FSDT and FlightBeam have the right idea...

[styckx 1,871]

Growing pains.. While it sucks because good conversation is being stifled, we have to dance around certain subjects and overall the growing Prepar3D community has a feeling of being held back a bit from its natural progression of growth. All this talk of licensing is just a dark depressing cloud that I have little interest even in reading about.

 

But.. Like all growing pains eventually things work themselves out and we'll look back on these dark times and think "What was the big deal back then anyway?"...

 

Just thinking positive.. Everything is going to be alright. B)

[alainneedle1 97]

Just thinking positive.. Everything is going to be alright. B)

 

They were saying the same thing about Flight, who knew.... :Alien:

[Kosta 122]

They were saying the same thing about Flight, who knew.... :Alien:

 

:lol: :lol:

Just thinking positive..

 

Indeed.

[Clutch Cargo 384]

So stop saying "for entertainment purposes"! Instead, 3rd parties could say something like "for simulated training", "for simulated flight", or "for simulation purposes only". And who's to say I am not picking up my copy for training purposes? I'm learning as I am flying. Sounds like I am a student to me.

 

Clutch

[n4gix 4,947]

My biggest worry is that Microsoft have now stopped making fsx gold dvd's ...

You do know that MS continues to sell FSX Gold as a downloadable program, right?

[ZachLW 37]

So stop saying "for entertainment purposes"! Instead, 3rd parties could say something like "for simulated training", "for simulated flight", or "for simulation purposes only". And who's to say I am not picking up my copy for training purposes? I'm learning as I am flying. Sounds like I am a student to me.

 

Clutch

 

There in lies lays(?) my issue with trying P3D. I can't figure out which one to buy as I only have a passing interest in testing it out. $50 seems steep for something I may or may not use, and $10 a month doesn't seem like the license that will fit my purposes.

[gandy 18]

You do know that MS continues to sell FSX Gold as a downloadable program, right?

 

That's cool, Never knew that

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,

 

First, I just want to say that I mean no disrespect, nor am I trying to belittle anyone responding to any and all posts here at AVSIM, please do not take my post the wrong way. With that said, I must say,

 

they don't just hand someone a pilots license and/or type rating, FORMAL TRAINING IS REQUIRED!!!, your training will require you to pass written/practical exams. Last I checked, P3D (in-and-of-itself) even with third party addons, is not approved for anything in the real world.

 

AND

 

Although P3D IS licensed by Lockheed Martin to be utilized/used for training, it "MUST", let me say that again, it "MUST" be used in an FAA approved training device. Your home computer is not an FAA authorized training device. Any flight time logged on a non-compliant simulator will be disallowed. You cannot use the simulation software and any third party addons for real world training, if its not in FULL compliance with the training agency's approval.

 

So, any third party aircraft maker can make their software available to P3D end users for whatever reason they want to come up with. For example: Non-FAA Approved Flight Deck Familiarization software, or whatever else they want to call it. They can also DISALLOW their P3D software from being used in ANY FAA Approved Training Device.

 

In a nutshell: This gives every third party company the ability to create Approved FAA Training Device software with a very steep price tag and Non-Approved FAA Training Device software at a reduced price tag.

 

 

All other issues aside, there is one extremely salient and critical point, which up until now has not been mentioned at all...

 

...and that is the very thorny issue of "liability exposure" for third-party vendors. Every FS developer of whom I'm aware makes it crystal clear that their aircraft package is for "entertainment use" exclusively. This limits their liability if the customer attempts to use their product for any other purpose, including real-world flight training, et cetera.

 

As a result then, here's the classic "Catch-22" of selling an "entertainment only" product for use with an exclusively "professional/student only" platform. If the developer sells the product for such a platform, they are essentially giving up the liability protection they need to maintain at all costs.

[vgbaron 3,620]

There in lies lays(?) my issue with trying P3D. I can't figure out which one to buy as I only have a passing interest in testing it out. $50 seems steep for something I may or may not use, and $10 a month doesn't seem like the license that will fit my purposes.

 

I got the $10/month way back when, tried P3d and decided I did not like it. If you cann't evaluate n 30 days, don't bother.

Then after reading about s many people really liking P3d I decided to gve it another go. Another $10 only this time I really loked closely and set it up properly. Decided liked it. Cancelled the $10/month and bought the academic version - so at this point, I have $70 invested.

 

At this point, the only difference between Pro and Academic is the splash screen and the watermark. Should this change when V2 is released, I would have no issues with purchasing the pro version.

 

So spend the $10 and give it a far ride, you won't be disappointed.

 

Vic

[Kosta 122]

In a nutshell: This gives every third party company the ability to create Approved FAA Training Device software with a very steep price tag and Non-Approved FAA Training Device software at a reduced price tag.

 

I like your post Mike. Very good explanation. This actually shows that P3D could be easily used on a home computer as a "training device" (academic version...), but how you explained it. Addon developers could have a back door, I am sure there are many others too, they just have to want.

For some reason, P3D is being held back a lot - I am sure there is lot going on behind the scenes what we don't know.

 

Btw. there was an interesting reply from Gary to me when I was talking to him about the license, as I asked why doesn't he make sceneries P3D licensed: the reason is the small number of users in the P3D area. Simple as that. If more come onto the bandwagon, then he might start with it too.

 

So spend the $10 and give it a far ride, you won't be disappointed.

 

I also invested $70 until now (2x $10 at the beginning, then $50 for academic). But I also spent more than $100 on the NGX, so where does that put me? The relation is really hilarious.

