The Clipper probably doesn't like you munching on Doritos, either.  Crumbs attract birds...evil, berry-eating, tail-sitting fowl.

 

Isn't that intentional? I mean, I know the PMDG BirdSim was supposed to stay secret for a while... but now that you have mentioned them... you know, he just uses it to attract them for a photoshoot opportunity.

 

 

you know, he just uses it to attract them for a photoshoot opportunity.

 

haha - there is nothing photogenic in the aftermath of those stupid birds... :Sick:

Honestly, my mom always gives me a bunch of crap for not going to law school with how I'm always in a debate with someone.

 

I suffer the same.  However, I often try not to get involved into large debates here; as most of the time it is completely useless because people will believe what they want to believe and will, for some reason unbeknownst to me, fight to the death to prove they are right; irregardless if they are speaking from a position with no real world knowledge or experience of the topic at hand.  If people want to learn than I am happy to help and provide explanation, but I'm not here to babysit and try to force people to learn something they don't want to learn (which is often contrary to what they say) and that they seem very content with the answer they got from Google.

 

 

However, I often try not to get involved into large debates here; as most of the time it is completely useless because people will believe what they want to believe and will, for some reason unbeknownst to me, fight to the death to prove they are right; irregardless if they are speaking from a position with no real world knowledge or experience of the topic at hand.

 

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of that around here.  I've been part of it many times.  Heck, I've even been on the asinine, uneducated side a couple of times for jumping in debates I had no business being in (there was a thread about flight directors a while back where even Robert stepped in to tell me I was full of it, and more recently, Kevin stepped in to put me in my place about simulator certification).

 

Live and learn, right?

haha - there is nothing photogenic in the aftermath of those stupid birds... :Sick:

 

oh the sacrifices the team has to make to deliver!

 

 

To me cracking is for the purpose of stealing somthing if somone made the 777 work in P3D and paid for the plane it would be more of a modifcation still I'm not saying its right buts its gonna happen and everyone knows it. Once the plane has been edited will alot of people who PAID for the plane use the it in P3D? yes. Is that right IDK I'm not a lawyer and if they paid for the plane its grey zone to me but I'm not discussing EULA here as I don't want this topic locked PM me if you want to discuss this further. I fully understand PMDG's legal issues with P3D I mean RSR and the whole team could loose everything because some yahoo decides that because he can fly a 777 in P3D that he can fly a real one and kills somone. Or that Boeing or LM gets mad and sends the legal team after PMDG for breaking contract/EULA. I understand their issues though I hope they will allow the 777 on P3D it won't change anything if they don't I have a 1TB HDD so I can afford to have both P3D V2 and FSX installed use P3D for everything else and FSX for PMDG stuff.

 

It would be an unallowed software modification made to make the software work outside of parameters of license agreement. No gray area there. The license specifially states that they only allow you to use the software in FSX and that is what you paid for. Using it in P3D, changing the software itself no less, constitutes illegal use outside of scope of the EULA the same way as you would use the crack to use the software without paying for it.

 

Your 90 dollars are not a license to break the EULA. With NGX - in its so-far-current state without protection - you could claim no malicious intent... but using a software modification for the express purpose of using the addon in unsupported sim...

oh the sacrifices the team has to make to deliver!

 

 

 

 

It would be an unallowed software modification made to make the software work outside of parameters of license agreement. No gray area there. The license specifially states that they only allow you to use the software in FSX and that is what you paid for. Using it in P3D, changing the software itself no less, constitutes illegal use outside of scope of the EULA the same way as you would use the crack to use the software without paying for it.

 

Your 90 dollars are not a license to break the EULA. With NGX - in its so-far-current state without protection - you could claim no malicious intent... but using a software modification for the express purpose of using the addon in unsupported sim...

Maybe so but like I said Pm me to discuss this I don't want to be the cause of the closing of the topic

I find it quite amusing how LM advertise Perpar3d as a professional product, not catering to the home user, and then goes ahead and says there's an "amazing" F-22 Raptor included in the program. There's just no way that that F-22 can serve any purpose than just entertainment with the Raptor being as classified as it is. The flight model will be nowhere close enough either for it to be classified as a true trainer serving any professional purposes in my opinion.

 

LM are completely in the dark and need to find a way through this. I think they thought of a way to make money off of the source but did not know the true meaning and history behind PC based synthetic flight. And I think they placed that EULA there until they figure out what is what. Because in reality all these advertisements of aircraft and scenery conflict completely with their own EULA. It is completely understandable that a reputable business hold off until the Prepar3d circus plays itself out.

 

Cheers,

You do know the F22 is made by LM right?

So the have all the flight dynamic stuff on hand without having to give secrets to 3rd parties.

It could be used for cockpit familiarization.

(Of course p3d is not without entertainment.

It just wouldn't suprise me if microsoft forbids them selling it entertainment wise.

I find it quite amusing how LM advertise Perpar3d as a professional product, not catering to the home user, and then goes ahead and says there's an "amazing" F-22 Raptor included in the program. There's just no way that that F-22 can serve any purpose than just entertainment with the Raptor being as classified as it is. The flight model will be nowhere close enough either for it to be classified as a true trainer serving any professional purposes in my opinion.

 

LM are completely in the dark and need to find a way through this. I think they thought of a way to make money off of the source but did not know the true meaning and history behind PC based synthetic flight. And I think they placed that EULA there until they figure out what is what. Because in reality all these advertisements of aircraft and scenery conflict completely with their own EULA. It is completely understandable that a reputable business hold off until the Prepar3d circus plays itself out.

 

Cheers,

 

 

"Yeah... That pretty much covers it."

 

(Guess whose profile that quote is taken from and you'll win a free PMDG ... bicycle - just kidding!!!)

I find it quite amusing how LM advertise Perpar3d as a professional product, not catering to the home user,

 

P3D isn't built for us hobby simulator pilots - it's for a commercial product and customer base.  But I agree with what you say.

 

I don't think LM knows what they want P3D to be.  It seems they started out building P3D for the commercial market and then realized the market may not be as big as they hoped or they want to cater it to multiple markets and their EULA hasn't been updated to reflect that.

 

You do know the F22 is made by LM right?

 

Mostly everything about the aircraft is classified by the government.  It doesn't matter if LM wanted to put it in P3D or sell it to another country, the government can put a stop to it (and obviously do).  It doesn't matter what LM wants to do with the aircraft, it is a matter of what the government will let them do.

 

 

don't think LM knows what they want P3D to be.  It seems they started out building P3D for the commercial market and then realized the market may not be as big as they hoped or they want to cater it to multiple markets and their EULA hasn't been updated to reflect that.

 

I am pretty sure LM knows perfectly well what they wanted P3D to be, and it delivers - else there would not be any 2.0, they would have had discontinued it long ago.

 

I'd sooner say it's the Avsim users that have delusions of grandeur.... Sure it doesn't hurt LM when you buy your license - but if you don't... it's not like it's breaking their back.

Does LM really OWN everything FSX concerned? Or are they allowed by microsoft to progress and work on the fsx source only?
Maybe in the last case MS will release a FS11 after all... Just rebrand a future p3d to fs11 and voila. everybody happy.

Does LM really OWN everything FSX concerned? Or are they allowed by microsoft to progress and work on the fsx source only?

Maybe in the last case MS will release a FS11 after all... Just rebrand a future p3d to fs11 and voila. everybody happy.

OMG.

 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

 

Does LM really OWN everything FSX concerned? Or are they allowed by microsoft to progress and work on the fsx source only?

Maybe in the last case MS will release a FS11 after all... Just rebrand a future p3d to fs11 and voila. everybody happy.

Wouldn't that be an interesting twist!

Yeah- okay....

 

This topic is done.  It was entertaining to watch- but I ran out of popcorn. 

 

(And patience.  :blink: )