Alain, pmdg and captain sim are just two developers, there are quite a few who dont have an issue having a compliant eula for p3d and i daresay the list will continue to grow, for example, the new quality wings 146 and the upcoming aerosoft airbus.

 

You seem to be very active in the P3D forums, what version of P3D are you running?

 

You have read my post # 42 did you not?

 

Can I add Flight1 and FSDT?

 

Of course the list may grow, last time I check 3PD were in business to make money, some regardless on how they will do it, if they can sell you a scenery or a plane because you'r using P3D and they would not because you'r not using FSX can you blame them?

 

About me been active in this forum, (and since you are a staff member) please show me where I missed the part in the Avsim's rules where it is written that to write in a specific forum you have to own a specific product, I may honestly have missed that part, futher more, as part of the staff I would really like if you could elaborate on the fact that somebody can post a hack for a product where they know for a fact that the product is not intended for (lets take a platform out of the blue) P3D.

 

Just asking.

You have read my post # 42 did you not?

 

Can I add Flight1 and FSDT?

 

Of course the list may grow, last time I check 3PD were in business to make money, some regardless on how they will do it, if they can sell you a scenery or a plane because you'r using P3D and they would not because you'r not using FSX can you blame them?

 

About me been active in this forum, (and since you are a staff member) please show me where I missed the part in the Avsim's rules where it is written that to write in a specific forum you have to own a specific product, I may honestly have missed that part, futher more, as part of the staff I would really like if you could elaborate on the fact that somebody can post a hack for a product where they know for a fact that the product is not intended for (lets take a platform out of the blue) P3D.

 

Just asking.

 

You need to calm down a little, and ask yourself why you are so defensive about a product you dont own/like.

 

You seem to wish to have people respect and consider your opinion on a product you do not own and have no intention on purchasing, yet you have no intention whatsoever in respecting the decision of people who decided to purchase, enjoy and use the same product.

 

We are all big enough and ugly enough to make our own decisions, even though, as you put it "our heads are in the sand". If it is, then it is the prerogative of people in this forum, please let it be.

 

As for me being Avsim staff, I am a volunteer reporter, not a forum moderator or general staff, but even so, as an Avsim general member, I would find it hard to go to forums of products I dont own and tell people why I dont like what they purchased.

How many have actually read the Academic Licence?

How many have actually read the Academic Licence?

I for one have read it. Might I ask why you seem to feel it's your special role in life to be such a busy-body all the time?

Thank you Will!

Product hacking - taking a product and modifying it to adapt it a different purpose or add functionality to that which the maker intended - is as old as the hills and has been practiced since before the modern consumer age. Producers, especially media and software producers, would love to have this behaviour identified as unethical or even criminal, controlling what you do with products once you buy them, which is why they often tend to identify that with software cracking, or piracy.

 

Getting a piece of software, or an add-on, running on platform it wasn't intended for, is more like the former. Yes it's going against the wishes of the creator, but the question is whether the creator has the moral right to restrict you from doing so. If you bought a bedside table from Ikea, would it be right for them to prevent you from using it in your living room?

 

Now developers like PMDG or Captain Sim have a perfect right to say they don't want their products to be used for professional training, or to say that they won't support their use on the P3D platform. But if someone gets those products working and is able to take responsibility for their own actions and not complain if they have problems or run to the developer for support, I don't think it's right to demonise them by equating what they've done with software piracy.

 

(Full Disclosure : I don't have P3D and have no immediate plans to acquire it. I'm posting here purely because I've been following its development and its licensing issues with interest over the last few months and it's a subject I find fascinating. If anyone feels non P3D users don't have the right to participate in this discussion, just say the word and I'll retire gracefully.

 

Oh and while I'm confessing, I also use IKEA bedside tables in the living room, and a shelving unit as a workbench.)

 

Respectfully

 

Dr V

Next time I catch someone starting his car with a screwdriver, I'm going to charge that person with piracy.

 

 

 

 

Oh boy, every debate on the legitimacy of P3D and the EULA seems to begin and end the same way.

 

FSX is no longer being developed, but before that I had FS9 and,yes, all versions before that. I paid, I replaced, I paid again.

 

If P3D runs out then I can either keep with a by-passed sim, or buy the next best thing. Remember there are still forums for FS2000!

 

So what the heck. If all the gloom, warnings and threats re P3D come true, there will still be something else to move to. Even X-Plane.

 

And if they don't, then I will be a first adopter for P3D v2.0.

 

For some the glass is half empty, for the optimist it is half full, and for the engineer the glass is twice as large as it need be.

 

For some the glass is half empty, for the optimist it is half full, and for the engineer the glass is twice as large as it need be.

 

And soon there is no glass because it has been shattered into a thousand pieces...

 

And soon there is no glass because it has been shattered into a thousand pieces...

 

That's a bold prediction, by who? People who cant predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy? People who don't know if they will win their next legal case? People who don't know if their next product will meet their deadline?

 

How about we just enjoy what is here, now, and leave the rest up to the developer, who so far has been nothing but supportive and open in their dealings with customers?

I don't think this kind of discusion is very helpful. It's not of any practical use at all. If this discussion has any implications at all, they are not helpful ones.

P3D is what it is and the conditions of use are what they are. If it ain't broke don't fix it and it ain't broke.

Amen!

That's a bold prediction, by who? People who cant predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy? People who don't know if they will win their next legal case? People who don't know if their next product will meet their deadline?

 

How about we just enjoy what is here, now, and leave the rest up to the developer, who so far has been nothing but supportive and open in their dealings with customers?

 

By someone with their tongue firmly planted in their cheek...

 

By someone with their tongue firmly planted in their cheek...

 

LOL!

 

Apologies, i misread the post.

I for one have read it.

 

Then you'll be aware that the Academic Licence authorises use"...(4) by students, instructors and staff associated with Licensee's Academic Education, and (5) in the Territory." where the Territory means"...the State(s), Territory(ies), or governmental subdivision(s) thereof in which and by which Licensee is licensed, chartered or otherwise accredited to provide Academic Education."

 

How many of us posting here comply with those? I'm honest enough to accept that I certainly don't - I'm not a student instructor or staff associated with Academic Education, nor am I licenced, chartered or otherwise accredited to provide Academic Education.