Dear Alain, I am an appointed Adjunct Professor in two universities and once, not now, held a Command instrument rating - and as a Private Pilot gained 1200hrs mainly in twins. I also passed the Australian aviation turbine exam, but did not get to solo on the Cheyenne I was hoping to fly.

 

Go figure

And how are you supposed to pronounce "Prepar3d" anyway? Am I the only one who thinks it's a stupid name?

 

Prepared (the 3 is a glyph double-entendre)...

 

Lockheed-Martin have been quite deliberately vague. If they ever decide to modify their terms to be less vague, it will be without doubt a direct result of folks who simply can not help but examine the teeth of the gift horse...

 

Note the NOT in capitals

Oh for pity's sake! The "NOT" applies to the remainder of the paragraph. In simple terms, if you don't fit any of formerly cited examples, then you must use the professional license.

 

Bill,

 

With all due respect (and I do respect your opinion very much so) lets be honest here, you do have a dog in this race, as a developer you are understandably making money (what ever the amount is) from your work, unless you are doing everything for free, and if you are working for free you are right as to say that this is irrelevant to your situation on all level and not only the license authorized use.

Alain, to be quite frank I've not made a single penny from Prepar3d thus far, and have no idea what the future might bring. The main purpose for me having Prepar3d Developer's version is so that I can at least test my development efforts on that platform.

 

You see, among other things Prepar3d does differently from FSX is that I get instant feedback from Prepar3d if there are any errors whatever in my XML scripts. Not just that there IS an error, but complete diagnostics telling me precisely what and where the error is within the script.

 

Furthermore, even though L-M is kind enough to provide their version of the SDK for free, I'm not so much of a cheapskate as to take commercial advantage of that generosity. They at least keep the export and compiler tools up-to-date. Were it not for them, folks who only have newer versions of Max would simply be SOL with regards to FSX or Prepar3d modeling.

Fr Bill: a great series of comments from you. Indeed we could all have the developers' licence and I suspect then Alain could only comment if he was able to review our output and contact with P3D. As they do not mandate any performance checks, that would be problematic too.

 

Your banner however is a little pessimistic for a man of the cloth, or is it tailor made for this debate? If so, it carries through three centuries a keen observation and an axiom that seems to mark the affairs of men.

I know what MS's next simulator should be:

 

Microsoft Armchair Lawyers Simulator 2013

 

It's an untapped gold mine in the flightsim community.

I know what MS's next simulator should be:

 

Microsoft Armchair Lawyers Simulator 2013

 

It's an untapped gold mine in the flightsim community.

 

Can you imagine the terms of use for that?? LOL

 

, it carries through three centuries a keen observation and an axiom that seems to mark the affairs of men.

It also carries acts of inhumanity against other religions, repression of the sciences, violent forceful rule over people, and even worst unmentionable acts!

Oh dear, from the EULA wars to the Religious Wars, it's never ending. Please mods don't let that sort of dispute begin on these forums.

 

I was only commenting on the aptness of that quotation in the context of our present debate, not as a commentary on the consistency or otherwise of religions and religious interpretations and religious behaviours.

 

I have strong views, but not for here please, and Rendi if I caused you offense, please pass by on the other side of the street.

1. Currently, paragraph 14.1 defines "Documentation". http://www.prepar3d....agreement-eula/ . The word "Academic" doesn't even appear

 

But it does appear in the Academic Licence as quoted my my previous post (#74)

I know what MS's next simulator should be:

 

Microsoft Armchair Lawyers Simulator 2013

 

It's an untapped gold mine in the flightsim community.

 

Some people just can't resist a good debate.

 

(Guilty.)

 

:smile:

 

H

 

But it does appear in the Academic Licence as quoted my my previous post (#74)

 

Maybe so, but the vagueness is still there.

 

I wonder why that licence isn't on their website. Their posted EULA doesn't say which version it applies to, so when do you get to read this Academic EULA - after you've paid for the product?

 

In any case, if they were bothered by FSX-style usage, they've had opportunities to clearly state this, and they haven't, so it's probably safe enough to say that they aren't.

 

H

Do we have a resident, arm chair Judge among our ranks, who can read this EULA and come down with a ruling on it's interpretation? That way we can get some closure on this dilemma.

Oh for pity's sake! The "NOT" applies to the remainder of the paragraph. In simple terms, if you don't fit any of formerly cited examples, then you must use the professional license.

 

Thank you for making my point for me. The quote was in direct response to a post suggesting it was a breach of the Academic Licence EULA - "If you're not using it in an actual learning-to-fly scenario, you're in breach",

 

 

I wonder why that licence isn't on their website. Their posted EULA doesn't say which version it applies to, so when do you get to read this Academic EULA - after you've paid for the product?

 

Of course not.. It's the first item to appear on-screen you attempt to buy, and you have to agree to it before you can complete the purchase. LM aren't fools.

. LM aren't fools.

 

So you agree then that if they fail to be clear about FSX-style usage, then it must be because they choose to do so?

 

H

 

Thank you for making my point for me. The quote was in direct response to a post suggesting it was a breach of the Academic Licence EULA - "If you're not using it in an actual learning-to-fly scenario, you're in breach",

 

Actually I think the point being made there was that the license appears to say that if you are using the Academic licence in a, say, PPL-preparation scenario, then you are in breach. Not the other way round.

 

H

Actually I think the point being made there was that the license appears to say that if you are using the Academic licence in a, say, PPL-preparation scenario, then you are in breach. Not the other way round.

 

How do you manage to interpret "If you're not using it in an actual learning-to-fly scenario, you're in breach" as meaning "If you're using it in an actual learning-to-fly scenario, you're in breach",

 

Alain, to be quite frank I've not made a single penny from Prepar3d thus far, and have no idea what the future might bring. The main purpose for me having Prepar3d Developer's version is so that I can at least test my development efforts on that platform.

 

You see, among other things Prepar3d does differently from FSX is that I get instant feedback from Prepar3d if there are any errors whatever in my XML scripts. Not just that there IS an error, but complete diagnostics telling me precisely what and where the error is within the script.

 

Furthermore, even though L-M is kind enough to provide their version of the SDK for free, I'm not so much of a cheapskate as to take commercial advantage of that generosity. They at least keep the export and compiler tools up-to-date. Were it not for them, folks who only have newer versions of Max would simply be SOL with regards to FSX or Prepar3d modeling.

 

Fair enough Bill.

 

Fr Bill: a great series of comments from you. Indeed we could all have the developers' licence and I suspect then Alain could only comment if he was able to review our output and contact with P3D. As they do not mandate any performance checks, that would be problematic too.

 

 

And POW :aggressive: ....right in the kisser :vava: ...that hurt.

 

:drinks:

 

Do we have a resident, arm chair Judge among our ranks, who can read this EULA and come down with a ruling on it's interpretation? That way we can get some closure on this dilemma.

 

Efran, stay focus on bad dude starting somebody else's car with a screw driver.....

this has got to be the funniest topic i have ever read .with sales of 46.5 billion in 2011and a share price of approx 90 dollars ,do you realy think LM are in the least concerned about the imagined issues of a hand full of aging grumpy flight simmers ,Ithink that some poeple take this flightsim thing and themselves far to seriously