Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tom Allensworth

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

Recommended Posts

Um, can I get a confirmation on the original intent of the topic here?  After looking at the original post and the licensing table, it is my understanding that this is meant to clarify, for the developers who participated, whether or not their FSX add-ons may be used with P3D.  As for the rest of the material contributed to the thread, is there an equally concise presentation regarding if and how I may use P3D without having to consult an attorney?


pmdg_j41_banner.jpg

______________________________

"1. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA, Licensor hereby grants Licensee a fully paid-up, nontransferable, nonsublicensable, nonexclusive license during the Term of this EULA to use the Software, but only on no more than one computer at any one time, only by no more than one user at any one time, and only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." - PREPAR3D EULA (emphasis added) 

 

The future has spoken.

Share this post


Link to post

<p>I have a small concern relative to this topic. Perhaps I can respectfully try and illustrate it this way.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A small firm manufactures a very fast road car, somewhat like the McLaren. They explain to all prospective owners that this car will attract seriously heavy speeding fines, or worse, even kill if used illegally. They point out that it's is a privilege to own and drive this perfectly built machine, but with it comes responsibility. So they state in the documentation that driving this machine in a manner that breaks the law could endanger the life of the owner or anyone else, and is entirely the owners responsibility. The buyer signs to show he understands and agrees. It's what grown-ups do after all. To be sure he isn't regulated by the car-maker but by the law and due process. But secretly the team see themselves somewhat as gods in the fast-car business. In the nicest possible way. And we love them for it. BUT, something suddenly makes them think they can actually act like a god. What do they do? They tamper with their 'perfect' creation and govern the engine so it's impossible to take it over 130 mph (say).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>But hey, I already bought the car, and now I don't want it any more. The car-maker has gone beyond the role of being a fast car-maker and assumed the role of regulator, enforcer and judge as well. He could now be interfering with the rights of his client.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>UNLESS of course he warns them in advance that they because they are so caring, so pleased with themselves, and so concerned that he's going to break the 'law' anyway (and maybe give the car a bad name) that they have detuned the car. Then the potential buyer,armed with all the information, declines to purchase. As it should be.  But without that knowledge he already went ahead and bought the car, only to be told 'we don't give refunds, not us'. But hey, you'll be OK as long as you only drive it on our track, even though it is full of potholes.  </p>

<p> </p>

<p>To me it's a bridge too far.  </p>


Gareth Wilkinson

LEAL

Costa Blanca, SPAIN

Share this post


Link to post

mj,

 

I think the developers basically lead the way on this. As you will know some offer a dual install i.e. FSX/P3D. Others, like PMDG specify FSX only. One must respect their corporate reason for the position they take, if for no other reason than their clearly close association with Boeing, and LM's terms with MS. It appears all to boil down to the respective EULAs of the developers and we purportedly ignore them at our peril. Some informed members have stated clear reservations as to whether litigation would stand up in court were some poor simmer or group of, be singled out to be made an example of. But that is beside the point I feel. 

 

As I understand it, the current issue boils down to PMDG's decision with the 777, to take a more extreme position by actually inhibiting their software from initialising in P3D. It has always issued a clear statement regarding its EULA and the potential consequences of disobeying it. This is common practice and entirely their prerogative. The user is duly warned, and as it were 'runs the gauntlet' if he disregards the EULA. Arguably though, PMDG have implied some leeway in their underlying attitude by allowing earlier products to work in the P3D environment. Therefore I imagine many purists would have purchased the PMDG T7 with the expectation it could be enjoyed in to P3D as well, albeit at their own risk. If they have FSX installed as well, great they got what they paid for. It appears though that some have taken issue with the fact that the T7 won't work in P3D, period. Amazingly, some have even tried to use these forums to ask for a 'workaround' and have been rightly jumped upon by Avsim admin. 

 

I personally feel that PMDG should have been up front about this move. Surely most EULA-breakers would have been thus deterred and chastened. Objective achieved, goodwill remains intact. Those who have abandoned FSX in favour of  P3D, removing FSX from their systems entirely, will doubtless feel aggrieved, even seeing it as underhand and vindictive. Having worked in this field for some of my working years, certain outstandingly talented and cutting-edge organisations have gone that route, brow-beating their customers simply because they can. I'm not saying PMDG falls into this category. Mr Randazo projects a warm and open culture, though business-like, to be sure. Nevertheless, if this was the 'big surprise' it never should have been and I find myself shocked by it. My perceptions of this organisation are forever altered as a consequence, regardless of any rationalisations forthcoming.     

