is this , and forgive me if you have already gone over this as I have read all the threads : I currently have both FSX and Prepar3D on my hard drive and both are not under "Program Files" as I run Win7 64bit was led to believe to always keep them out of "Programs" to avoid all the security problems from Win7 . FSX has worked fine for several years now and have P3D very filled up.

 

Does your tool work with both FSX and Prepar3D out of "Program Files" ? I might also add they are both in a different partition of the hard drive (FSX in D:\ and Prepar3D in E:\ .

 

My goal is to remove FSX from my hard drive altogether and have only Prepar3D . When I am convinced I have no other FSX addon I have or anticipate to purchase that would require a portover from FSX to Prepar3D and that doesn't have a specific Prepar3d installer for it's product I really want to pitch FSX ! Prepar3D runs very smoothly on my PC , FSX does not , but it's acceptable .

 

Thank you ,

Rich

[Paavo 2]

Does your tool work with both FSX and Prepar3D out of "Program Files" ? I might also add they are both in a different partition of the hard drive (FSX in D:\ and Prepar3D in E:\ .

 

Yes, the tool now does work with Prepar3D installed on any drive.

 

When you create virtual folder, the tool will hide your actual FSX from the system. You are prompted to choose a location for virtual FSX folder (just a placeholder so installers can detect FSX' presence, does not contain any actual FSX files) and that must be somewhere on the same drive with Prepar3D.

 

 

Personally I agree with jrhoads on his point, for as said in an earlier post, one upshot of this tool will possibly be to force manufacturers to tougher and more restrictive DRM.

 

In this case, dissatisfaction should be shown towards developers who for no good reason lock their products down and force users to pay twice for essentially the same piece of software, just like the music industry is often critizised for forcing you to buy the same song twice if you wish to play it both on your CD-player and on iPod.

 

If we let licensing terms get too restrictive, we may soon face a situation where we have to buy, say, two identical copies Flight1 Britten-Norman Islander - one licensed to be used for VFR flights and other, the more expensive, for IFR.

 

My tool is much like an independent car repair shop helping to extend your car's (addons') lifetime if the original manufacturer has closed down or doesn't provide good enough support. It would be very unethical of car manufacturers to start deliberately hindering independent repairs just to boost their own sales.

[jrhoads 6]

Nice try. But you cannot lay the burden on developers as the issue. the real issue comes down to the intended usage of P3D and the user. Its not my business to tell you what to buy and how to use it, but the P3D academic version is very clear that it is not for entertainment. Whether or not they enforce it again is not my business. But, because I run a business and sell software that can be used on that platform, you better believe I will posture our policy toward respecting the legal terms of the agreement.

 

So lets be very clear... P3D IS NOT a migration of FSX. It may be based off of it, it may run a lot of the same products, but it IS NOT a transition or migration in the same manner as FS2004 was to FSX. It is a new product, a new developer and a new license. The fact that someone wants it to be a migration does not mean it is and it is not at the feet of the developer to do a "wink wink" and act like nothing has changed and allow straight out compatability ports without respecting the terms of the legal agreement. This is not arm chair lawyer vergbage, this is real licensed terms and I will respect those terms. I still contend that this tool opens up the ability to bypass those terms if a person so chooses.

And that affects all developers.

[Paavo 2]

the real issue comes down to the intended usage of P3D and the user. Its not my business to tell you what to buy and how to use it, but the P3D academic version is very clear that it is not for entertainment.

 

There are two separate issues here:

1. Addon porting from original developer's point of view.

2. Addon porting from Lockheed Martin's point of view.

 

Let's analyze them:

1. As I stated, in many parts of the world, consumer protection laws guarantee the right to end user to use legally obtained software as he or her wishes, unless it is commercial use or piracy. If license agreement prohibits it, then prohibiting clauses are void. Bottom line: if there are restrictions, porting is allowed only for personal use. If there aren't (think of vast amount of freeware!), then anything can easily be ported over for any use.

 

2. With regards to Prepar3D, all users can port everything over as long is its license doesn't explicitly prohibit it. In that case, porting over is allowed for personal use. I would prefer Lockheed Martin's representatives to explain if "personal use" stated in copyright laws has the same definition as in their restriction on "entertainment use". Like forum rules state, this matter is better left to Lockheed Martin: http://forum.avsim.n...ad-eula-notice/

 

So all in all, what excatly is the problem here?

 

But, because I run a business and sell software that can be used on that platform, you better believe I will posture our policy toward respecting the legal terms of the agreement.

 

if you are now going to deliberately lock your customers down, then this is simply unethical, just as it would be unethical for car manufacturers to make self-repairs (instead of visiting their service centers) as difficult as possible.

 

I, for one, would get my next addons from a company that not only sells, but also makes an effort to support them as widely as possible, or at least doesn't hinder others from doing it.

