Have you seen the contract with Boeing?

I've seen them mention it when asked about P3D. That and the fact that their other concerns are illogical leads me to my conclusions. Countless addon makers are making dual installers for FSX/P3D, and their own NGX even works in P3D as it sits. The idea that they are worried people will lose use is silly. If they are really that worried about it simply make the planes for FSX natively and provide a dual installer.

 

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

There is no gambling. There are no truly native P3D addons (not yet anyway). Anything I have can be used in FSX as well so there's no risk of loss of use.

 

They hyperbole that gets tossed around in regards to P3D is dumb.

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.

 

 

PMDG openly admitted it. Who's being paranoid now?

 

The decision to limit the EULA on PMDG’s products to prevent their use in Prepar3d has everything to do with our contract with Boeing, our insurance carrier and our business model

 

.

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

PMDG openly admitted it. Who's being paranoid now?

 

.

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

If I knew what your point was I'd address it.

 

It's already been covered they've directly mentioned Boeing. They've also in another statement pinned it on the EULA.

 

Just to clear up anymore confusion so we can stop this stupid back and forth, I believe it's all about Boeing with PMDG, and not a real combination of that and a legitmate concern over the EULA and people losing the ability to use their products.

 

You either agree or disagree. Doesn't matter to me at this point nor does it even have anything to do with whether P3D is viable or not. PMDG is one company out of hundreds in the addon business. They can do whatever they want.

The irony here is thick.

 

The very reason XPX isn't mainstream and won't be is because it lacks a lot of essential features.

 

Absolutely no irony here, but deadly serious. X-Plane is not mainstream, because the majority of flightsimmers aren't real world pilots and even don't know what makes a real flight. They let themselves blind by "outer splendour and pomp", i.e. superfluous gimmicks, as e.g. de-icing vehicles with no effect, catering trucks, baggage carts and the like - as they know from viewing the apron once a year, when they fly on holiday.

Let’s have a look on some essential and basic “features” of real world flying:

1. When it’s cold outside, high humidity (clouds around you) – what happens? You may fall from the sky due to icing. Not so in P3D/FSX, but in XP. Oh, I understand … P3D/FSX have automatic anti-ice switches - XP is inferior :lol:, you have to turn them on manually.
2. Additionally, you have icy runways in winter, with much longer braking distance. Not so in P3D/FSX (seasonal textures don’t help), but in XP.
3. There are birds flying around, they can damage your engines and you may fall from the sky. Not so in P3D/FSX, but in XP.
4. Flying right through the middle of a thunderstorm is very dangerous in real life. Not so in P3D/FSX (have you tried flying the trike through a thunderstorm? What happens?), but in XP.
5. Windshear – dangerous in real life. Not so in P3D/FSX, but in XP.
6. Wake turbulences from other planes. Not in P3D/FSX, but in XP.
7. And even more …

ATC is not good, neither in P3D/FSX nor in XP, if you want “real” ATC you have to fly online. AI traffic is not this good in XP, but even full flight sims don’t have AI traffic (at best static planes) and no ATC. So, X-Plane is much closer to professional simulators (that’s why it is FAA approved, with the according hardware) – although P3D is claiming to be “professional” for $199.

 

So, even the basic and essential features for flying are missing in P3D/FSX, instead there are some superfluous ones implemented. I dare to say, P3D/FSX are like a car with gimmicks like spoilers, alloy wheels, … but wooden tires and steam engine.

 

Finally, you won't get P3D in a supermarket/electronic store/... near you, so (very) few new flighsimmers will be aware of it.

And one more aspect - when you rely on large companies, in the long term you will be lost. They change their mind every few years (e.g. when the new CEO wants to show that the things his predecessor did, where totally wrong, and only himself is able to do it right, or for other reasons). We have seen it with Microsoft and FSX, we see it every day in other areas too.

Absolutely no irony here, but deadly serious. X-Plane is not mainstream, because the majority of flightsimmers aren't real world pilots and even don't know what makes a real flight. They let themselves blind by "outer splendour and pomp", i.e. superfluous gimmicks, as e.g. de-icing vehicles with no effect, catering trucks, baggage carts and the like - as they know from viewing the apron once a year, when they fly on holiday.

Let’s have a look on some essential and basic “features” of real world flying:

• When it’s cold outside, high humidity (clouds around you) – what happens? You may fall from the sky due to icing. Not so in P3D/FSX, but in XP. Oh, I understand … P3D/FSX have automatic anti-ice switches - XP is inferior :lol:, you have to turn them on manually.
• Additionally, you have icy runways in winter, with much longer braking distance. Not so in P3D/FSX (seasonal textures don’t help), but in XP.
• There are birds flying around, they can damage your engines and you may fall from the sky. Not so in P3D/FSX, but in XP.
• Flying right through the middle of a thunderstorm is very dangerous in real life. Not so in P3D/FSX (have you tried flying the trike through a thunderstorm? What happens?), but in XP.
• Windshear – dangerous in real life. Not so in P3D/FSX, but in XP.
• Wake turbulences from other planes. Not in P3D/FSX, but in XP.
• And even more …

ATC is not good, neither in P3D/FSX nor in XP, if you want “real” ATC you have to fly online. AI traffic is not this good in XP, but even full flight sims don’t have AI traffic (at best static planes) and no ATC. So, X-Plane is much closer to professional simulators (that’s why it is FAA approved, with the according hardware) – although P3D is claiming to be “professional” for $199.

