Prepar3d Next FSX?

[nudata 10]

As "industry experts discuss" the status of FSX this post is an outstanding summary of the environment from the perspective of a customer. Playing out the future from an extensive variety of knowledge positions is amusing but has no real effect on on the decision players in the the industry.

 

 

 

There is a tendency to frame these types of discussions as being similar to those you read in online message boards about the relative merits of brands of cars. But there is a distinct difference. Although from time to time car companies stop production (like Saab), it is not common that your automobile will be orphaned. This is exactly what happened with FSX. MS toyed with a replacement (Flight) and then gave up. LM bought some limited rights to use ESP and Austin Meyer created XPlane (not in order). The early versions of MS FS were released during the heyday of PC gaming. That period has long since passed. MS missed the boat on the mobile market and has spent the last year trying to frame Windows as the be all end OS for both desktop and mobile computing. MS is also in a constant battle with Sony over the gaming console market. And the gaming market is carved up even further by Android and iOS.

 

The context for flight simulation is that it is a relatively small legacy market that is propped up by a ) third party developers and b ) "enthusiasts". Now to some, the term enthusiast is going to sound snobbish, but I don't mean that at all. What I mean is that the individual  thinks that flight simming is a serious hobby. The person is likely to invest time and effort learning the sim and buying add ons.

 

Which leads me back to my original point. No one wants to invest both effort and money into a hobby and then find out that the path taken is a dead end. At this point in time, no one can foresee exactly which flight sim will be prevalent in 5 years or even whether Windows will still be around as a viable OS. This sea of uncertainty has made many people have black and white opinions about  what to do to avoid being abandoned in the future.

 

My approach was to stay with FSX and buy the commercial version of P3D (I'm a RL pilot like many here) as a backup "insurance policy". But I did try XPlane for a year prior to buying P3D. At this point in time if you believe in insurance, those (P3D and XP10) are still the only viable options. Maybe that will change in the future, but I tend to doubt it.

[alainneedle1 97]

This is dumb because you assume that legally binding "qualifying documents" must be provided in these cases. That's an assumption on your part and a false one. You also place way more weight behind those assumptions you are making about this EULA then even a court of law would.

 

The language in this thing is full of holes and encourages vague interpretation on purpose. There's no expressed guidelines set out to define what a "student" is. And because there aren't, no assumption past that matters nor does any assumption (no matter how "common sense" you may think it is) hold any legal weight.

 

If you say you are using the software to practice procedures, then you qualify. If you say you are studying the dynamics of flight, then you qualify. If you say you are learning how to fly, even if you have no intentions of ever enrolling in a formal flight school, you qualify. So on and so forth.

 

There's no language in the EULA that demands documented proof of your intentions from a third party source. It doesn't demand enrollment in an official capacity in any program to be deemed a student. In fact, one of the major outlets LM is chasing with P3D is to provide individuals with a training aid outside of an organized classroom. It's right there on their website.

 

Some of you have been trolling this topic years now. Time to give it a rest.

 

Again, don't take my words for the truth as I am not a lawyer, just take PMDG and their lawyers as an example...

 

QUOTE,

" P3D:  I keep seeing folks hope that we will "see the light" on P3D.  I think those folks should go back and read my statements on same.  We think P3D is going to be a great platform in the long term for our commercial and enterprise customers.  But because of P3Ds EULA we have no plans to offer "regular simmer" products on that platform.  I recognize that some of you are using P3D as a simming platform, but if you take a good close look at their EULA- you largely don't have that right- and as such they can turn you upside down one day if they decide to enforce their rights...   As such I think it would be irresponsible for us to sell you a simmer product on a commercial platform.  Some disagree, but...  We have a very expensive legal opinion on it- and I trust the lawyers in this case.  (And I don't like lawyers- so that is saying something!)" END OF QUOTE

 

Link: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412418-looks-really-great-but-i-cant-buy-it/  post #21

[Garys 209]

Again with the EULA. Let it rest!

You also have no right to use FSX as a training tool but students to ATPL rated pilots use FSX around the world everyday for doing just that. 

Clearly outside of its "USE FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY" 

To consistently argue the P3D EULA on one hand and to then turn a blind eye to the use of FSX as a training tool on the other is hypocrisy.

[HighTowers 1,436]

Something tells me that when V2 comes out and is indeed offered by whatever means of the EULA to general simmers as in the academic version subject to loose interpretation, and MS sees this as being successful, they will jump in somehow , and package up a retail version boxed and all. Just a feeling. But then again we are dealing with MS.   Maybe long time flight simmer fan Bill Gates will have some influence.   :ph34r:

[alainneedle1 97]

Again with the EULA. Let it rest!

 

You also have no right to use FSX as a training tool but students to ATPL rated pilots use FSX around the world everyday for doing just that. 

Clearly outside of its "USE FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY"

To consistently argue the P3D EULA on one hand and to then turn a blind eye to the use of FSX as a training tool on the other is hypocrisy.

 

I agree with both statements, still... two wrong don't not make a right.

[Garys 209]

I agree with both statements, still... two wrong don't not make a right.

No it doesn't, but it should make the EULA arguments mute. Unfortunately some still feel the need to consistently jump up on the soapbox and hijack threads with it, which then turns every descent P3D topic into a slinging match.

[Copper. 78]

LM may not be marketing and or selling P3d for entertainment usage, but it may well be the case that in fact, P3d is being used for that exact purpose by some users.

 

An issue that may give cause for MS to take some sort of measured action.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

LM may not be marketing and or selling P3d for entertainment usage, but it may well be the case that in fact, P3d is being used for that exact purpose by some users.