 

I still contend that this tool opens up the ability to bypass those terms if a person so chooses.

 

Are there actually any sublicensing terms that keep you from allowing me to port airplanes I bought from you over to Prepar3D? Or is it just a decision of your own?

 

It is very unfortunate that artificial compatibility barriers are becoming increasingly common these days, and often for no other reason than just pure greed as is the case with music industry.

[Barnstormer1 0]

Ive never seen anything that states where you have to install a program,. You could install an addon into Firefox if you so desire! (wouldnt work to good :) Its licensed to the computer and or user.

[Akila 39]

Jrhoads & Paavo.

I read both your arguments (All of them, top to bottom) and you both got a valid point.

however after thinking about this further I got to a conclusion that it all boils down rather Installing any FSX addon on P3D regardless to the P3D use (professional Use or academic use, etc)

is a violation of the P3D license agreement.

if you could show me/us that in P3D EULA it states that it is illegal & disallowed Installing any FSX Addon on P3D, you won this case from the P3D licensing prospective and that tool is problematic.

however if there is no mention about Installing an FSX addon in P3D or not specifically disallowed , then Paavo is totally legit here , no arguments here.

 

the same works backwards, if the FSX Addon has a specific "no no" installing it on P3D (not to be confused by the fact that the 3rd party vendor/addon has both products for both platforms available

as a "no no" installing an FSX addon on P3D) then this particular addon should not be used with Paavo's tool, but the tool itself is legit.

 

You may have a rifle legally , but you not allowed to shoot PPL with it. you are allowed to hunt with it though which makes the Rifle legal by itself just not some of the potential actions you could perform with it.

The arm itself is not illegal, but the action you do with it could be. this by itself does not disqualifies the arms being illegal. (This e.g. is for the FSX prospective)

[Paavo 2]

You may have a rifle , but you not allowed to shoot PPL with it. you are allowed to hunt with it though which makes the Rifle legal by itself just not some of the potential actions you could perform with it.

The arm itself is not illegal, but the action you do with it could be. this by itself does not disqualify the Arm being illegal.

 

This is more like me selling cross-country tires for street bicycles. And bicycle manufacturers seeing at as a "lost sale" because no-one will buy second bike (with cross-country tires) from them. I really have no other explanation than "potential" lost profits for their worries.

[Akila 39]

don't get me wrong here Paavo,

this example of the firearm supports your Tool from the FSX licensing prospective.

this means that if a 3rd party vendor disallows using it's addon in P3D does not means that your tool is problematic, just don't use the tool for that particular addon,

but the tool by itself is legit.

 

The problem starts if P3D disallows installing any FSX addon on to it.

if that is true , this tool is problematic.

That is to be checked with P3D EULA. I have no idea myself if it's allowed or disallowed.

 

I personally Purchased that tool....

[styckx 1,871]

This seems all rather easy to figure out.

 

Delete your Flight1 products, don't buy from them anymore, consider it a lose and move on. Most developers have been very understanding of the transition taking place and aren't trolling around in threads throwing around License Agreement and DRM blankets. This hobby, education, training whatever you want to label it is supposed to be fun, not a internet lesson in law.

[Paavo 2]

don't get me wrong.

this example of the firearm supports your Tool from the FSX prospective.

this means that if a 3rd party vendor disallows using it's addon in P3D does not means that your tool is problematic, just don't use the tool for that particular addon.

but the tool by itself is legit.

 

True. In the end, users themselves should be knowledgeable about what they install on their computers, but I imagine this to be extremely marginal issue of an issue at all. According to library statistics, there are 14 000 addons filed under FSX here at AVSIM. I challenge everyone to find a single addon that comes with restriction to use it with FSX only. I would very much like to contact its author and ask why that restriction was set.

 

Not the mention that neither does a vast majority of payware addons come with simulator restriction. (I hereby also challenge you to find a single such addon.)

[Akila 39]

Probably none of the FSX addons have that restriction.

 

The problem starts if P3D disallows installing any FSX addon on to it.

if that is true , this tool is problematic.

That is to be checked with P3D EULA. I have no idea myself if it's allowed or disallowed.

 

I personally Purchased that tool....

[jrhoads 6]

 

It is very unfortunate that artificial compatibility barriers are becoming increasingly common these days, and often for no other reason than just pure greed as is the case with music industry.

 

Your accusations are not only un-true, but postured to make your position and your tool more acceptable than the developers policies and licensing requirements.

Very well.. as you wish.

[Paavo 2]

Your accusations are not only un-true, but postured to make your position and your tool more acceptable than the developers policies and licensing requirements.

Very well.. as you wish.

 

I asked you to give an example of what restrictions you have out of your control. Who and how forces you to take stance against users porting their addons over?

 

Is this a real issue or just a tought experiment?