please read Lockheed P3D and EULA's for Add-On's

[Mike_CFII_MEL 788]

Hi,

 

This is a copy and paste from one of my earlier posts.

 

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 developer 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.

 

 

Also, can imagine that some addon developers may be so concerned about legal action, should their product malfunction in a Commercial environment, that they will either not develop the product, or will actively prevent it from running in any product that "can" be used Commercially. ie ALL versions of P3D.

[alainneedle1 97]

Hi! Tom, I do not see Orbx here http://forum.avsim.net/page/AVSIM%20Pages/p3d_.html , why will that be?

[lateagain 45]

Having just ploughed through the interview on the front page today I have to say that this obsession with EULA's and the aparent hypocracy and cant from LM is becoming a joke. Unless everyone at LM is brain dead (which they obviously are NOT) they cannot help but realise that whatever they say, whilst they continue to sell the product, people will use it for whatever they want to use it for.

 

Can you imagine Ford or GM selling cars but telling customers "you mustn't use it for leisure or entertainment" It would be the end of those companies if anyone took a blind bit of notice of such stupidity.

 

It strikes me that IF LM are really intent on not having folk use the sim for entertainment they should

 

1) Not sell it to non commercial organisations.

 

2) Not have based it on a piece of leisure software, and in any case not tried to maintain backward compatability

 

3) Having done that there is more than a degree of hypocracy IMO in welcoming the fact that add-ons for that leisure software can be used to enhance their product.

 

Copyright and EULAs are there to protect the intellectual rights of creators. The customer should expect the full and unhampered use of the product and is only required not to copy, or profit without authorisation from the creators product.

 

The commercial use of the software for training is their stated objective and they are developing this into areas that hold no interest for many simmers. For instance I have no interest in dropping weapons on anyone. I'd be playing Call of Duty or some such if I wanted to do that. Since I learned to fly "Acredited time on a simulator" has become part of that process BUT only in an organisation devoted to flight training. Having learnt before glass cockpits the sim is still a useful unofficial training aid for getting used to these but that is NOT actual training. It is a good way to understand IFR, GPS and approaches but ONLY in so much as it gives you an understanding of what you're doing with real equipment.

 

So my question really is are LM really intent on not having P3D used casually or is this stance a sop to fend off criticism from the games industry and protect themselves from claims that "unofficial home training" contributed to a real world accident?

 

Perhaps this could be resolved by a "Home use" EULA which could be worded in such a way that purchasers cannot claim that they used the software for any official training. In any case to continue to pretend that hobbyist are not buying the product is total nonsense.

 

Whatever the case the current situation seems downright silly to me and the constant "barrack room lawyer" discussion on EULAs even sillier.

 

Returning to the article/interview. LM state that they are delighted with the uptake by developers. Hard core "Simmers" know, and LM cannot fail to be aware that, developers for any sim have grown from hobbyists and enthusiasts and they all started somewhere. They started with the software!

 

Finally I want to make clear that this is NOT a flame. I'm interested in any development of a hobby I've invested a lot of money in. I'm interested in P3D but put off the title because of the points I've raised.

 

Geoff

 

PS having read the newer thread someone suggests that M$ may have insisted that the software could not be used for leisure?

 

IF that is true the silliness is perhaps understandable?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Hi! Tom, I do not see Orbx here http://forum.avsim.net/page/AVSIM%20Pages/p3d_.html , why will that be?

 

When, or if, they decide they want to provide the information. Why not ask John V?

 

 

[alainneedle1 97]

When, or if, they decide they want to provide the information. Why not ask John V?

 

No problem Tom, I was just under the impression that for a 3PD to know you had a Lockheed P3D and EULA's for Add-On's chart you had to reach out to them first to let them know you had such a chart as I could not see why out of the blue a 3PD would look for a chart like that to be in it not knowing it existed, and from there came my question about Orbx not showing in it.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

 

 

No problem Tom, I was just under the impression that for a 3PD to know you had a Lockheed P3D and EULA's for Add-On's chart you had to reach out to them first to let them know you had such a chart as I could not see why out of the blue a 3PD would look for a chart like that to be in it not knowing it existed, and from there came my question about Orbx not showing in it.

 

I wasn't as clear as I could have been. All - ALL commercial members of the AVSIM forum were sent a message requesting participation in this. That included the boys at ORBX. They have not been heard from.

[Rocky_53 1,566]

The way I see it, and IMO it is very clear. LM wish to promote the use of P3D to the domestic market but are unable to do so IN LAW due to a legal agreement with MS, they also perhaps do not want to be seen to be involved directly with the domestic market, simply because they are Lockheed Martin and not a games developer. So, the easy way round is TO BE SEEN (in law) to be upholding any agreement with MS and providing this can be upheld in a court of law then there is no problem for them. I have to ask a very simple question... if LM was really opposed to the domestic use of P3D then why on earth would they be so closely assocated with Orbx? OK, they are using their scenery for use in P3D for training purposes, but for goodness sake, would LM really be happy with one of their main suppliers promoting and developing software for the use of P3D with anything else other than what is in the EULA? Especially when Orbx promote P3D directly to the simming community through their website. So, IMO, LM are quite happy for flight simmers like ourselves to develop a knowledge of aviation through the use of P3D, but I'm sure they would be completely opposed to the idea of P3D being sold alongside Call of Duty on a shelf in a games shop on the high street!