[RWFeldman 159]

"they" are not worried about using a Sim for training for a FAA legal pilots license. "THEY" are worried about just enough training to be dangerous! History has proven this and no need to elaborate.

[Kosta 122]

Oh come on Rendi. That is quite a nonsense.

While sure, history speaks for itself, if you really want to train for that, then no licensing issues or anything is going to stop "them". For such types of trainings FSX can be used as well... they don't care if they have 20fps or 30fps. We do.

[vgbaron 3,620]

I also invested $70 until now (2x $10 at the beginning, then $50 for academic). But I also spent more than $100 on the NGX, so where does that put me? The relation is really hilarious.

 

Absolutely. Considering the thou$ands I've spent on new systems every few years and $50 here and $40 there for seemingly endless "must have's" the $70 so far spent is a drop in the bucket.

 

Vic

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,

 

There is no possible way you could possibly know what the developers are thinking. If I had to pick between the two scenarios presented, I believe their biggest fear is from a real (licensed pilot) accident that involved their addon software.

 

Any hardware/software used (in an FAA approved training device and/or non approved FAA training device) to train and/or is used to prepare an individual to perform an illegal (deliberate and/or not deliberate) act would open the individual up to a libel suit, not the manufacturers of said hardware/software.

 

If what you are saying were true (and its not), car manufactures would be held libel for every DWI accident that has ever occurred. Same holds true for everyone who sat through a three or six hour (mandatory in NY, don't know about other states) classroom training session prior to getting their drivers license.

 

That being said, the fear of liability, although something they should not fear for the reasons I specified in an earlier post, I'm sure is the top concern in their mind(s).

 

 

"they" are not worried about using a Sim for training for a FAA legal pilots license. "THEY" are worried about just enough training to be dangerous! History has proven this and no need to elaborate.

[ahuimanu 50]

As a casual reader (not a lawyer, etc.), it seems that if I practice shooting an ILS somewhere in the simulator, it helps me to learn more about the skills required for that experience. There are various articles which discuss "edutainment" and "serious games," such that the space is fairly blurry. In fact, the information from LM in the product description for P3D seems to encourage anyone to purchase if they desire "...immersive, experiential learning." Count me in, that's why I purchase and use flight simulators.

 

I never used flight simulator for "loop-de-loops" and aerocaches and chasing rings in the sky, and never will. Everytime I fire up the software, I am seeking "...immersive, experiential learning." Whether a 3PD under the old Microsoft retail paradigm chooses to enter into this ecosystem is their business and I respect that. In 2006, I jumped into FSX upon release and never looked back at FS9 (I behaved similarly with FS2002). By the close of 2012, I will do so with P3D and also never look back. I've seen enough with Microsoft and I'll wash my hands of them. I wish that LM will explore an OpenGL rendering approach, but I realize that won't likely happen. I say this as I'd leave Microsoft altogether if it weren't for my need to flight sim.

 

I am deeply grateful that LM bought ESP, and I am even more grateful that Phil Taylor (for all the crap he took off of us), had the foresight to see that the serious games market was worthwhile and pushed for the FSX codebase to be available under a different premise. Were it not for that move, we would not have P3D to move to.

 

This is why I think that the price point is correct and that we should pony up for the full $200. The retail game market will never again support the level of fidelity and realism that we simmers require. As an aside, look at Armed Assault, it took a gamey "Zombie" modification to boost their sales through the stratosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if I have to buy VBSx in order to get the old experience of ARMA in a few years. The "entertainment" market for sim-my stuff somewhat remains alive in Europe, but I don't suspect that anyone will have the time/budget/resources to create a "simming operating system" like the FSX/ESP/P3D codebase. And that's fine. Just as the Falcon 4 internals continue to provide one of the richest simulations of a theatre of modern air combat, the FSX/ESP/P3D can sustain us. However, with LM, we at least have active development where the software is maintained and improved.

 

This is very important.

 

Things like the uiautomationcore.dll or even the driver issues with the LDS763 serve to remind that any codebase that is not maintained will eventually run afoul.

 

I've done a lot of soul searching since 2009, and even more since July 2012. I know I am done, done, done with MS as a company. I also know that while XPlane continues to improve, it still can't meet the standard I enjoy with the FSX experience.

 

As a result, I can only see LM as a way forward. The way to anchor this future is to embrace it, whole hog. It is for this reason that I'm willing to meet ANY developer half-way by giving them a differential towards adopting the new platform. If 3PD x wants $5 or $10 from me to get reinstalled on P3D, I'll do it. That many are just retooling their installers is a welcome blessing.

 

We are approaching 5 years since Acceleration/SP2 (which happened in late 2007) and this year's developments prove that Microsoft is a dead end. This leaves me with the logical choice to embrace P3D, which I will slowly throughout the remainder of the year.

 

As we make this move, it is important that we don't bring a carnival/freak-show atmosphere with us. This is "adult" software now, and it is priced (thankfully) for that end. We may not bring all of our old development friends with us, but given the lineage of the tools I can't see why we won't. In any case, new entrants will allow for growth. As recent as a year ago, I was a kool-aid drinker for Flight and really thought that our lives with MS and flight simulation would continue.

 

What a difference a year makes.

 

For me, the path forward is here with LM. To the OP's point, I will support those that move to this platform and respectfully move on with those that don't. That makes for an interesting prospect for high-quality providers like PMDG (which is an absolute must for me in FSX), but I have to believe that recent front-page announcements have everything to do with realizing that LM's platform is where we are headed. In any case, even if PMDG won't move forward, I will.