I believe the closest we can get on an ESP-based platform to what DX11 provides is MS FLIGHT, and I really like the looks (and the feels) in that simulator.

 

My only problem right now is that I am being rather conservative about spending $$$ on add-ons, not really because I fear that they will not be compatible but rather because I am also on DCS World, and I am already so occupied with those excellent PMDG 737 NGX and A2A B377 manuals that I wouldn't have the time to spend with other add-ons.

 

When LM announces Prepar3D v2.0 I will be happy, until then, I am happy enjoying Prepar3D v1.4.

Everybody please settle down and READ what LM is actually SAYING in reference to the EULA (below, as quoted by Tom from a previous interview).

 

"Martile Allen: 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."

 

Besides the perspective provided by a lawyer in a previous post, the above statement (and EULA) say primarily FOUR things about LM's view and acceptable use of the product:

 

1. "...Prepar3d CAN be used for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." BIG NOTE HERE!!! This does NOT mean that somebody will be violating the EULA if they DO experience enjoyment ("entertainment") while using the product in one of those "other ways" (allowed purposes).

 

2. "Lockheed Martin does not offer Prepar3D for entertainment, and we have no plans to enter the entertainment space." Fine. ALL THIS SAYS is that it is NOT LM's "purpose" to provide nor market Prepar3D as an entertainment application. What is their stated reason for marketing the product?

 

3. "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." LM specifically states they are marketing Prepar3d for "Learning and Training". Fine again. But that does NOT mean they think someone who has "fun" or gets "enjoyment" or finds their learning or training experience "entertaining" is violating the EULA. They have no plans of prosecuting ANYBODY who would say, "Hey! I had an enjoyable time flying Prepa3d on my home computer last night!" And the use of the word "CAN'T" (highlighted by me in the quote) is simply LM's way of saying, "Hey, we are a government contractor who is expanding a previous "entertainment only" application that was NEVER certified as a real-world training application. And we are NOT developing it with the GOAL (focus) of marketing an entertainment-only product. So...don't BUY it as that type of product. We are marketing an educational and training application. Lockheed Martin is NOT a game company."

 

Like the lawyer said, they can't stop ANYBODY from ENJOYING "learning" or "training". I was an Instructor in the Air Force for 25 years. Heck...part of my job was to TRY TO MAKE the learning or training experience enjoyable. I'm 100% sure LM would WANT their Prepar3d to be an "enjoyable learning and training experience" for ANYONE who used it.

 

Don't get caught up in semantics...words. The ONLY thing LM is saying with their EULA is that they are NOT marketing Prepar3d as an "entertainment" or "just for fun simming" application. I'm not the least bit paranoid about using it in my house on my home computer. Why?

 

I already have my Private Pilot's License, so I would ASSUME that in as much as that would be one of the "qualifications" I would need to order the "professional" version, they would ask me how I qualified to purchase that version.

 

Has anyone ordered that version and been asked to PROVE you will use it "professionally"? Nope. Why? Because LM could not prove you WOULDN'T be using it as a "learning or training" tool. Note that LM is not asking any home user to prove they will be learning or training in a CERTIFIED environment (as explained by someone earlier).

 

It's simple, folks. LM doesn't want Prepar3d to be marketed as a "flight simulator" associated with the "gamer" demographic. They AREN'T saying they will prosecute ANY "flight simmer" who buys and uses it that way...because they could not prove it...EVEN IF the simmer himself said Prepar3d was "entertaining". Any defense attorney could easily prove that ANY use of Prepar3d by a simmer INCLUDED a "learning and training" experience. THAT'S WHAT SIMULATIONS ARE MADE TO DO. It is irrelevant whether the simulator operator is enjoying the experience or not at the time "Learning" takes place. THAT is why LM also has the STEM concept in one of the P3D's pricing plan. It would be ludicrous for them to say the STEM concept only applies to the reduced priced version of P3D and not the higher priced Professional version.

 

And...why the lowest priced P3D for only 9 dollars a month? Networking. If you ran a company that was developing a product that had a rather large consumer/developer base already in place, wouldn't it make sense to UTILIZE that base by offering them your product so they could help you enhance/develop it? Beats the heck out of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire you OWN additional work force to do it.

 

Buy P3D if you want to. Fly it in your own home on your own computer. If you ever got sued, your own Defense Attorney would say you were crazy if you thought it was "only a game" or a "purely entertainment experience". You "learned" something simply by using the program...even in your own home. And LM knows that. They won't come after you for violating the EULA.