[alainneedle1 97]

I wasn't as clear as I could have been. All - ALL commercial members of the AVSIM forum were sent a message requesting participation in this. That included the boys at ORBX. They have not been heard from.

 

Thank you Tom.

 

I believe it has already been posted that anyone wishing to use Orbx addons for Commercial reasons ( Flight training school etc.. ) out side of home use need to contact them and arrange a special licence.

 

Would it be why Orbx's name is not in the chart, since P3D is not for entertainment and since all members here are using P3D for the right reasons other then personal/consumer entertainment where will Orbx put the X at in the chart, under Eula Allows?

 

If they do that the special licence does not make sense anymore right?

 

Maybe that's why Flight1 X is not under Eula Allows.

 

@ Howard, old friend, if LM buy a product from Orbx to be use with P3D do you think they will pay the same price as you do ($40.00 + or -) ?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

to be honest that list is a waste of time as Flight 1 does have a product that allows use in P3D and another with a beta update with v2 of the product is meant to have full support for p3d but that is what the developer has added and Flight 1 has followed by selling the product which i can only guess puts them in breach of there own EULA. The title of the chart is misleading and factually wrong as it imply's all fsx software is commercial, i did point it out but nothing has been done to address the issue.

 

That's pretty harsh. Who did you "point it out to" to let us know.

With Orbx not being on the list i cant answer that only the person or people who edit the list can answer it. I do think it should be on the list as Orbx's EULA allows for there addons to be used in P3D for home use with the dual installer or the migrater tool they provide. As they are their own publisher i dont see any issues.

 

If Orbx are helping LM and have any plans to supply scenery addons im sure it would be licensed to them and the cost of the license would be more than $40... a lot more i guess.

 

We are not going to put anyone on the list unless they respond to us. We are not going to "guess" as to what a particular producer's intentions are, as has been done elsewhere. If they haven't sent us input, they are not going to be listed there.

[alainneedle1 97]

There is another problem showing his ugly head now, see, what's stopping company using commercial addons (needing a special licence) to say..."Well, why should I pay premium $$ for addons if I can use the Academic licence and buy regular addons for less?".

 

What's good for the goose is also good for the gander right? They just have to say (big company) that they are using their addons according to their licence even if we all know that's not the truth. Can you have your cake and eated too?

 

Now who will be loosing big time money if not 3PD pushing P3D? If that is not how it work please tell me where I'm wrong.

[Jude Bradley 659]

I agree that the software should be licenced to the machine, not the platform on which it's

running.

FSX is meerly a means to an end to which to launch an aircraft (addon or otherwise).

It only makes sense, when a developer has to add more to the product to make it run on

another sim.

Aerosoft have the right idea here.

 

Will the recent anouncment of FSX end of support have any bearing on this?

[JimmiG 244]

Will the recent anouncment of FSX end of support have any bearing on this?

 

 

Oh the money I would pay to find out what's happening "behind the scenes". Is the EULA nonsense just a result of their old agreement with Microsoft, or is LM genuinely not interested in in the flight sim hobbyist market despite of all the "wink wink nudge nudge" and close partnership with many hobbyist add-on developers? LM may be a huge company, but the P3D division is small, and the people who work there have to be flight sim enthusiasts who want hobbyist flight simming to thrive. Otherwise they'd use their programming skills to develop accounting software or something.

 

Obviously, the only people that know are restricted to canned responses because of NDA's.

 

Even though the post is old and deleted from the official OrbX forums, it's still true;

http://simhq.com/for..._on_MS_Fli.html

Orbx has a product roadmap which is EIGHTEEN MONTHS ahead of today. We build our business plans around what we know, not speculation. I have shareholders which I am responsible to, and my job is to continue to deliver revenue from sales from real platforms.

This is still true. OrbX didn't just decide on a whim to literally *give away* P3D versions of all their add-ons to existing consumers, as announced in March of last year. They obviously want to encourage people to move to P3D because they view it as a "real platform" that can "deliver revenue" to shareholders. In the long term (say, 18 months from March 2012, which, incidentally is also when we, at the latest, can expect P3D 2.0), that won't be possible with EULAs that scare a large part of their customer base away (whether for good reason or not).

 

Also, P3D 2.0 will supposedly have "a new rendering engine", which may or may not free the sim from some restriction imposed by Microsoft.

[FSMP 95]

Whenever I read these never ending rants about EULAs, I am always reminded of ----.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQyUKnCf0YY

[JasonHarris 96]

the people who work there have to be flight sim enthusiasts who want hobbyist flight simming to thrive. Otherwise they'd use their programming skills to develop accounting software or something.

 

 

What? Even if you didnt have flight simulation as a hobby you would rather develop accounting software? You must think developers are really dull people.

[lateagain 45]

Whenever I read these never ending rants about EULAs, I am always reminded of ----.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQyUKnCf0YY

....but in ziss case ...is just stoopid ...no?

 

Great clip Geoff :lol: