Don't confuse meanings here, folks. P3d was NOT designed and is restricted from developing and marketing for the ENTERTAINMENT market. This does NOT mean that a user can not be ENTERTAINED while using it! Have any of you ever flown in a REAL full motion simulator? I would venture that would be the epitome of a totally NON entertainment product and, I guarantee that it is VERY entertaining. There IS a difference.

 

I know a lot of people who find learning a great source of entertainment - I guess they should not use P3D, huh?

 

Amazing.

 

Vic

Wizzards: Absolutely no insult taken or inferred, old boy. We're just having a friendly discussion, aren't we?

 

And yes, in real terms it is bollocks, but it's the way businesses think and are forced to operate in our litigation happy world. If you can get your head around this sort of thing, you can make more sense of some of the things they do, while still thinking that the logic behind it is nonsensical.

 

mgh said.. "My understanding is that's not [possible because <snip> Microsoft won't issue one for FS."

 

Interesting info, thanks. I wonder if that's been true for every prior version of MSFS.

 

One assumes though that they must have issued one for ESP, that being their "professional" product.

 

nudata said "I worry that entertainment discussions may cause some exec to make acquisition of the product more restrictive."

 

Honestly, I don't think random discussions on an internet forum are likely to trigger any reactions like that. What you should probably worry about is higher profile attempts to pressure LM into authorising P3D's use for entertainment, like PMDG's recent public statements, or say a petition attempt, Facebook or Twitter campaign etc. Anything that engages LM directly is likely to result in a response and I doubt that response would be favourable. My gut feeling, based on everything I've heard or read (and reading a little between the lines) is that, ironically, the LM people involved in Prepar3D dread being put into that position and would be much happier if everyone shut up and just accepted the status quo rather than trying to force the issue and triggering a backlash.

 

Purely a personal opinion, no inside information, views stated do not necessarily represent the views of Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Avsim or the Cocal Cola corporation (hey just covering all bases here)

 

Dr V

(possibly not even a real doctor!)

Wizzards: Absolutely no insult taken or inferred, old boy. We're just having a friendly discussion, aren't we?

 

My gut feeling, based on everything I've heard or read (and reading a little between the lines) is that, ironically, the LM people involved in Prepar3D dread being put into that position and would be much happier if everyone shut up and just accepted the status quo rather than trying to force the issue and triggering a backlash.

 

Purely a personal opinion, no inside information, views stated do not necessarily represent the views of Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Avsim or the Cocal Cola corporation (hey just covering all bases here)

 

Dr V

(possibly not even a real doctor!)

 

Amen and HALlelujah!

 

You are spot on Dr V - and I meant no offense!

 

vic

Why raise this EULA issue again! Has it not been thrashed to death already. It is quite obvious as to why it is done this way and hence the "academic" license as a work around.

Last time I looked Lockheed Martin is a Publicly Listed Company, which means shareholders, which means profits or else. LM are not now or ever going support a not profitable area of their business model. So they are not going to entertain Prepar3D as an entertainment product, now or ever.

 

Nothing we can do or say is going affect the future of LM which is a company dedicated to the future of flight in what ever form is profitable. Computer gaming is not profitable except to a handful of resources retail re-sellers.

it has been said since day one ... microsoft sold ESP code not for entertainment . probably because they had begin development of FLIGHT .

 

isnt this an old issue ?

Yes, it is old. But, it will reappear again in a few months. Lets hope the combined stuff here and the external discussions do not cause changes in what we have.

mgh said.. "My understanding is that's not [possible because Microsoft won't issue one for FS."

 

Interesting info, thanks. I wonder if that's been true for every prior version of MSFS.

 

One assumes though that they must have issued one for ESP, that being their "professional" product.

 

I don't believe Microsoft ever did for FS. I have no knowledge about ESP - does anyone know of a device using ESP?

I don't believe Microsoft ever did for FS. I have no knowledge about ESP - does anyone know of a device using ESP?

 

The NLR has one or two, like this one I think: http://hosted.nlr.nl/public/hosted-sites/freeflight/ffrfs.htm. Though they use the slew function to override the FS flight model with their own flight model.

ESP was built by Microsoft. It is the base code on which they built the commercial Flight Simulator series.

 

Microsoft sold this base code to LM. it is on this code that LM is developing Prepar3D. After all don't we all complain at the lack of a startup GUI. How could this be? It is because MS built it as part of their FSX on top of the base code, but LM has not considered it necessary (It is).

 

Prepar3d is the MS base simulation but one gaining constant updating as LM continues to develop P3D.

 

I am tempted to say that LM wouldn't avoid the word entertainment when it is spelled correctly, but I believe somewhere in the not so distant past in one of their posts, LM laid out the facts that their purchase agreement was not to include the development of something called an 'entertainment version'. But frankly the Academic version seems to get very close in my interpretation, and LM have put it on the open market and I am using it comfortably on my home computer within my understanding of EULAs.

 

This same debate can now be found on most flightsim sites. It is repetitive with little fresh being said, simply because of the already extant massive volume of comments.

But frankly the Academic version seems to get very close in my interpretation....

 

Again, there is two camp here, the camp who read what ever they want in the LM license to satisfy their own purposes and the camp who do not read more then what's written, pure and simple, you choose your camp :t0101: ....end of the story.

 

:lazy:

end of the story.

 

Again?

Again?

 

:spiteful:

The NLRhas one or two, like this one I think: http://hosted.nlr.nl...light/ffrfs.htm. Though they use the slew function to override the FS flight model with their own flight model.

 

I seem to have missed the conection with FS. Which page is it on?

I seem to have missed the conection with FS. Which page is it on?

 

They don't mention it on that page, but a friend of mine who did his internship there told me their research simulator runs on ESP.