 

Finally, from a different perspective, there is obviously a dilemma here. FSX is a seriously flawed piece of software - as indeed LM have demonstrated in their commendable rehash of it. Personally I put flight-simming on the back burner several times over the years simply because of the increasing amount of time I was spending on tweaking for performance, and the resultant aggravation. To say nothing of laying out on better and better hardware to fight FSX's poorly hacked machine code 3D rendering engine. It was making a mockery of the use of precious time. Then along comes PMDG with their no-comprise, purist approach and lo! we can only use their simulations in FSX!  I understand they perform more smoothly and reliably in P3D - making for a far better match. 

 

I suppose running dual installations is the answer, as much if not all of the scenery we have runs on both. But there is of course more to it than that, as PC resources are involved, especially when it comes down to SSD drives.  Everything is a compromise in the end. 

 

EULA's aside, I really only wanted to say my piece about the wisdom of being very open and up-front. As I see it, anyway.  

 

Regards,  


Gareth Wilkinson

LEAL

Costa Blanca, SPAIN

Share this post


Link to post

Geedub,

 

I think you are absolutely right. I'm a P3D user now and I'm gutted that this isn't available for me but I do respect the EULA. The thing that frustrates or worries me the most is the fact it is deliberately designed NOT to work - it gives a very different impression to me of a company had come to admire hugely over the years when using FSX. It seems an unnecessary and slightly vindictive thing to do. There was certainly some uproar when another developer (not mentioning any names) deliberately updated their add ons to no longer work in P3D. It's worth noting that both these developers do not implicitly say that their software won't physically work in P3D on their product pages at all.

 

The fact is that I just can't handle the constant tweaking/crashing/uninstalling/reinstalling that goes with FSX regardless of what system or what tweaks I've used over the last 7 years. It means I felt I had no choice but to switch to P3D this year. I think those who have done the same for the same reasons are the ones most frustrated by some developers choosing to not allow P3D usage. P3D is fantastic in comparison to FSX and as a user you can have probably 95% of the add ons (legally) working that you can with FSX. Stability is there and the tweaks that have been made really do make a difference. I really don't understand why some choose to deliberately not support it, especially when V2.0 is expected to be the replacement proper for FSX.

 

By all accounts the T7 is fantastic. It is a bit crazy that I am honestly thinking about a new SSD, clean separate FSX install, hours of FSX.cfg tweaking, countless CTDs and probable reinstalls just to fly this bird. That's what this hobby does to you though and that's why I think it's all the more disappointing the support for P3D is missing.

 

Just my opinion though, James


James Long

My system:
Intel i7-7700k @ 5 GHz, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz RAM, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, GTX1080 Ti 11GB, waiting for Prepar3d v4. 1440p ASUS ROG Monitor

Share this post


Link to post

James and Gareth,

 

Great post, as you all know some developers have said in the past that they will not support P3D with their add on, you two seems to understand the meaning of the a developer's EULA and are not welling to break them.

 

If everybody were to play by the rules developers would not spend the time to make their product incompatible (read tweaked) to not be used with P3D, so the question here is "Why are they going to the extend of not making them compatible with P3D", and the answer is "Because a lot of simmers do not think like you two do and do not give a rat a$$ about breaking the EULA" .

 

Now, knowing that the vast majority of P3D users do not care or even read a product's EULA you tell me WHY should a developer warn you (us) before releasing a product to the fact that it will not be compatible with P3D?

 

I, before buying a add on, look to see if the product is FSX/DX10 compatible, should I be warned before released that the product will not be DX10 compatible or should I read the product page before spending the money?

Share this post


Link to post

The link at the top states Flight1 EULA does not allow their products to be used in prepar3d. 

 

How about ifly? They have a version specifically for p3d. 

 

http://www.flight1tech.com/Products/AircraftSimulations/737NGforPrepar3D.aspx


Soarbywire - Cockpit building simulation news and resource. Fly the Jeehell Flight Management and Guidance System. A free A320 avionics suite for cockpit builders and aviation enthusiasts. 

