Puzzling part -- why is Microsoft hanging on to those terms in the licensing?

 

What makes you think LM wants to get into the consumer market? As mgh says, LM is an aerospace and defence contractor, so they probably aren't interested in the consumer market. It could easily be a big distraction trying to balance the two sides as they aren't always going to have the same requirements and desires. Maybe the former ACES developers working on P3D would like to get back into the consumer space, but corporately I doubt LM was ever interested in it.

Microsoft also said no one would buy iPhones so would take that rationality with a pinch of salt tbh.

 

 

That's surely irrelevant. Every company takes mistaken decisions but it doesn't follow that its other decisions are mistaken.

What makes you think LM wants to get into the consumer market?

 

I don't, I must have not communicated well?

 

I don't think LM wants to get back into the consumer market.  If they did, MS Flight's closure would surely give them the opportunity to re-negotiate the license with Microsoft ... but LM didn't.  So it's seems to me LM are NOT wanting to get into the consumer market.

 

But I think some people feel that LM V2.0 is going to be the "next step", and if they deliver DX10/DX11 it's very unlikely existing FSX or P3D textures are going to work well ... sorta like the issues we have around DX10 now with FSX (lots of shader and texture adjustments to make DX10 mode work but there are still lots of issues even with all the work that has been done to resolve many of them).

 

I'm looking forward to what LM V2.0 will bring, but I'm not bringing any expectations with me

That's surely irrelevant. Every company takes mistaken decisions but it doesn't follow that its other decisions are mistaken.

Well another way to look at it is the product they gave up is still having third party support many years down the line and one could argue has still dominant market share. Now it's not like Apple don't make money off of the app store or Valve from Steam coupled with the fact other companies develop core sims in this market indicates this wasn't their brightest decision either.

 

If other companies can make money in this market then so could Microsoft unless there is something fundamentally wrong with them.

I agree with a lot that has been said about Microsoft.  Aerosofts CEO's mr Kok also once stated that MS had lost sense of direction. They want a big slice of the Internet cacke but are lacking good designmanagement [in its broadest form] to do so. But let's skip MS it's not that interesting.

Let's focus on LM.

Personaly I hope their P3D v2.0 will be a 64bit application. That will realy improve things [i don't know if that's possibleat all]

Secondly it would be nice if P3D [which also aims at the leisure -real world- aviator] would be an comsumer program in my opimiom a leisure aviator is a "simple"consumer]

The next step would be for PMDG to get an eula coming with their product stating that the use of their machine in any Sim has nothing to do with the real world aircraft.

Problems solved: we got P3D with the NGX to fly in.

 

The note of the ASIM staff is very worrying. Who, how and when is decided what is to abusive and to whom? I always thought freedom of speech was important in the US, that discussions are ther to improve any of us.

This debate keeps going on and on about Prepar3d and its a shame really. An aerospace giant redeveloping what FSX was but is hung up on the licencing for alot of people and the definition of entertainment. 

 

However on Prepar3d's facebook page I saw a comment directly from them. With a question first...

"

The Academic version of p3d, is that for just people in schools or can someone who just wants to move off off fsx buy it

•  
•  

  Prepar3D Simulator by Lockheed Martin The Academic version is open to all people who consider themselves to be a student pilot.

  February 20 at 10:43am · Like · 2

 

Im sorry for people who disagree, but I consider myself a student pilot even though I will never be able to get into a real airplane to pilot. I have been learning all there is to be a pilot, and simulate it which is why I enjoy the deepest and in depth simulation cockpits of PMDG and the like in FSX. 

Its a wonderful thing to experience that, even though I can never go to a RW flying school. 

 

I also dont think prepar3d would give up having all these 3rd parties that do support p3d. Its what enhances the simulator and customizes according to the students preference. Its why FSX has lasted this long, otherwise it would have died long ago. 

 

Also on the FB page it commented that V2.0 is still a ways away.  The answer was within 3 years or so. Thats disappointing but to be expected as obviously there is big changes coming. In the meantime perhaps there will be some minor revisions leading up to version 2 and maybe just maybe other licensing issues be worked out with those who are not supporting it. For those that take simulation in more of a serious light by trying to encompass all the procedures, checklists, learning weather, ATC, and so forth it makes flight simulation on a PC that much better and makes us all better as students. A senior pilot can still be a student pilot as he always has to learn new things that come around. Like going to a different aircraft. At the same time he can be all the while entertained in all the nuances of a day in flight.

 

Just my 2cents worth. 

...why is Microsoft hanging on to those terms in the licensing?  They would ONLY do this if they had future plans for FSX ... which they did, it was MS Flight ... that failed/closed...

Seems a fair point, but I just don't see FLIGHT as anything to do with the MSFS series as the different name suggests, perhaps other than an experiment to ascertain market changes, they could certainly still be in it.

