Noel,

 

It is clear as to the 3 groups of users the EULA addresses and the group of users it excludes. Go teach your goldfish to fly or show your girl your best 3 pointer and you'll be fine according to some.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself! :lol:

Noel,

 

It is clear as to the 3 groups of users the EULA addresses and the group of users it excludes. Go teach your goldfish to fly or show your girl your best 3 pointer and you'll be fine according to some.

 

Goldfish make good pilots, ( at least,  in MS Flight.)

 

. If they really wanted to restrict use their EULA would specifically state

 

Lockheed Martin does. The Profession and Developer EULAs read "...only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." and the Academic EULA "...in connection with Academic Education,"

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_T6XMDg53g

Oh.......but but but they don't ask for proof at the time of purchase, come to your house, arrest you, ask you to sign a legal document, or any other kind of nonsense.

Some still do care about doing the right thing.

Oh.......but but but they don't ask for proof at the time of purchase, come to your house, arrest you, ask you to sign a legal document, or any other kind of nonsense.

Some still do care about doing the right thing.

 

Ever thought of running for Office?

Some still do care about doing the right thing.

 

And some prefer to be honest

 

 

Market something someday and watch people rip you off and then we'll see how you really feel.

I sure am glad you guys are out there to police the rest of us. What would we ever do if there weren't folks to put their moral system on everyone else.

 

I can't imagine Lockheed feels too ripped off when I paid $10 a month for a year then paid $50 again. On top of the $50 I paid to Microsoft... $30 more for FS9... $20 more for FS2002... who did I rip off again?

Discussion of the EULA for both products has been politely suggest as inappropriate here at AVSIM. Perhaps it's time for something stronger? ^_^

 

 

Perhaps it's time for something stronger?

 

A nice cold beer sounds good to me! B)

Fr. Bill, do the right thing and 86 this thread... please.

Lockheed Martin does. The Profession and Developer EULAs read "...only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." and the Academic EULA "...in connection with Academic Education,"

.

Thank you, this wasn't present in Jim's quote, and to which I admitted I wasn't aware if this was strictly forbidden.  However, this being said, here's the 'read-between-the-lines' that I see:

 

1.  LM wishes to frame the product as academic in nature.  Their purpose, I would guess, is primarily to  attract the attention of academic markets, so as to provide a level of legitimacy to a piece of software that was clearly primarily designed to be entertainment software.  Therefore, the agenda here is not to prevent sales to folks more interested in extending the trajectory of FSX as entertainment (again I am arguing, entertainment and learning are not completely separate by any stretch), but really to establish P3D as something thought of as academic within the context of its vast history as ... entertainment.  You must agree FSX is used by some as a learning tool, well before LM jumped in.

2.  LM will happily accept anyone's purchase of their software.  If the purpose of their EULA was the strict prevention of non-clearly-academic intention, then issuance of a password protected login w/ USB dongle or similar could be used when you're really serious about preventing 'unauthorized use'.

 

If LM really wants to restrict use they can do it in the method I've just described.  That they make it plenty simple for people to purchase this w/o this level of highly doable assured control is tacit demonstration of their real agenda.  That there is an ongoing argument about the role of the EULA only bespeaks the fact there are indicators about LM's real intention that are in conflict.

For the simmers who like to actually learn what they are doing, LM did mention learning, and I tell you Ive learned alot studying all these pmdg manuals, charts, aviation weather, planning etc. 

 

For this reason, as per topic I really do hope that P3D is the future. It remains to be seen what they do, and only they can dictate whether we use it or not. For me, I think its not quite a professional simulator to its fullest extent even though sold as such, because there is so many aspects of FSX that dont simulate real world. IE, icing, weather radar, etc etc. limitation limitation. Maybe v2 will address this. 

 

For those that refuse to buy support and use it and love to argue about it, perhaps read and reread post 86 of John Nicols comments directly from LM and the only interpretation that should be understood. Not one from me or anyone else. If you still dont understand, read it again. After all they did do an interview with flightsim.com. A purely PC flight simulator entertainment and learning online forum as is here. If it was strictly commerical only as some suggest, they wouldve refused the interview as it would go against this commercial corporate aspect. 

 

I absolutly love flying on the PC. Have been for 30 years. XPX and the future of P3D are our only hope to keep it alive it seems. So dont be negative and knock it down. 

My dog learned to roll over while playing. I'm sure that counts too.

 

That fine interview at flightsim.com directly states that P3D is not an entertainment product.