Lockheed Martin Issues Statement

[nudata 10]

As someone posted above, these speculations and uninformed interpretations do absolutely nothing to forward the progress of P3D. There is no point in going over language that is designed by corporate lawyers who know more than anybody here. We do not have a copy of the agreement either so that speculation is also silly.

 

Trying to force Lockheed Martin to issue a clarification is sheer folly. That would be the opposite of what any lawyer would tell them to do. There is no need for clarification. It is what it is and all the messages here will never change it, nor should they.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Hi, it's a good clear statement by LM. I'm suprised by all the negative statements about it.

 

If you're a serious simulation user looking for a program to help you learn about aviation, you're OK to use the professional or academic versions (depending on your educational status).

 

If you're looking for a plane game that you can use purely for fun - then (as per the EULA) this is not for you, and will not be in the future either.

 

I'm not a lawyer - but I am an academic who researches simulation as my day job. My opinion is that many Avsim users - at least those at the serious end of the spectrum - entirely qualify to use this.

 

The professional simulation that I do is certainly entertaining at times - this in itself does not make it a 'game' as we are actively using it to learn and improve skills.

 

 

 

[japascoe 98]

Lockheed Martin is in the business of selling $100 million+ fighter jets, not of selling entertainment software. They might not mind simmers using P3D, but to say that they 'want' simmers to buy it is a bit silly. P3D is a sideline to their main business. Even if 1 million people were to buy the academic license for P3D, that would bring in less money than selling just 1 JSF.

If you use P3D and enjoy it, more power to you, but don't expect LM to care about the consumer market.

[alainneedle1 97]

Quote from PMDG,

 

" Without taking a step to enter the retail entertainment simulator market, Lockheed Martin has (in the opinion of PMDG and our counsel) left the door open so that they could, at any time change direction and enforce the terms of the EULA on Prepar3d thus requiring all Prepar3d users to prove compliance with their EULA." end of quote

 

Don't you think PMDG know what they are talking about or do you think they are just kidding around?

 

You still don't get it? Please refer to the picture in post # 9

[Leen3131cs 107]

Being a kid just entering the elementary, is enough to be entiteld to use the program.

Every father is eager to help the kid with the complex simulator.

As we cannot expect a kid in that age to handle the sim without help, grown ups are allowed to give a helping hand after becoming familiar with the sim themselves naturally.

 

Educating for fun is not allowed , having fun in educating is OK.

Its just a question of words.

 

Quiet simple.

[GHarrall 494]

Quote from PMDG,

 

" Without taking a step to enter the retail entertainment simulator market, Lockheed Martin has (in the opinion of PMDG and our counsel) left the door open so that they could, at any time change direction and enforce the terms of the EULA on Prepar3d thus requiring all Prepar3d users to prove compliance with their EULA." end of quote

 

Don't you think PMDG know what they are talking about or do you think they are just kidding around?

 

You still don't get it? Please refer to the picture in post # 9

 

I dont think it matters.

 

Most products are currently comptaible with both FSX and P3D.

 

If for some reason, LM suddenly decide to go crazy and pull out of offering P3D to anyone other than commercial and defence contractors, you could simply go back to using the addons in FSX.

 

Now, this may change when P3D v2 comes out with the DX11 support etc.

 

As it stands though that is my risk to take in terms of money spent. I dont need PMDG deciding if my investment is 'safe' or not.

 

Besides, the funny thing here is that I can easily fit into the PRO EULA terms anyway, so zero need for any concern. It doesn't mean I will use P3D for anything different than I currently do with FSX though...........

 

LM have never and will never come out and say this is a home entertainment retail product.

 

Instead they have given us the option of reading between the lines and a "ask no questions" policy on installs of P3D, the next gen of FS that we have all craved and wished for.

 

Instead of embracing this fantastic opportunity as aviation simulation enthusiasts, we have descended into endless bickering over EULA's and made ourselves look like the forum dwellers on game message boards like 'Modern Warfare' etc, the very same market segment that LM is so keen to avoid.

 

So sad..............