 

On the other hand, your own personal integrity may come into question. I, as a Private Pilot, SHOULD be paying for the Professional version if I am going to say I use it to maintain proficiency or learn new flying skills. So if I take the "cheap" way out and only buy the $50 version...it's my own integrity that is in question.

MGH, this post is not aimed at you; this is just my general thoughts on this topic:

I don't disagree with what you said. In fact, I'm on record as saying in these forums "I suspect Lockheed Martin doesn't really care what private individuals do with P3D in the privacy of their own home"

 

My point, which I've made before, is that P3D's development will be driven by the needs of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business and not by the wishes of flight simulation enthusiasts. We are not mentioned in the article.

I really cant believe that I've made the mistake of purchasing a $50 flightsim "driven by the needs of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business".... I feel like such a fool. :rolleyes:

I really cant believe that I've made the mistake of purchasing a $50 flightsim "driven by the needs of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business".... I feel like such a fool. :rolleyes:

 

You thought it was driven by "the wishes of flight simulation enthusiasts"?

I think (I hope!) ctec1 was being a tad humorous in his post. Obviously, P3D is not being driven by the flightsim "gaming" community. But LM isn't stupid. There are plenty "professional" simmers, both civilian ATP's and military pilots, who "flightsim". So LM will (is) getting very good feedback for their commercial education and training P3D product, and what real-world pilots would like to see in it.

 

And because P3D has not been restricted for export outside the U.S. under current software laws, it would be safe to say LM has no issue with "classified" type of information being released or used by the "general public" non-commercial users. We would not even have access to P3D if what LM was putting in it compromised anything "classified military" from the U.S. And you'd better believe a lot of things LM does are classified. As of right now, P3D is a non-classified "learning and training" application that LM can expand on with the help of a user/developer base outside of Lockheed Martin employment. And if an outside "commercial user" wants to use P3D in a commercial (for profit?) enterprise, then they need a commercial contract of some sort to do that. It's not rocket science. As a home user, the only way I would get in trouble with the current EULA is if I bought the non-professional version of P3D (or any version for that matter), installed it on my home computer, then charged someone for me to train them how to fly using it. That would be bad and a violation of the EULA. Not to mention my "training" of that pilot would not be recognized nor certified by any agency like the FAA nor military.

 

Me personally? I feel damned fortunate to be able to have access to an upgraded/new(er) "flight simulator" that is being "driven by the needs of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business". If I can reap the benefits of that, I'm sure not gonna argue with it. For $50 OR $200.

Me personally? I feel d----d fortunate to be able to have access to an upgraded/new(er) "flight simulator" that is being "driven by the needs of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business". If I can reap the benefits of that, I'm sure not gonna argue with it. For $50 OR $200.

 

+1

 

Not to mention, being a "student" is not age-limited. It's a broad EULA by intention, and I can guarantee you this- I learn something new each and every time I fire up the sim and use the software. If I didnt, I would be bored with it a long, long time ago and wouldnt bother to use these products, which are a learning tool for me and those that use my sim. Guess I'm lucky in that I can see it as a training and learning system personally.

I don't disagree with what you said. In fact, I'm on record as saying in these forums "I suspect Lockheed Martin doesn't really care what private individuals do with P3D in the privacy of their own home"

 

My point, which I've made before, is that P3D's development will be driven by the needs of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business and not by the wishes of flight simulation enthusiasts. We are not mentioned in the article.

 We agree on something Gerry!  Good point will be the weapons training that is being developed for P3D - that will not be available to civilian users. Some other mission specific areas - ditto.

 

Yes, it IS being driven by their commercial customers BUT the sim community can benefit from this. LM relies quite a bit on the feedback from the simming community -after all, WE have been using the FSX/ESP product as early beta testers for years. I'd venture a guess that some of our more talented users know more about specific inner workings of FSX than LM. Gauge design is just one area that comes to mind.

 

The discussions on the EULA will go on ad nauseum - IMHO it is as clear as legalese can be - it then falls to an individuals personal "contract" with LM - if you think you qualify for any of the licenses and they sell it to you, it is between you and them.

 

The P3D "sim" community is growing. I read of more people trying it every day and finding it better than their experience with FSX. But, as I have said before, *IF* you have a really smooth running FSX install, do NOT expect any major improvements. Buying P3D to see what it is all about or wanting to be in on the ground floor of new developments would be your main reason for the purchase.

 

Shortly after FSX was released, the buzz was wondering what would be in FSXnext - and MS pulled the plug - things are not cast in stone. For now, I say, enjoy P3D and what it has to offer and see what happens - let speculation about tomorrow be excactly what it is - speculation.

