Crusade? Now that I showed you that you were wrong that's the only thing you can come up with? Have I tagged you as a crusader for them because you can make a valid point sometimes? Did you read what JV posted about the agreement he has with MS? He told on himself about the switcher and the agreement, right?

 

 

 

 

Look like bonchie seems to be, you did not mind him replying to me, did you? You are right though, P3D forum.

 

You have no idea what is in the agreement, when it expires, what other stipulations their are, etc. You are going off a 6 year old forum post that provides very few details.

 

If you want to accuse them of a crime, then go ahead and just say it.

 

And the point of my post wasn't even about the "agreement," which is why I didn't address it. It was about the fact that you said Orbx doesn't have a switcher but GEX does. My only point was that they both do the same thing in the since that neither can be "switched" but both must restore lengthy backups in order to return the sim to default. It was an overall statement on convienance or lack there of for both. That was it.  

 

You are latching on the phrase "and switched" from a vague forum post and trying to produce an entire legal argument over it. You have no idea what that actually entails or what's in the agreement. Why mention it as fact by saying that "JV is counting on..." when the reality is only Orbx knows what they are counting on.

 

You are right, we should stick to P3D and we were, which is why I'm wondering why you jumped on whatever chance you saw to change the subject and once again bash Orbx.

No. I'm not going to waste time documenting what was only one of several valid points I made while you ignore the bulk of the post because it clearly lends credence to my assertion that P3D developers do value the sim community.

the fact that you won't provide a single documented example where Lockheed Martin has actually implemented a request from a flight simulator enthusiast confirms my point. P3D is being developed for Lockheed Martin's training market and that flight simulation enthusiasts will get what they get. I'm not "downing" P3D, merely being realistic about it is.

the fact that you won't provide a single documented example where Lockheed Martin has actually implemented a request from a flight simulator enthusiast confirms my point. P3D is being developed for Lockheed Martin's training market and that flight simulation enthusiasts will get what they get. I'm not "downing" P3D, merely being realistic about it is.

 

It doesn't confirm your point because that statement was not the entire basis of my assertion. It was one of many pieces of evidence I provided. I'd go document some examples if I thought it'd do any good but nothing will change your mind.

 

The fact that they have a requests forum in the first place, that they dialogue with simmers constantly, that they are fulfilling the request to produce a startup screen and are asking for suggestions from the sim community, that major 3PDs are heavily supporting the platform, that all these 3PDs are being included in the beta testing, and that LM continues to offer competitive pricing simmers can afford all support my position.

 

If that's not enough for you to at least say "I could be wrong" or to at least examine your cynicism closer then nothing will be until it's released, at which point even then I doubt it.

 

And the fact that it is being developed as a training/educational tool doesn't preclude them from valuing simulation enthusiasts and their input. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it's a choice and they can't co-exist and benefit each other in different ways.

 

But if you feel you are just being realistic then do so. I don't care at this point. I'd rather keep discussing possible positives that can come from V2 vs. arguing about what LM's state of mind is.

Uh perhaps its best that we settle down with the back and forth shots so this thread doesn't get locked down. Its a great discussion on what could potentially be the next great similar that is clearly what we all desire and the enthusiasm shows.

 

As for the feature request, I've seen it as well at the prepar3d forums and LM did specifically ask about the startup screen so the fact they initiated the question leads me to believe they surely noticed sim launcher and will address it seeing it is important. It causes memory issues otherwise. At least for 1.4

 

As for Microsoft..... seems clear to me they don't want anything to do with FS anymore, they just don't care. They had an attempt to revive it by getting greedy and made it a kids game and it failed. So its logical that previous agreements would have been expired, expunged, modified and it relicensed. We just don't know details and what goes on behind closed doors. I agree with former comment that it gets licensed to a distribution house. At the very least I'm not hung up on the word entertainment but consider myself always learning and academic student of aviation. Always will be.

But like any developer they wont divulge roadmaps for the products evolution.