[n4gix 4,947]

Academic license "(students in elementary, middle, high school or pursuing a bachelor’s degree)"

 

But not pursuing an Associate,

 

Just for the sake of clarity, an Associate degree is lower level than a bachelor's degree, so it falls within the scope of eligibility... B)

[Eric Tomlin 10]

I can honestly say that every time I use my simulator, I learn from it all the time. It is an educational tool. It also is fun and entertaining. It's like Sweet and Sour sauce (both sweet, and sour at the same time, gee, what a novel thought!). Despite the opinions of some, folks can use a learning tool and have fun, so try to relax and quit trying to categorize how a learning tool should work.

 

This has gotten ridiculous. If you want to use it, then use it as a learning tool to understand more about how the world of aviation works while using Prepar3d. If you don't see flight simulation via Prepar3d as a learning tool, then dont use it. Quit bickering back and forth and acting like LM couldn't possibly understand how all this works. Tom Allen already warned folks about going too deep into this and I see this thread as being locked very soon.

 

Seriously- If you want to learn from Prepar3d, use it. If you dont want to use it as a learning tool, then dont. It's that simple. LM already has a very well provisioned legal team. They certainly do not need arm chair attorneys chiming in to support or contest their decision.

[n4gix 4,947]

Instead of embracing this fantastic opportunity as aviation simulation enthusiasts, we have descended into endless bickering over EULA's and made ourselves look like the forum dwellers on game message boards like 'Modern Warfare' etc, the very same market segment that LM is so keen to avoid.

 

So sad..............

 

What you just said...

 

I've said it before and I'll say it once again, I -and I alone- am responsible for making my own informed moral and ethical decisions. Such decisions as I do make are not for anyone else to gainsay. In simpler terms: MYOB.

[hmsdreadnought 12]

I'm frankly a bit surprised at the reaction here.

 

First, I would bet my brand new touring bike that Lockheed Martin cannot openly offer this for entertainment purposes. It would most likely not be allowed with their agreement with Microsoft who were developing the ill fated Flight product when the Prepa3d product hit the market.

 

Second, I doubt they would want to. They are not a direct to consumer company - the wouldn't have the customer support infrastructure to handle all the "my 30 year old joystick doesn't work with the sim - what's wrong?" kinds of questions.

 

Third, absolutely nothing has changed. Anyone can say they need the sim for training and who is to say that your PC flying isn't training for something? Developers can develop planes that folks can fly in the LM product to get trained on them.

 

If you bought the license, go fly. Stop worrying.

 

Colin

[GHarrall 494]

'Flight' was slated for being just a game, now we have people slating P3D for NOT being a game.

 

The irony.........

[Kosta 122]

Parents always are entiteld to read and test educational stuff they buy for their children.

 

Damnit, I need a kid.

 

We should STOP asking LM to say things they are not allowed to.

 

Said it a long long time ago already.

 

They did not buy MSFS for that purpose and the product being profitable or not is of no interest for LM.

 

LM did say to me on one occasion that the primary reason they have P3D is for internal trainings. From that I can only conclude that we are just a byproduct. Something LM doesn't depend on. But they know they can have small profits from it and why prevent that?

 

Pressing LM to say things they are not allowed to say, doesn`t help.

 

Halelujah. Thank you.

[alainneedle1 97]

:lazy:

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

It never ceases to amaze me how a segment of this community can so whip themselves into a frenzy, causing themselves and many others, needless stress. We disallowed the discussions on EULAs and the MS - LM license before because there were arm chair lawyers coming out of every crevice and bolt hole imaginable, armed with more opinions and "guesses" than limbs and orifices. Here we go again, apparently. Folks, ambiguity is a legitimate business strategy. Adopt it. Accept it. Move on and enjoy!

[GHarrall 494]

It never ceases to amaze me how a segment of this community can so whip themselves into a frenzy, causing themselves and many others, needless stress. We disallowed the discussions on EULAs and the MS - LM license before because there were arm chair lawyers coming out of every crevice and bolt hole imaginable, armed with more opinions and "guesses" than limbs and orifices. Here we go again, apparently. Folks, ambiguity is a legitimate business strategy. Adopt it. Accept it. Move on and enjoy!

 

+1000

 

I intend to enjoy.......