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.

 

And no longer should the pressure be on LM to offer P3D V2 with a entertainment license from the community.  The ball is clearly back in the court of companies such as PMDG and Flight 1 to change its terms of use from "entertainment only" to "simulation only"  or something along those lines. With FSX  "entertainment only" is an easy out , but the real question is  - If they are charging thousands of dollars per license in the commercial environment for P3D, do they really want to? 

 

 

Wynthorpe, on 28 Sept 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

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.

 

Agreed. I'm one of those "hoards" of lawyers... not for LM or any related party, but I've negotiated and litigated high value asset purchase agreements and intellectual property contracts for other large international corporate entities. Just from experience, I can tell you that this portion of the EULA, that people seem to belabor over has nothing to do with the casual user/flight sim enthusiast. Anyone can buy and use this software for their at-home personal use. I could give a voluminous explanation in support thereof, but I doubt that would be productive. As others have said, people should stop being so cynical and paranoid about this software and just embrace it, because it's pretty clear that LM is embracing all of its users.

^^^ agree let's move on...

 

Well I'm uncertain about the rest of you but theirs games and there was FSX And it was called a simulator. Way back when it was SubLogic I got into it because it was a simulator. Yeah I used to get mocked, but for me it wasn't a game it was a way to fly. I certainly couldn't get a high score out of it, but I did get a high from trying to master it.

 

I remember you had to learn about airplanes and how they worked to make it behave and learn about navigation to make it go from A to B you had to try and memorise hundreds of keyboard commands otherwise you were lost. Don't forget, all this was at the start of the gaming revolution. Flight simulator had to conform to market forces which is why although it had simulator in its name it had to be marketed and bundled into the gaming category to survive. Also remember, in those days the computer was the only true platform you could use. So yeah I played with my simulator and because everything was lumped into the same category of gaming it was by definition a game.

 

These days the distinction is much clearer between games and learning which is why I believe P3D will succeed. Everyone wants consoles, tablets and phones where games in their true sense are played and enjoyed. You switch it on learn a few commands and your away.

 

So maybe, finally, we can 'play' with our simulator knowing that's what it is,, and let the gamers play with their games.

I'm not one of the hordes of lawyers.  What I am is a corporate communications person, and from that perspective, which has nothing to do with the letter or spirit of the EULA, it makes complete sense to me that Lockheed Martin would want to have the flight simulation community participating in P3D.  Here's why.  LM sells mainly to government.  That means that, certainly in the U.S. but also in any other country where they do business, their sales are funded by taxpayers.  

 

When taxpayers pay your bills, it's helpful if they understand your products and if they're favorably disposed toward your company.  The goodwill you generate might make a difference when budget controversies come up and it's a question of whether or not there's public support for funding something costly like, say, the F-35.  

 

So if I was advising LM (which I'm not), I'd tell them that it's a matter of good community relations to open up P3D to consumers.  You'd do it in the same spirit that some of the freight railroads (BNSF comes to mind) maintain good relationships with railfans.  The railroads have events for them, share information with them, dedicate part of the corporate website to them, so that in the end there's public support for freight rail when subsidies come up for debate and the trucking industry is lobbying against you.  Or, closer to home, it's in the same spirit that LM and other aviation companies send their hardware to airshows, and that the military opens up its facilities to the public for open houses and "fleet weeks."

 

While we like to think of ourselves as a very big community, hardcore flightsimmers of the sort likely to find their way to P3D are less like mass consumers and more like railfans - a small, specialized group that can nevertheless have an impact on their neighbors and families.  Given the small size of the "citizen" community, from a business perspective (not a legal perspective), allowing citizen participation in P3D is more like corporate PR than it is like consumer marketing.  If you were approaching the community relations challenge in this context, you wouldn't do consumer marketing things - you wouldn't create a boxed product or advertise it in consumer media.  Nor would you simplify or compromise the product to make it more accessible.  You'd just open the doors and maybe print up some educational brochures and hope that, at the end of the day, the people who come through the doors go back home with a better impression of you.

 

I have no idea LM is thinking along these lines, and no way of finding out.  All this is speculation.  But if good corporate PR turned out to be part of their calculus, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Of course, that still means that third-party developers like PDMG have to arrive at their own interpretations from a legal and corporate perspective and act accordingly.    Each company's situation is different and they have to come to their own conclusions.  As do we as individuals.  

 

Speaking personally, I hope LM is thinking along these lines because I'm a civilian who enjoys airshows and I'd like to go to this one.

Oops! Wrong thread - sorry 'bout that!

Listen, Anyone can buy Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V2. You can go to the website and select a license. If you like to make payware addons for Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V2 you can sign up for a developers license. If you are a student you can get the student license. If you are anyone else who is interested in aviation and/or making your own addons for yourself or to give away then you can buy the Pro license. If you want it for whatever reason you fall into one of these categories. Just pick the appropriate license, Add to cart pay with CC or Perhaps Paypal, Download the program and fly and learn or develop. End of story!

 

 

Agreed. I'm one of those "hoards" of lawyers... not for LM or any related party, but I've negotiated and litigated high value asset purchase agreements and intellectual property contracts for other large international corporate entities. Just from experience, I can tell you that this portion of the EULA, that people seem to belabor over has nothing to do with the casual user/flight sim enthusiast. Anyone can buy and use this software for their at-home personal use. I could give a voluminous explanation in support thereof, but I doubt that would be productive. As others have said, people should stop being so cynical and paranoid about this software and just embrace it, because it's pretty clear that LM is embracing all of its users.