 

We do, in fact, we'll show early Alpha builds of our products, but we aren't in the ... dare I say it ... "entertainment" industry

 

We're proud to show off what we have "so far" and it usually develops interest and even in some cases our clients will hold off on purchasing competitor products and wait for ours to be released.  We're very open about what we do because we know it's a quality product that people will want and have no fear of speculation.

 

Speculation will happen regardless of what we do or don't do ... so may as well show it -- it's always proved a big benefit for us.

 

Uh perhaps its best that we settle down with the back and forth shots so this thread doesn't get locked down.

 

Agree, there is no need to get unsettled over this, Beta users are not going to reveal anything, LM haven't reveal much, we're just going to have to wait.

Uh perhaps its best that we settle down with the back and forth shots so this thread doesn't get locked down. Its a great discussion on what could potentially be the next great similar that is clearly what we all desire and the enthusiasm shows.

I agree. There's no point in continuing discussions with those who make assertions and then won't justify them.

 

V2.0's release appears immenent. Let's wait to see what it actually offers.

I agree. There's no point in continuing discussions with those who make assertions and then won't justify them.

 

V2.0's release appears immenent. Let's wait to see what it actually offers.

 

LMs interaction, past support, and current dialogue with the community speaks much louder then your generalized speculation based on nothing more then what you perceive LM cares about.

 

When you've got some justification for anything you say except attempting to read LMs collective mind you let me know. Until then, look in the mirror when making comments like the above. At least I attempted to give you some valid evidence (see the other five things besides the one you keep harping on) while you've done nothing but act as if your baseless speculation is truth until proven otherwise. It's not and no one is on trial here.

I have reopened this forum upon receiving a report that I probably singled out the wrong person. This thread continues to be watched. Please do not give us cause to close it again.

I hope so (hint).

 

I hope so (hint).

 

 

 

 

  (hint)

A serious question. Many countries in the world have different criteria on this one but the United Nations is working on it.

 

How long can you hold intellectual property in the USA without developing/supporting/distributing before the original developer can no longer claim ownership?

 

As an example I have several patents to my name which are going to run out and become public property. I also understand that major changes to an original design/technology may convince the Patents Office to issue a new patent.

 

Cheers, Mac.

Edited September 29, 201312 yr by Arismac

 

 

How long can you hold intellectual property in the USA without developing/supporting/distributing before the original developer can no longer claim claim ownership?

 

As software is covered under copyright legislation, the terms are quite a bit longer than patents these days. Current commercial works are covered for at least 95 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright

 

Here in Canada the copyright term is somewhat shorter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_Canada#Copyright_terms

I have never understood peoples reluctance to try it because there is no "entertainment" EULA, Its not like a hoard of lawyers etc are going to descend on you because heaven forbid you are entertained by a training product.

Indeed--these folks are taking the EULA literally, rather than reading between the lines for why the EULA's language is what it is.  The EULA is ultimately intended to help define the product for a market they are hoping to garner,  but as you are suggesting in no way can really go beyond just that.  If the true intention behind the EULA was to enforce the use of the product under the terms defined they would require users to prove they had a 'legitimate' claim to academic or professional status by requiring this at the point of purchase.   Never gonna happen unless, as a training tool they garner enough support that they can afford to say no to all those wannabe pilots and people whose agenda is squarely on the entertainment side of the spectrum.  They're just trying to define their market.  Put another way, they are hoping thru their EULA to get users to stop seeing the product for what it historically (and currently) is:  largely entertainment ;o)

IMO, it all boils down to marketing. Looks much better to a commercial training firm to be purchasing a training software than a gaming/entertainment  software. I know, if I were a professional traing firm,  I would rather purchase a dedicated training title than a gaming title. Now, what you do with it after that is your own business. Just something to think about.

The other thread with posts from the prepar3d forum are conclusive and clear cut. There is no more interpretation, and reading between lines anymore. No more nay sayers against P3D. I asked on their forum to set the matter straight either it is or it isnt allowed for flight simulator enthusiasts, and they answered definitvly. 

 

Oh and now we can get back to being excited for flight simulation future and features and performance that enhance our enjoyment of flight instead of arguing something we interpret to be. This is the p3d beta thread so carry on discussing. 

Edited September 29, 201312 yr by HighTowers