Because it's a developers license. It's for those who develop content for Prepar3D.

 

If I submit as little as ONE bug report, I'm "developing content." I'm prepared to argue this in court if necessary. But it will never come to that, you know that. The most LM would do is rescind my license, and I'll bet $9.95 per month they won't ever do that.

 

Anyone here drinking buddies with a real life attorney? Ask them how these things work... after a few beers.

 

Hook

 

For gods sake, give it a rest, before you finally cause LM or MS to be forced to take some actions, that will be detrimental to all.

 

I think that's what they want, Geoff.

 

Hook

"Our end-user license agreement explains that Prepar3D can be used for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment. Lockheed Martin does not offer Prepar3D for entertainment, and we have no plans to enter the entertainment space. Our focus is on learning and training. The bottom line is that it depends on how the software will be used. What it can’t do is support just-for-fun simming."

 

That doesn't encourage me at all to use Prepar3D. That's alI I do; just-for-fun simming. Prepar3D does not support that. How can I use it then?

That doesn't encourage me at all to use Prepar3D. That's alI I do; just-for-fun simming. Prepar3D does not support that. How can I use it then?

 

You can't. Sounds simple enough to me. In that case, why are you here?

 

When I'm beta testing a product, 90% of the time what I'm doing is "just-for-fun". When I discover a bug, that's when the work starts: I have to find conditions that will always reproduce the bug, and may have to run a single test dozens of times to eliminate superfluous influences and pinpoint exactly what is causing the problem. Then the developer can find and fix it quickly. Then a few more tests after we get a fix, and it's back to the 90% "just-for-fun".

 

You can tell when a software product hasn't been tested in this manner. Everything appears to work in the short term, but has problems in real-world application. If the developers of The Sims had their wives/girlfriends playing the game, they'd have discovered a heck of a lot of problems, even if said wives/girlfriends had no experience beta testing. The developers never have time to just play the games.

 

It's the same with Prepar3D. They need us to find problems that don't show up in-house. The last thing LM wants is for a military client to find some bug that only shows up after extended use.

 

So in the end, maybe you CAN use P3D.

 

Hook

I think you have hit the nail on the head ,where else could LM have got so many Free Expert Beta testers without paying them. People who know FSX backwards sideways ,and are always eager to share there knowledge with other for free

 

peter

 

Sorry don't know what I did there seemed to have linked to Mr L Hookins profile

peter

Sorry don't know what I did there seemed to have linked to Mr L Hookins profile

 

Mr L Hookins doesn't mind. Nothing like a little free promotion, even if it's accidental. You could always edit the message to fix it.

 

Hook

You are so wrong about that, find a quote where I said that I was against the use of P3D, nowhere have I said such a thing, what I am against is the use of the license under false pretext, it is clear to me (and a few others) why I can't use P3D, if in your or other's book 2 + 2 = 5 more power to you and them, in my book it will always = 4.

 

As I said before, I also base my understanding in relation of PMDG press released (thread) where they explained why they are not on board with P3D, and THEY have a boat full of competent laywers specialized in that kind of debate AKA/ EULA to advise them about the meaning of the wording in P3D's EULA, I can't see a big developer like PMDG not wanting to make money out of their addons to be use with P3D if their lawyers told them that they could without ANY CONFUSION OR PROBLEMS what soever about the P3D's EULA.

 

Well from your comments you are pretty much believing that most of us are using it under false pretexts so that kinda makes you come off as being against its use.

 

I'm also wondering just how competent these PMDG lawyers are when another company (Aerosoft) can release a very nice A320 simulation that is fully compatible with P3D and supported. If they can do it without legal concerns, why can't PMDG? I sometimes think their legal over-caution is a form of cowardice as common as it is these days.

We all know that people from other forums come in and say you should be using my simulator XXXXX, it's better than your simulator.. Why are you using the one you are using.

 

 

While it's trolling at least there is something of a point to it, they think they have something better and that you should be using it.

 

What I dont get is the people, like you Alan, that jump here and just say 'you can't use it!', stop using it or whatever. I dont see the motivation? With the other guys at least there is motivation, they think their sim is better. Your motivation can only be purely to have an argument or you feel the need to tell others what to do?

What I dont get is the people, like you Alan, that jump here and just say 'you can't use it!', stop using it or whatever. I dont see the motivation?

 

Because...

 

Pretend there is a company that refuses to allow their products to be used in P3D. Every person who switches from FSX to P3D is one less potential customer. If I were that company, I'd be encouraging people to speak out against P3D. I might even be offering discounts to people who were visible outspoken opponents of P3D. Not that such things ever happen in real life, of course. It's just a case of someone trying to "protect" a developer he's fond of. Yeah, that's it.