 

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! THANK YOU!

Listen, Anyone can buy Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V2. You can go to the website and select a license. If you like to make payware addons for Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V2 you can sign up for a developers license. If you are a student you can get the student license. If you are anyone else who is interested in aviation and/or making your own addons for yourself or to give away then you can buy the Pro license. If you want it for whatever reason you fall into one of these categories. Just pick the appropriate license, Add to cart pay with CC or Perhaps Paypal, Download the program and fly and learn or develop. End of story!

 

Are you sure its v2 (beta) on the website and not 1.4? I would like to make the purchase right now but it is not very clear. 

Are you sure its v2 (beta) on the website and not 1.4? I would like to make the purchase right now but it is not very clear. 

The current released version is 1.4, you can buy this now. Ver 2.0 is in Beta, and only available to the Beta team. If you want V2.0 wait for it's release as if you buy 1.4 now, Ver 2.0 will be a separate purchase.

Are you sure its v2 (beta) on the website and not 1.4? I would like to make the purchase right now but it is not very clear. 

V2.0 is just now in beta testing until Nov of this year - tentative. You are correct that it is V1.4 on Prepar3d's website - I just checked the version info.

I just wished some big layer would make an article to be on the front cover of AVSIM, explaining why it's OK for us Simmers to use this software according to the EULA, and I'm pretty sure it is, Simulation isn't entertainment, not in my book, but let's leave at that.

 

This would end this useless discussions, and let us focus instead of the software itself, which I believe will be the future of our simulation.

 

My Point of view.

The fact that this thread is in imminent danger of being shut down gives me pause to ponder as to why and how such a thing can happen. ... i.e. how can a simple, very positive piece of information from a developer topple into a situation such as this? I am no lawyer, more of a puzzled and perplexed bystander to all the partisanship,pointless speculation, faction forming, blind alley exploring that goes on in this and other forums. If one were to take the broad view one could argue that it is simply a sign of the times. Times where patience, tolerance, common old fashioned courtesy have been blown out of the water aided and abetted by the fact of the universal platform of communication(i.e. the web) which enables anybody to say virtually anything to anybody from behind the cloak of anonymity media such as this forum and all the Twitters, Facebooks etc. of the world provide ...

 

Really quite sad if you ask me ....

 

 

Alan

The fact that this thread is in imminent danger of being shut down gives me pause to ponder as to why and how such a thing can happen. ... i.e. how can a simple, very positive piece of information from a developer topple into a situation such as this? I am no lawyer, more of a puzzled and perplexed bystander to all the partisanship,pointless speculation, faction forming, blind alley exploring that goes on in this and other forums. If one were to take the broad view one could argue that it is simply a sign of the times. Times where patience, tolerance, common old fashioned courtesy have been blown out of the water aided and abetted by the fact of the universal platform of communication(i.e. the web) which enables anybody to say virtually anything to anybody from behind the cloak of anonymity media such as this forum and all the Twitters, Facebooks etc. of the world provide ...

 

Really quite sad if you ask me ....

 

 

Alan

 

 

sadly the internet has become that way, people want drama not level headed conversations about a product. Constructive criticism is fine in my books but the amount of missinformation that happens in threads like these is really bad and i feel sorry for the avsim staff as they have to deal with the mess it causes.

sadly the internet has become that way, people want drama not level headed conversations about a product. Constructive criticism is fine in my books but the amount of missinformation that happens in threads like these is really bad and i feel sorry for the avsim staff as they have to deal with the mess it causes.

 

With all due respect to all members at Avsim and beside the fact that Avsim's staff is doing a great job at keeping the peace, can speculation be interpreted as misinformation, drama, or is misinformation only speculations? 

 

What's wrong with speculating on something some are hoping to be the holy grail of flight simulator? 

 

I've never saw a thread at Avsim be monitored with a risk of closure, deleted or closed because of speculations, speculation is a big part of forum's discussions here and other places but not a cause of closure or deletion, I mean ...nobody's fault if it happened that they were misinformed on something, right?

 

I remember I saw a post from a guy in the Flight's forum (before Flight released), he said that he did talk to a guy he did meet on a ski slope in Colorado, this guy told him that he was a "developer" for Flight, as soon as he came back from his trip he posted what he heart from this "developer" here at Avsim, like "Hawaii only and more stuff related to Flight", was he misinformed, was he speculating?

 

His comments were deleted in a heart beat after he posted them, and if I remember correctly, the reason for the deletion of his comments was (again, if I remember correctly) that Avsim did not want to put anybody's job (this particular developer) on the line ...so, my question is "who knew that this was not speculations or misinformation or just a fake post to get attention on the part of the poster?" 

 

So lets speculate here.... is the list that was posted in this thread removed because... it was purely speculations..... misinformation..... fake..... or because the list was real and leaked? How can one know about the validity of this list (including who posted it) if he (they) is (are) not in the knows or directly contacted by LM?

....and the EULA is now the main focus of discussion again :lol:

 

In my mind P3D 2.0 will forever be known as P3D EULA Edition