 

So, even the basic and essential features for flying are missing in P3D/FSX, instead there are some superfluous ones implemented. I dare to say, P3D/FSX are like a car with gimmicks like spoilers, alloy wheels, … but wooden tires and steam engine.

 

Finally, you won't get P3D in a supermarket/electronic store/... near you, so (very) few new flighsimmers will be aware of it.

And one more aspect - when you rely on large companies, in the long term you will be lost. They change their mind every few years (e.g. when the new CEO wants to show that the things his predecessor did, where totally wrong, and only himself is able to do it right, or for other reasons). We have seen it with Microsoft and FSX, we see it every day in other areas too.

Taking the "real flight simmers don't need basic features that have been available in FS for a decade" approach isn't going to win Xplane any followers.

 

Making excuses for it is all well and good but until Xplane has basic things like working ATC (FSX's isn't the best but it's 10x better then Xplanes), a working AI system, default airport buildings, seasons, something more then a bland "plausible world" with very odd autogen placement, etc. it will remain very much a niche within a niche.

 

Austin is aware of this himself, which is why he's trying to get default airports populated now.

 

Besides, most of the stuff you listed isn't true, or is only part of the story. With pretty much any 3PD weather engine, most of those issues are fixed. Windshear and turbulence absolutely can be dangerous. I destroyed a Legacy trying to fly into a thunderstorm over Florida just the other day. Wake turbulence exists in Active Sky at least. Wet/Icy runways are taking into account in FSX as well. Icing is simulated. But, no bird strikes. You got me there.

 

You also fail to mention the multitude of bugs Xplane is working through dealing with some of the features you mention and their flight model in general. No sim is perfect.

 

I do find it a little funny for Xplane fans to snub their nose at FSX fans because they like visual goodies, yet you guys went nuts over the night environment and little driving cars in XPX. Even you guys are prone to like the pretty stuff, just admit it

 

Part of flying is the visuals. Heck, it's what draws so many to flying in the first place. Very few pilots I know got into it because they like to flip switches. It's about being up there and what you see and experience.

P3D and FSX do model icing effects, and in some way do it more coherently than XPX which basis ice accumulation rate on aircraft gross weight... Your C172 builds ice at a probably realistic pace, but the 744 will kill you in a just a few minutes, which is perfectly opposite RL.

 

P3D AND fsx do model rw contamination by water / ice, and even for different types of surface. Just as XPX it does have problems with frictions coeficients, which are too high in FSX / P3D, and too low in XPX (thus the problems, so irrealistic, we have in XPX to taxi under mild x-winds...).

 

Yes, wind effects and the effects of turbulence, specially in convective clouds are much more realistic in XPX.

And, in XPX you get for free very plausible slope / ridge winds, and even thermals, although some add-ons for FSX can do a better work regarding thermals...

 

In XPX, we have to really get rid of that ultra-unrealistic roll due to torque effects which affects prop aircraft, and makes handling them a lot less realistic than in P3D or FSX...

 

Also, the latest version of XPX have tuned down stall (specially accelerated) effects, making some airplanes behave like most of the unstallable aircraft in MS FLIGHT... Dive in your best default aircraft in XPX, or even in some of the most acclaimed payware add-ons, and pull on the stick to where your should in RL enter an accelerated stall condition... You will not experience it in XPX!

3 pages of the same old rhetoric. The majority of the posts give reasons NOT to buy FSX P3D, XPX. The negativity amazes me.

 

If you have the $$ - buy all three and fly the one you like. Will it be PERFECT?  Hell NO! but that does not mean you cannot enjoy i.

 

1) Don't buy FSX - it's no longer being developed - true - but FSX is STILL a great sim AND the 3rd party devs are still producing!

 

2) Don't buy P3D - PMDG doesn't support it and they must know something or LM will have the right to pull the license any time.

 

yup! So did MS and so does ANY developer - If you have $50 - buy the Academic version - if LM *EVER* asks if you are a student and you are not - give it back, but until then - enjoy it and don't worry about the EULA enforcers in the forums.

 

3) Don't buy XPX - limited scenery, small, may never be a BIG developer - so what? if it runs on your system and you can have fun with it - go for it.

 

I've been around these forums long enough to know that no matter WHO recommends what there will always be someone who will bring up the negative but it gets tiring.

 

For me, right now, I like P3D far better than FSX and I never had any problems with FSX. I just think that, overall, P3D is a better sim and PROMISES to get better. Don't let the armchair lawyers confuse the issue - your purchase is between YOU and LM. f you try to buy it for $50 or $200 or $10/month and they sell it to you - all is well. If you have the funds - you qualify - period.

 

I would like to see XPX grow but for me, for now, the relatively limited world is an issue. To those f you who use XPX and love it - fandamntastic! - enjoy - that's what all this simming is supposed to be about.