 

Hook

Let's go with a few other hypothetical reasons.

 

A person may be a huge fan of the PMDG 737 NGX, and since it can't be used with Prepar3D, then P3D must be attacked and destroyed. Of course, it can't be used with AeroflyFS or XPlane (or Microsoft Flight) either, so that's an unlikely reason, unless that person is also on the forums for those sims.

 

A person may simply be upset because he believes he's been excluded from P3D. This can have powerful underlying psychological reasons. This would cause someone to try to exclude everyone else.

 

Or... a person may be an undercover "Commercial Member" without a tag.

 

Now, when product gets overhyped to the point of being ludicrous, I can see people attacking it. When a product like Microsoft Flight turns out to be something other than FS11, some people will attack it whether it's justified or not. P3D hasn't been overhyped as far as I can see, and although it's not FS11 it's about as close as we're gonna get any time soon. Call it FS10.5. That's not sufficient reason to argue against its use.

 

So who is it that really cares whether other people use P3D "under false pretenses"? If LM doesn't seem to care, why should they? Maybe PMDG cares. But frankly, I don't care whether they care or not. I'm unlikely to ever be one of their customers.

 

Hook

:ph34r: LMAO.....keep trying..or...

 

well sir once again finger on the pulse ,suppose this pretend company also has a professional division that just happens to advertise at this moment in time that their professional training courses can be used in P3d /Fsx ,I would find that very strange and if that happened very two faced of that company ,but this is not real is it ,

peter

We may be missing the point. The EULA for the academic version might or might not allow us to use the license for "our" purposes. I don't want to touch that debate. However, there is no debate about the professional version. It clearly states that it be used "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." If I go out and buy a $2500-$3000 computer and $1000+ of addons and pay $199 for a liscense to run it all it's because I'm doing something else other than jumping in a simulated airplane and pushing the throttle forward without having to look at a manual. If that's what I wanted to do I'd spend $50 and buy FSX or MS Flight. I'm using P3D because I want a realistic and stable environment so that I can learn and practice flight planning, ILS approaches, systems and all the other things that professional pilots learn. I have fun doing it, or I wouldn't bother. But so do most pilots when they learn or they'd be doing something else. Because I'm having fun and find it entertaining doesn't mean I'm excluded from buying the license. I'm using it to learn and to train, whether or not I'll use that training in the real world. MS still has the casual flightsim market with FSX and MS Flight, and Prepar3D has the professional market, those that want to actually take the time to learn how to properly fly an airplane.

i

 

I can't believe i'm commenting on another eula thread but...this comment sums up how many users here use P3D, so I thought I'd make one point clear.

 

According to your description, what you are doing is simulation-based training (SBT). I know a little bit about this, including some fancy academic words, definitions and so forth.

 

Here's my opinion:

 

You can perform SBT in a home environment. In the case of aviation simulation, typically it might be performed by someone with an interest in flying now or in the future.

 

A lack of any plans to undertake formal pilot training does not, however, actually change the fact that you are performing SBT as long as the usage is similar to that described above. SBT can be used for a highly diverse range of tasks not confined to vocation training only.

 

There's my thoughts. If you want, you can consider this a professional opinion if it makes you happy and sleep well at night.

 

And yes - you could certainly use me as an expert witness on this topic in a court of law.

 

Sorry don't know what I did there seemed to have linked to Mr L Hookins profile

peter

Mr L Hookins doesn't mind. Nothing like a little free promotion, even if it's accidental. You could always edit the message to fix it.

 

Larry, I fixed it so that you remain a little more cloaked. ^_^

Stephen thank you for doing that ,I was worried I would most likely delete all of Avsim

peter

I'm also wondering just how competent these PMDG lawyers are when another company (Aerosoft) can release a very nice A320 simulation that is fully compatible with P3D and supported. If they can do it without legal concerns, why can't PMDG? I sometimes think their legal over-caution is a form of cowardice as common as it is these days.

 

That's exactly what I was always saying! Maybe PMDG has some kind of thing with Boeing so naturally they may have some "beef" with LH. But that's beside the point.

 

The point is that big add-on companies are slowly making great add-ons for Prepar3D, such as Aerosoft, Orbx and potentially even FSLabs (they planned to do a version of their upcoming A320 for training purposes on a different platform other than FSX, most likely on Prepar3D).

 

Now if we only could get a supported VATSIM client, that would be even more amazing