 

An issue that may give cause for MS to take some sort of measured action.

Exactly. A "whether you like it or not" attitude can be seen here. 

 

My local airport has a RedBird simulator. They have screens outside the room where the machine is that lets you see what the pilot is seeing. You can clearly see that it is a Windows computer with Flight Simulator X. Maybe it's ESP? What if it isn't? Isn't that "commercial"/"training" use? I don't know, but it certainly isn't Prepar3D. Also, RedBird is FAA certified as an AATD (Advanced aviation training device).

[FlyVFR 58]

Was Don Mattrick the head of the Microsoft Flight project? Wasn't that Joshua Howard?

Mattrick was the head of Microsoft Interactive Entertainment Business from October 2010 to sometime July 2013. This business group included MS Games and eventually in that you would've found the ACES studio.

A quick google search (I honestly did not know who Howard was) says Howard was the Flight team lead so you're right also. Mattrick was at the top of that chain for almost more than 2.5 years.

[Copper. 78]

I think many users wouldn't be able to justify beyond reasonable doubt, that they were using P3d for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment.

 

Purporting that you'd intended to attain some sort of academic benefit from the knowledge attained from your use of P3d would be difficult to prove beyond having some sort of tangible proof that that was indeed your intention.

 

Thankfully, my career is directly related to aircraft. I'm not yet a user of P3d software, though. However, should v2 be adequate, I will make the migration.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Mattrick was the head of Microsoft Interactive Entertainment Business from October 2010 to sometime July 2013. This business group included MS Games and eventually in that you would've found the ACES studio.

A quick google search (I honestly did not know who Howard was) says Howard was the Flight team lead so you're right also. Mattrick was at the top of that chain for almost more than 2.5 years.

 

Aces was shut down in 2009, so I guess that wasn't his decision. But I guess the decision to cancel remaining Microsoft Flight development (July 2012) was his. I hope that his departure means that someone else will consider resurrecting Microsoft Flight (Flight Simulator 11 seems way too unlikely).

[bonchie 2,305]

alainneedle1, on 08 Jul 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

 

Again, don't take my words for the truth as I am not a lawyer, just take PMDG and their lawyers as an example...

 

QUOTE,

" P3D: I keep seeing folks hope that we will "see the light" on P3D. I think those folks should go back and read my statements on same. We think P3D is going to be a great platform in the long term for our commercial and enterprise customers. But because of P3Ds EULA we have no plans to offer "regular simmer" products on that platform. I recognize that some of you are using P3D as a simming platform, but if you take a good close look at their EULA- you largely don't have that right- and as such they can turn you upside down one day if they decide to enforce their rights... As such I think it would be irresponsible for us to sell you a simmer product on a commercial platform. Some disagree, but... We have a very expensive legal opinion on it- and I trust the lawyers in this case. (And I don't like lawyers- so that is saying something!)" END OF QUOTE

 

Link: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412418-looks-really-great-but-i-cant-buy-it/ post #21

 

This is like talking to a wall.

 

I don't care what PMDG says. I thought I made that clear? They are one company and are not the authority on P3D.

 

Also, pay attention to your first bolded sentence. "It's going to be a great platform in the long term for our commercial and enterprise customers." Wait, I thought they weren't going to produce for it?

 

This is simple. In other words, "We are going to produce seperate products for P3D and charge way more for them." This is the same as Flight1 is currently doing with their "Professional store" for P3D. As usual this is about money.

 

Copper., on 08 Jul 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

 

LM may not be marketing and or selling P3d for entertainment usage, but it may well be the case that in fact, P3d is being used for that exact purpose by some users.

 

An issue that may give cause for MS to take some sort of measured action.

 

Microsoft isn't going to bother paying legal fees to try to stop a few thousand (if that) hardcore simmers from using P3D. Not to mention they'd have no legal leg to stand on in court anyway as they could never prove someone's intentions for the software.

 

P3D has been available for like 3 years now. If MS had such a problem with the EULA and use of P3D they'd of done something by now. It's obvious they either don't have a problem with it or have no real recourse to bother pursuing it.

[bonchie 2,305]

Copper., on 09 Jul 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

I think many users wouldn't be able to justify beyond reasonable doubt, that they were using P3d for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment.

 

Purporting that you'd intended to attain some sort of academic benefit from the knowledge attained from your use of P3d would be difficult to prove beyond having some sort of tangible proof that that was indeed your intention.

 

Thankfully, my career is directly related to aircraft. I'm not yet a user of P3d software, though. However, should v2 be adequate, I will make the migration.

 

You don't have to prove it.

 

There's no qualification in the EULA that says you must provide any documented proof of what you are using it for. And because the EULA doesn't require that, no court would even bother trying to enforce such a condition. Heck, LM is even pushing P3D as an at home training tool.

 

Personally, I'm getting my PPL in the fall (in the process of moving to D.C. and don't want to start a school here yet). But if anyone is legitmately using it as a learning tool, they can use it even without being enrolled anywhere in a program. Unless the EULA is updated to require proof of attending an academic institution all these arguments against use are moot.

[alainneedle1 97]

@ bronchie, if I have to trust and chose between PMDG's layers opinion and yours on this subject.... guess what....PMDG's lawyers win.

[mgh 89]

You don't have to prove it.

That is true - just as you don't have to prove that you'll only use it on a single computer but, by accepting the EULA, you agree to that. Similarly by accepting the EULA you agree to use it only in the Territory in which and by which you are licensed, chartered or otherwise accredited to provide Academic Education.

 

Of course if agreements mean nothing then this sub-thread is pointless.