Prepar3d Next FSX?

[learn-by-flying 37]

It had problems when it first started as well. I will wait til V2 comes out then I will make the switch. I'm sure there will be a lot of tweaking at first just like FSX.

 

Im not so sure about the tweaking, LM is in the business to get things right the first time. It kinda spoils peoples day when some of their software doesn't work right.

[DetCord 24]

But Prepar3D isn't being developed as a game. Lockheed Martin is developing it primarily to support serious training by its commercial and military customers.

 

Never said it was... *******.

 

Merely pointing out how difficult it can be to fix or alter a UI post launch. Especially one as unintuitive as P3D's.

 

And for everyone saying that the quirks and sub-par design decisions are otherwise forgivable, simply because it's a "commercial product", well, that's just plain stupid. If product, commercial or otherwise has drawbacks, then those issues need to be addressed, not forgiven. Giving P3D a free pass because of the professed commercial aspect on these issues, does the customer, corporate or otherwise, a disservice.

 

Issues such as the ones descibed above, and in other posts are a major factor in why VBS2 and BIA's contracts are not being renewed by the various Defense Departments around the globe. That said, I have high hopes V2 will have addressed the problems and streamlined the experience. Wait and see I spose'.

[bonchie 2,305]

I don't think that PMDG and Flight1 lawyers are jockies....about asking them?

I don't think PMDG or Flight1 are not using P3D because they fear legal repurcussions (I would have to logically assume Orbx, Carenado, and Aerosoft are too stupid to see if I thought that and I don't buy it). I think it's for other reasons.

[thepilot 577]

Didn't PMDG (or Rob R. at least) state that P3D is for the commercial sector and that is not something PMDG will be interested in?

 

I think it was in the Flight For Tony video/webcast.

 

My guess is that since PMDG has entered some sort of corporation with Boeing, they can't really team up with Lockheed Martin now, which is a competitor of Boeing after all. Quite a dilemma I'd say, since their great addons would most likely work even better in P3D. Saying it's due to the program's commercial orientation makes little sense, since Aerosoft or Orbx for instance hardly target commercial users with their light simulation and scenery addons. Actually, PMDG's accurate renditions of aircraft would be much more interesting for flight training purposes.

[FSDanL 3]

This thread answers the question about PMDG and P3D. The first thing PMDG mentioned was their own contract with Boeing. They were also concerned that any potential EULA enforcement could leave their customers with products that would no longer be usable. 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/384876-pmdg-releases-statement-regarding-eulas-for-p3d/

[wizzards 99]

funny all this talk of lawyers ,most will work for anyone that pays them to  prosecute of defend them  ,and as they are in the game for lots of dosh they can argue what ever you want and can afford to pay for ,did not flight1 and pmdg have some meeting with LM and from what I read were not treated as anybody important to LM ,maybe simply  these companies are not included or needed in  LM plans ,this is a commercial training sim  why would LM want these companies to be involved or tell them there business plans  ,what will flight1 or pmdg bring to the table for LM real market ?methinks ,lots of bent egos around, Us lot ,we are stability testers ,unpaid beta testers and I love it ,

[mgh 89]

 

 

Never said it was... *******.


Merely pointing out how difficult it can be to fix or alter a UI post launch. Especially one as unintuitive as P3D's.

 

And I was pointing out what's a good UI to a game developer is not necessarily a good UI for a training aid.

[alainneedle1 97]

I don't think PMDG or Flight1 are not using P3D because they fear legal repurcussions (I would have to logically assume Orbx, Carenado, and Aerosoft are too stupid to see if I thought that and I don't buy it). I think it's for other reasons.

 

I've never said that was the reason.

 

As for others companies selling their add on for P3D...why not...as long as you buy them they will be happy to make money BUT if for any reason what so ever something happen and LM revoke or can't sell to simmers who can't prove that they are legitimate schools, students, developers do you think you'll get your money back from them, that's maybe why some developers don't "wanna" mess with that possibility...