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


the question here is "Why are they going to the extend of not making them compatible with P3D", and the answer is "Because a lot of simmers do not think like you two do and do not give a rat a$$ about breaking the EULA" .

 

Alain,

 

You make a very good point there. I do also think that if a product does not actually work at all in a particular sim (i.e. it is coded specifically not to and will not) then any company, whether it is PMDG or otherwise, should really state that clearly on the product page itself. Whilst a load of people will have just simply bought the T7 because they don't care about the EULA and crossed their fingers that it would work in P3D, I wonder about those (and there must be some) who simply do not understand the EULA's and policies of various companies. I'm thinking of youngsters perhaps who saved up their cash or those who simply don't have a technical enough knowledge to understand the limitations in place.

 

I was one of those guys a few years back and the FSX crashes and .cfg nightmares simply meant I had to become technical in order to get things working. Some guys have spent a huge chunk of cash on this and other software and whilst many will argue they should have done their research first, that simply isn't going to be done by everyone. Admittedly this will be a minority of users out there but the whole thing feels just a bit underhand. Yes these firms state they don't support P3D but they don't implicitly state they will stop their software working for P3D and that is a big difference in my mind and in how I view them. 

 

As always, the actions of some affect a lot of others and I think in time the next generations of flight sim will put all of this to one side and allow enthusiasts to experience the full range of add ons out there.

 

James


James Long

My system:
Intel i7-7700k @ 5 GHz, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz RAM, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, GTX1080 Ti 11GB, waiting for Prepar3d v4. 1440p ASUS ROG Monitor

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with you James, if I understand you correctly a developer should have some kind of disclaimer to warn youngsters that a product will not work with P3D (to take P3D for example) so they won't spend their hard earned money for nothing, so far I got this right?

 

I completely disagree, why, because such developer would also have to say that their products will not work with FS2004, XP-10 + other platform, also they would also have to say that it will not be DX10 compatible if not, do you see the problem.... 

 

Going on a product page and reading what the product is intended for (read work with) is in my opinion the best and safest way to educate yourself about it, writing what the product is intended for is the best thing to do as a developers point of view.

 

If one bought the 777 thinking that they will use it with P3D knowing full well that PMDG does not support P3D (read breaking the EULA) and got burned....have no reasons what so ever to start crying foul play.

 

For the youngsters that did the same thing (NOT knowing that PMDG is not supporting P3D) should read a little more closely the product page, I bet they will next time...that remind me of peoples not reading a plane manual and ask a question in the support forum for a problem they could have easily fixed by reading the said manual.

Share this post


Link to post

Alain,

 

I see your point too and it's a tough one for me. On the one hand you are right - stating what something WILL work with is much more sensible. I probably also shouldn't really care too much either about the minority who didn't read up properly on the EULA's. However, there just seems something slightly underhand (too strong a word perhaps) about software being deliberately coded in this way. 

 

I'll be honest, I have fallen victim to EULA issues before. I had no idea what they were to be frank and downloaded GEX for P3D ages thinking it would be a nice upgrade. When I ran into troubles with getting it working I searched and only found it had been deliberately coded not to work (actually re-coded and an update to brick it sent to users) and I realised my error. But it was a costly one and a frustrating one and a genuine mistake made on my part. If it had said implicitly on the product page that "This simply will not work in P3D - fair warning to all" than newbies (at the time) like me wouldn't have spent a fortune to learn a painful lesson. Not just youngsters I may add but people like my dad who couldn't even google EULA!

 

As an aside, I hope I can put aside any concerns that I am just moaning on behalf of potential EULA abusers by saying that I have just bought an extra 1TB HDD and will be installing a separate FSX installation onto that this afternoon. I will then be purchasing the T7 and installing the NGX and the other PMDG aircraft I have bought over the years (I removed it from P3D around the time I came to understand EULA's during the GEX incident...). I expect many hours or tweaking, re-installs and CTD's but I have to fly this aircraft. I am a bit uncomfortable to know that PMDG made a decision to code it to not work in P3D but it's there choice and my choice if I want to still buy it and use it properly. Ultimately I do.

 

Nice to have a friendly debate on here though - all too often descends into chaos and gets closed down (can already see the red warnings!!)

