Aces Team Members Back On Task

[n4gix 4,969]

Anyone using P3D is just renting the software, they don't own it and the "landlord" can decide to evict the "tenant" any time they want.

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff? For a one-time cost of $49.95 one may license the Academic version and install it on one machine. If one needs to change machines for any reason, a phone call or email will reset the activation code allowing a new install.

 

Unless one uninstalls or stupidly FUBARS their Prepar3D for some reason, it will continue to work until the hardware dies...

 

...even if L-M decided to stop selling the Academic license.

[Clutch Cargo 388]

Ah Bill... let 'em squabble up hear. They don't know what they're missin' :lol:

[DarkstarF16 72]

Backwards compatability? If something new were ever to appear and it offered a step change, then starting from scratch would offer more advantages. Thats progress. I for one, am all for progress.

[vgbaron 3,731]

Ah Bill... let 'em squabble up hear. They don't know what they're missin' :lol:

 

Now THAT is one of the better comments I've read in this thread Clutch!

 

:lol:

 

Vic

 

Backwards compatability?

 

 

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?259161-Software-amp-Hardware-Compatibility-List

 

http://#####.wordpress.com/fsx-software-and-hardware-guide/

 

Vic

[stans 725]

Every hobby has a cost and I am sure at somepoint they will have to kill backwards compatibility with a lot of our add-on's

 

My hobby when I was younger was drag racing and on some single bad days in that hobby I broke parts worth 10 times what I have spent on FSX. For me it's not the money I have spent on addon's I worry about the LACK of addon's... I would switch over to x-plane if they had planes like the NGX.

Every hobby certainly does have a cost and I must say that flight simming has been my least expensive hobby.

[DarkstarF16 72]

 

Now THAT is one of the better comments I've read in this thread Clutch!

 

:lol:

 

Vic

 

 

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?259161-Software-amp-Hardware-Compatibility-List

 

http://#####.wordpress.com/fsx-software-and-hardware-guide/

 

Vic

p

 

Wow I'd only pressed the wrong button and sent it without finishing...

[Guest]

Backwards compatability?

 

Well DX9 to DX10 had compatibility issues so I'm gonna guess DX11 will too. But, in order to progress any application/sim sometimes you have to sacrifice compatibility to support a longer term goal otherwise you'll forever be stuck in the past. Given that we have FSX (for the compatibility), I would be fine with P3D DX11 breaking that chain IF they truly utilize DX11 rather than just make it work under DX11 -- key distinction here.

 

Where I get confused when/if this happens, is why 3rd party devs get all bent out of shape about it? I see it as an opportunity to sell more product, but they seem to view it as a mandatory update they have to give away for free? If DX11 is implemented well (as in you can really see a difference in performance and visuals), no 3rd party dev will need to justify a cost to move their product to DX11 compatible -- it's when you can't see a real major difference between DX9c and DX11 when you have a problem "making the sale".

 

 

If that is the case, then I think more 3rd Party products should think about moving to the same subscription based process that P3D have available.

 

IMHO, DX11 brings a lot of new possibilities to the table, but some of those possibilities will introduce big performance hit. A lot of people seem to think DX11 = faster by default, so they turn on ALL the options, crank up everything to max and then they're treated to a slide show - disappointment sets in.

 

DX11 can improve visual quality tremendously, but nothing is for free ... it makes your video card work that much harder. But what DX11 can do for FSX is offload more work to the GPU freeing up the CPU to do other things and frees up some RAM also. This WILL be a huge benefit because it's easier to scale GPU performance, just go SLI, Crossfire, Tri-SLI, Quad-SLI when you have the budget to do so -- much easier path to scaling performance vs. new CPU, new RAM, new Motherboard for a whopping 10% improvement vs. on the GPU front you seem magnitudes of improvement from 50% to 90% per GPU you add.

 

I'm going to remain optimistic about P3D V2.0 and if it breaks compatibility then so be it, the price we must pay to move forward and get out of the past.

 

Rob

[Boeing or not going 578]

I would definitely buy the commercial license if they do major upgrades to the engine.

[N330DG 44]

ah, yes. big steps, little steps, whatever. as long as the whole thing moves forward.

hope exists. i want to believe!

[mgh 89]

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff?

 

If (and it's a big IF) Lockheed Martin chose it could terminate many Academic Licences

[shivers9 1,174]

If (and it's a big IF) Lockheed Martin chose it could terminate many Academic Licences

And the earth is flat, Madona is a virgin ect....ect....ect....

[bsmfinegan 12]

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff? For a one-time cost of $49.95 one may license the Academic version and install it on one machine. If one needs to change machines for any reason, a phone call or email will reset the activation code allowing a new install.

 

Unless one uninstalls or stupidly FUBARS their Prepar3D for some reason, it will continue to work until the hardware dies...

 

...even if L-M decided to stop selling the Academic license.

 

Try this:

 

The third item is of larger concern to PMDG however as it relates to our basic concern to protect the investment our customers make in our products. We have not seen a commitment by Lockheed Martin to support the “casual simmer” beyond providing methods for users to obtain a license for Prepar3d through “wink and nudge” means. Lockheed Martin has been very careful not to enter the retail entertainment market with Prepar3d and has some very good reasons for not doing so. 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. When this happens, the vast majority of simmers currently exploring Prepar3d as an alternative platform will be left without a valid license or usage rights because they do not meet the very limited band of allowable users as defined by the Lockheed Martin EULA. We prefer that our customers not be left having made an investment in a PMDG product only to lose the ability to use that product because they are using it on a platform for which they don’t have clear usage rights for Prepar3d.

 

Now, if things have changed since PMDG made this statement then that's different.

 

 

Bryan.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

This is no news. There has been several Aces guys in LM team for a long time now developing P3D

 

Exactly. This is not news folks. Hasn't been for a very long time. :ph34r:

[simmerhead 885]

What a shock, this is turning into an EULA discussion. Armchair lawyers, cancel your saturday night plans, 'cause this is where all the fun is gonna be tonight!

 

 

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

What a shock, this is turning into an EULA discussion. Armchair lawyers, cancel your saturday night plans, 'cause this is where all the fun is gonna be tonight!

 

No it won't... or it won't be for long.