[bonchie 2,305]

I've never said that was the reason.

 

As for others companies selling their add on for P3D...why not...as long as you buy them they will be happy to make money BUT if for any reason what so ever something happen and LM revoke or can't sell to simmers who can't prove that they are legitimate schools, students, developers do you think you'll get your money back from them, that's maybe why some developers don't "wanna" mess with that possibility...

And if for any reason FSX's authentication servers from Microsoft shut down do you think you'll get your money back? Every piece of software carries that risk as you never technically own software.

 

Your concern is also based in the false perception that LM can "revoke" your P3D install. If someone already owns P3D then it's not going to be "revoked." P3D does not use an always on or internet based connection DRM where they can deactivate your software on a whim.

 

You brought up PMDG and Flight1. The reasons they aren't supporting P3D (right away at least) are obvious. PMDG has a contract with Boeing and has been open about that. Flight1 has a commercial site they are getting set up (the Ifly 737 is already available for P3D from it) and they want to be able to jack their prices up for P3D use. It's just an attempted cash grab on their part, not proof they don't see P3D as viable going forward.

 

But guess what, if you are so worried about it and paranoid then don't use P3D. Simple.

[mgh 89]

...if someone already owns P3D...

Only Lockheed Martin owns P3D - everyone else has a licence and "Either party may terminate this EULA for failure of the other to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this EULA."

[bonchie 2,305]

mgh, on 04 Jul 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

 

Only Lockheed Martin owns P3D - everyone else has a licence and "Either party may terminate this EULA for failure of the other to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this EULA."

Spare me. I'm well aware and even commented in the same freaking post that no one technically owns software anymore. That's true for FSX and every piece of software you've bought in the last two decades so it's hardly special that LM has that line in their EULA.

 

If it's on your computer they have no way to take it off once it's there as LM does not use an always on DRM. That was my point.

[alainneedle1 97]

And if for any reason FSX's authentication servers from Microsoft shut down do you think you'll get your money back? Every piece of software carries that risk as you never technically own software.

 

Your concern is also based in the false perception that LM can "revoke" your P3D install. If someone already owns P3D then it's not going to be "revoked." P3D does not use an always on or internet based connection DRM where they can deactivate your software on a whim.

 

You brought up PMDG and Flight1. The reasons they aren't supporting P3D (right away at least) are obvious. PMDG has a contract with Boeing and has been open about that. Flight1 has a commercial site they are getting set up (the Ifly 737 is already available for P3D from it) and they want to be able to jack their prices up for P3D use. It's just an attempted cash grab on their part, not proof they don't see P3D as viable going forward.

 

But guess what, if you are so worried about it and paranoid then don't use P3D. Simple.

 

Bonchie, you can't take only the part you like and leave everything else out...here for you and others to read.

 

 

"Quote"

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. "End of Quote"

 

I guess that make PMDG worried and paranoid also.

[bonchie 2,305]

Bonchie, you can't take only the part you like and leave everything else out...here for you and others to read.

 

 

"Quote"

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. "End of Quote"

 

I guess that make PMDG worried and paranoid also.

I've already addressed this. PMDG's "concerns" are illogical and a convienant way around simply admitting it's all about their contract with Boeing. Is PMDG incapable of doing what Magestic did? Making a detailed plane that both works in FSX and P3D with a dual installer so there's never any risk of loss of use? Of course they could do that and their "concerns" would go out the window as any buyer would always be able to use their product in FSX if P3D ever went away. Their excuses are just fluff.

 

It doesn't make PMDG worried or paranoid (like you seem to be). It makes them a business.

 

As I said, the answer for you is easy. Don't use P3D. Have fun.

[mgh 89]

 

 

I've already addressed this. PMDG "concerns" are illogical and a convienant way around simply admitting it's all about their contract with Boeing.

 

Have you seen the contract with Boeing?

[alainneedle1 97]

No problems Bonchie and no hard feelings, it's your money and you can gamble with it the way you want.