 

James

 

 


James Long

My system:
Intel i7-7700k @ 5 GHz, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz RAM, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, GTX1080 Ti 11GB, waiting for Prepar3d v4. 1440p ASUS ROG Monitor

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with you James, if I understand you correctly a developer should have some kind of disclaimer to warn youngsters that a product will not work with P3D (to take P3D for example) so they won't spend their hard earned money for nothing, so far I got this right?

 

I completely disagree, why, because such developer would also have to say that their products will not work with FS2004, XP-10 + other platform, also they would also have to say that it will not be DX10 compatible if not, do you see the problem....

 

Going on a product page and reading what the product is intended for (read work with) is in my opinion the best and safest way to educate yourself about it, writing what the product is intended for is the best thing to do as a developers point of view.

 

If one bought the 777 thinking that they will use it with P3D knowing full well that PMDG does not support P3D (read breaking the EULA) and got burned....have no reasons what so ever to start crying foul play.

 

For the youngsters that did the same thing (NOT knowing that PMDG is not supporting P3D) should read a little more closely the product page, I bet they will next time...that remind me of peoples not reading a plane manual and ask a question in the support forum for a problem they could have easily fixed by reading the said manual.

Alain, what is your opinion of the MS FSX EULA? I saw in another thread a very interesting point regarding the prohibition of reverse engineering or programming add ons that by pass the fsx engine.

 

My question really is, where and when di we stop preaching this? I truly hope the answer is SOON!

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

 

 


Will Reynolds

 

Flight Sim Addict

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post

Alain, what is your opinion of the MS FSX EULA? I saw in another thread a very interesting point regarding the prohibition of reverse engineering or programming add ons that by pass the fsx engine.

 

My question really is, where and when di we stop preaching this? I truly hope the answer is SOON!

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

 

My opinion is "two wrongs do not make a right", as it is up PMDG to make a stand for their products it is also up to MS to make a stand on theirs if somebody is breaking or trying to break their EULA.

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion is "two wrongs do not make a right", as it is up PMDG to make a stand for their products it is also up to MS to make a stand on theirs if somebody is breaking or trying to break their EULA.

Thats a bit disappointing, I wasnt talking about pmdg in particular but interesting you interpret it this way.

 

My point is that since the evolution of fsx, any end user licensing becomes greyer as the days go past. Is it right? No it is not, but if you bought a product you now know breaches the licensing of fsx, then maybe give your flogging of the topic a rest, and let's just enjoy what we have in our homes, shall we?

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

 

 


Will Reynolds

 

Flight Sim Addict

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post

Thats a bit disappointing, I wasnt talking about pmdg in particular but interesting you interpret it this way.

 

My point is that since the evolution of fsx, any end user licensing becomes greyer as the days go past. Is it right? No it is not, but if you bought a product you now know breaches the licensing of fsx, then maybe give your flogging of the topic a rest, and let's just enjoy what we have in our homes, shall we?

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

 

My bad if I misunderstood your question, I was referring to PMDG as a example about what can be done if a company decide to enforce their EULA, if MS don't care about 3PD breaching THEIRS it's their problems and it is up to MS to take on 3PD breaching their EULA if they want to.

 

Am my stupid enough to not know that it is only a matter of time before we'll see PMDG's 777 on P3D, no I'm not, somebody with enough knowledge will dig deep enough and make it work as some 3PD did with their add on and FSX, (one of them said he asked and was given permission by MS to do so if I'm not mistaken), as I said two wrongs do not make a right.  

 

As for what you do (or somebody else) in the privacy of their own home....I can care less...but like it or not this is a forum where opinions can are and should be exchanged as long as it does not become personal between members or enough external pressure influence or dictate the closing or not of a thread, I can't see this happening here at Avsim, do you?

Share this post


Link to post

 As someone that has not purchased nor has any intention of purchasing Prepar3d and as a member who's only posts in the Prepar3d forum are to argue the EULA,

I kindly ask once again that you stop posting in this forum. We know your views and as Will voiced, its time to give your flogging of this topic a rest.


Gary Seymour

Share this post


Link to post

it is quite amazing how this one  person drags any post he can in to some stupid discussion about the P3d Eula  ,what is his new saying

"always nit picking or looking for the silly argument to bore people with " 

does the 1 in your name come from you association with flight1?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    34%
    $8,650.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...