 

Does anyone have any FSX to P3D migration figures?

 

However on Prepar3d's facebook page I saw a comment directly from them

 

The P3D EULA trumps an anonymous comment on Facebook, or even elsewhere.

However on Prepar3d's facebook page I saw a comment directly from them

 

The P3D EULA trumps an anonymous comment on Facebook, or even elsewhere.

 

Maybe read it again or go to the page. It wasn't anonymous. It was an official response from prepar3d to a potential users question that clarified what the EULA ACADEMIC meant.

The P3D EULA trumps an anonymous comment on Facebook, or even elsewhere.

 

Are you talking about this quote from LM?

 

There is no set timeline for the 2.0 release but will most likely be within 3 years

 

That post was made in Feb, 2013 ... so V2.0 is sometime before 2016. This is a good indication of just how "small" the LM crew is that is working on P3D. If I were to hazard a "guess" (and that's all it is), I'd say the crew of devs is equal to or less than XP10 crew of devs (so anywhere from 4-8 people).

 

Or are you refering to this quote by LM?

 

The Academic version is open to all people who consider themselves to be a student pilot.

 

How many student pilots start with an 737? We're all student pilots, even those of us that might be real pilots. But lets please avoid the EULA debate, it has been beaten to death so so so many times and has reached the point of nothing new to be learned from the EULA - it is what it is.

 

 

I also dont think prepar3d would give up having all these 3rd parties that do support p3d.

 

I disagree, it's going to be unavoidable if they move to DX10/DX11 full support.  Also, P3D have ZERO commitment to supporting 3rd party ... they've made that pretty clear on FB and elsewhere.  You're a "student" not your typical consumer - very very different.

Regarding LM, I think it's rather obvious what the real deal is. LM has said it from the start. Here is what they haven't said...

 

The FS user/developer community has accomplished things that MS either neither thought of or wasn't interested in pursuing. These (you) guys have taken FS to some terrific levels, and LM knows this. In fact, there are some things in the works within the community that is going to be a big step forward for us all - and all made by small developers.

 

The LM P3D Project Manager did an amazing thing by opening P3D to the FS community. He's opened the door to a thousand plus new ideas, concepts, and additions. LM has access to this all at no cost and gets the benefit of user/developer input, testing and feedback without having to place people on the payroll. Brilliant! Not a first, but still a new concept for defense contractors and the like. The PM is someone who really has it together, and I'd have loved to be in the room when he sold it to LM oversight.

 

I'm confident there never will be a true "Consumer" version of P3D, LM's focus (and breadbox) is military and commercial simulations, and it's really time that speculation end about LM and what they're doing.

 

Finally, what's wrong with MS these days is the same that's wrong with so many organizations. Management is in sensory overload with so many directions that products and concepts are taking, and they quickly loose focus. Add to that how we've lost true program/project management skills and instead we insist on using whatever the latest and greatest "system" is (TQM, Lean/Six Sigma, etc) and you do nothing but box people in and become part of the problem. I see it every single day at work.

 

Ah, just my two cents. Through it out with the baby and the bathwater... LOL.

 

 

By the way, LOVE THE TOPIC, wish there were more like this where experienced guys provide such insight. Thanks for that!

 

 

Dave

Maybe read it again or go to the page. It wasn't anonymous. It was an official response from prepar3d to a potential users question that clarified what the EULA ACADEMIC meant.

 

It's still irrelevant. What's official  is what the EULA states.

Everyone is so hung up on this not "not for entertainment purposes" thing.

 

LM is not trying to stop or limit people from using P3D.

 

LM is selling P3D as a tool... as a real simulator... The last thing they want it regarded as, is a "game"

It seems inevitable that as LM develops the sim for their actual target audience (mil,gov,corp training) they will break backward compatibility with FSX addons. At that point we will be at a crossroads, even if LM retains the academic license will 3rd party devs be welcome and/or willing to develop for the new version? It won't matter to LM's "real" customers if P3D V2.0 or future versions are stand-alone programs, but it will matter to us.

I personally don't think there "needs" to be any "migration" at all.  I use P3D, FSX, and XP10 and have never felt I need to use just one and only one simulation.  As far as I'm concerned my compatibility is in keeping FSX. 

 

I use FSX more than any of the 3 simulations I have as I seem able to squeeze more into FSX whereas P3D I'll hit OOM sooner than in FSX -- which I admit is a little puzzling as I thought P3D bug fixes would improve memory headroom.

 

My typical simulation day will go as follows:

1.  Flight plan for FSX with weather from gate to gate experience, full and complete

2.  Wonder how this situation works in P3D ... same or different, fire up P3D

3.  I just wanna fly around low level, fire up XP10

 

All three offer entertainment and enjoyment for me ... the downside is that I've now had to expand to 2TB worth of very fast SSDs to get'em all to fit