 

Vic

We agree on something Gerry! Good point will be the weapons training that is being developed for P3D - that will not be available to civilian users. Some other mission specific areas - ditto.

I'm glad you mentioned that point, Vic. There are some very sensitive features that P3D makes available only to very select customers...

I'm glad you mentioned that point, Vic. There are some very sensitive features that P3D makes available only to very select customers...

Agreed Bill. And the development of that technology might benefit us all. Say, for example, the development of aircraft tracking for a weapons delivery system might be modified to provide a better ATC experience, etc.

 

I just feel that the sim community is in a very good place with P3d for however long it lasts, and I don't really see them pulling the plug in the near future.

 

Vic

IF this statement of no entertainment purposes were actually entirely true, then you can be sure that not one of these 3rd party fsx developers all of whom have native p3d installers would not be allowed to have the addon in the first place as all thier addons for fsx are entertainment purposes. So I dont buy it. If they were really serious, all addons other then their own internal ones would be banned. PMDG and a couple of others have decided not to. Their choice.

 

Furthermore on the point of fun or entertainment, I was sure ive seen and met professional pilots who do laugh and smile and have some "fun" in thier professional flying and can be entertained by the enviroment. Other wise everyone would be going to work as robots. 

 

This is purely marketing as has been pointed out. Sell it and admit it as a gamer fun platform as well and the value of their core high profile corporate environment suddenly takes a nose dive with no speedbrakes. 

The fact that kids are used in the statement says it all. Well guess what. Im a big kid. 6'8 actually, and I love to learn and train in my flight simming environment. After all, I dont fit in real cockpits very well.

So I dont buy it. If they were really serious, all addons other then their own internal ones would be banned. PMDG and a couple of others have decided not to. Their choice.

 

I'm not going to get into the legal reasons why a 3rd-party add-on developer won't provide a product for P3D, since that issue has been beaten to death. But the main issue as to why P3D is not supported, is that these add-on shops are generally small operations. To support two flight sim apps instead of one requires a lot more work and effort. This is the same reason that some developers don't support X-Plane, which I assume that at least for the moment, has a much larger installed base than P3D. P3D is far closer in compatibility to FSX then X-Plane, but that could change in the future. Then, when you superimpose the legal considerations ("no use for entertainment purposes"), you can see why some developers are sticking to FSX.

So I dont buy it. If they were really serious, all addons other then their own internal ones would be banned. PMDG and a couple of others have decided not to. Their choice.

 

 

I'm not going to get into the legal reasons why a 3rd-party add-on developer won't provide a product for P3D, since that issue has been beaten to death. But the main issue as to why P3D is not supported, is that these add-on shops are generally small operations. To support two flight sim apps instead of one requires a lot more work and effort. This is the same reason that some developers don't support X-Plane, which I assume that at least for the moment, has a much larger installed base than P3D. P3D is far closer in compatibility to FSX then X-Plane, but that could change in the future. Then, when you superimpose the legal considerations ("no use for entertainment purposes"), you can see why some developers are sticking to FSX.

 

I'll take a stab. From a legal standpoint (and with regard to my prior post on this topic), LM wants professional/military grade sim software.  If you are a 3rd party add-on, you have to be willing to agree to the license/contract agreement.  LM is apparently trying to sell this software to train real world civilian/military pilots--something that MS was never claiming to do. As a result, when you claim your product is sufficient to offer real world training, you expose yourself to real world legal liability.  Now, if your are a 3rd party that makes environment add-ons (i.e. - REX) then you have little to worry about. You can't be sued for having incorrect weather.  Even terrain add-ons are likely fine because even if they are incorrect, they get their information from a 3rd parties.  Once you get into cockpit, that's a different scenario.  Cockpits are representing how to operate an airplane.  If some idiot crashes a plane due to what was supposed to be "real training" on your sim, that causes problems, liability and lawsuits. 

 

PMDG makes a great product, but if I were their attorney (which I'm not), I would be hard pressed to ever allow them to put their software into a product meant for real flight training. The liability exposure is too great.

 

Edit: and probably the only way I would feel comfortable about my client adding software to P3D is if there are indemnity provisions and/or it is sold as "entertainment." (which P3D disavows).

That dreaded LM EULA popped up again! Hahaha Never in my life have I seen a bunch of people get their Depends all bunched up over something that has been debated ad nauseum. LOL

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

That dreaded LM EULA popped up again!

 

I was about to post the same. I started reading this post expecting a discussion about new features etc but the EULA popped up again and the thread descended into the realms of the previous 3653 P3D topics. Who the heck cares. Buy it or leave it. Thats it. Nothing to discuss.