 

And lest I forget the diehard FS9 users - if you enjoy flying it - don't let anyone change you - it is also still a very good sim, especially on limited hardware.

 

I am fortunate, I can afford to build a new system every year and can appreciate the performance gains new hardware provides, many can't - so they make do with what they have - that alone does NOT make them wrong .

 

Anyhow - it's too hot to stay on my soapbox - just enjoy yourself and if you can afford to try another sim - do it just BECAUSE YOU WANT to - not because someone talked you into it.

 

Just MHO,

 

Vic

 

 

Don't let the armchair lawyers confuse the issue - your purchase is between YOU and LM.

 

Isn't that code for ignore the EULA?

Isn't that code for ignore the EULA?

 

For fun I googled "Prepar3d EULA" just to see how this issue has evolved over the years as I haven't been in any of the discussions about it and you seem to be on every forum making the same arguments in nearly every topic that arises on this.

 

What exactly is your angle to keep beating away at this and badgering those who use it (for years now no less)?

 

Isn't that code for ignore the EULA?

 

 

Nope - it's code for let the people who WROTE the EULA decipher it and don't leave it in the hands of anal retentive pseudo intellectuals who claim to know what it means.

 

I buy from LM - LM wrote the EULA - LM sells to me - all is good in sim land.

 

What you or anyone else thinks is of no interest nor importance OTHER than you are entitled to your opinion.

 

It is between LM, their lawyers and the consumer.

 

Vic

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

 

 

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on the internet in some time.

 

It doesn't matter what genre it extends to! A poor UI is a poor UI. If it's unintuitive then it's unintuitive. It doesn't matter what platform it's on, what model it represents, or what application it serves. If it's overtly complex, cumbersome, takes time away from the training experience, or hampers said experience, then it needs to be revamped. The most common complaint concerning P3D from the "professionals" is that it takes entirely far too much time to set up a training flight, the UI being a major hindrance.

 

For the record I actually like P3D. I enjoy it. However, I won't drink the kool-aid when it concerns the myraid of issues still present in the sim. People tend to spout that it's the end all, regardless of the current problems associated with it, and ignore some of the glaring problems that remain.

t_bergman, on 01 Jul 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

 

MS shut down the ACES studio back with the financial crisis of 09, Flight was developed in 2010 with a new groupd names the Microsoft Flight development team under Microsoft Studios.. Some good reading is here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Studios and a good blog post about it is here: http://squawkbox.ca/news/

 

Not only Aces. They also shutdown Ensemble Studios... They made literally my FAVORITE games. Age of Mythology, Age of Empires (handed over now, at least AOEO). It sucks how they closed the 2 best studios.

 

If anyone wants to know, this is where all the veteran Aces developers work now: http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/ They created their own company. Read more here: http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/press_release/

Shamrock727, on 01 Jul 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

 

Until PMDG aircraft work in P3D (don't know if they do or not) I won't be making the move towards P3D. I would like to however, as I have about had it with the already ancient piece of software that is FSX!

 

If I do switch to P3D, it will surely be the next version. Or new product of P3D.

I agree.

mgh, on 03 Jul 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

It does. Microsoft is still selling FSX

Yup, but they don't support it. Nor do they care anymore about it. Soon enough they'll stop the "Activation" servers, and you'll never be able to install FSX again. It's basically sold "as-is" now.

 

 

mgh, on 03 Jul 2013 - 4:28 PM, said:

 

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.

tumtiddle, on 03 Jul 2013 - 5:00 PM, said:

 

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.

This is the problem for me. I'm confused what their intentions with P3D are.

Edited July 5, 201312 yr by linux731

How about LM selling and SUPPORTING strictly for the military and commercial market and an LM licensed third party company/organization selling and supporting the "other" market? I expounded this theory here some time ago and have read nothing to change my mind.

I buy from LM - LM wrote the EULA - LM sells to me - all is good in sim land.

Lockheed Martin only sold it to you after you explicitly agreed to the EULA,

 

How many here who bought an Academic Licence are  “licensed, chartered or otherwise accredited to provide Academic Education”  by a “State, Territory, or governmental subdivision thereof” according to the EULA. You don’t need to be a lawyer to answer that – you just need to be able to read and understand English.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on the internet in some time.

 

 

 

No it isn't. Read and understand what I actually said.

 

 

How about LM selling and SUPPORTING strictly for the military and commercial market and an LM licensed third party company/organization selling and supporting the "other" market? I expounded this theory here some time ago and have read nothing to change my mind.

 

If Lockheed Martin's agreement with Microsoft precludes it supporting the "other" market then it can't  licence another company..

If Lockheed Martin's agreement with Microsoft precludes it supporting the "other" market then it can't  licence another company..

 

I have not found anything in my reading of what has officially been made public, to support the presumption that any such agreement exists, Gerry.

 

I do however accept that LM is not in the entertainment market and has no intention whatsoever of putting resources into supporting such a product.

 

It would seem to me that LM will support the military and commercial market and license an entity that is already supporting "domestic simulation products" to distribute and support Prepar3D to that market.