In that very movie, the US American President jumped into a fighter jet and flew that thing as if he were current on that type.

 

haha - I went two years without flying a single thing and still managed to land a 172 better than the SAAB pilot I was sitting next to, so it's not completely impossible.  Then again, she was at a disadvantage by trying to fly the thing using the visual approach speed cues of a SAAB (about 80 knots at about 50' on a 2000' runway...yeah...life before my eyes a little bit).

 

They at least dropped in a line of "I used to fly these [some war or time period referenced]..."

 

Just like riding a bike, natürlich...

(..)

Just like riding a bike, natürlich...

 

 

Natürlich. Wie denn sonst?   :rolleyes:

Microsoft recognizes the errors of its ways and resurrects the Flight Simulator product line.

 

 

...oh FIVE years? Thought you said 50.

 

 

...oh FIVE years? Thought you said 50.

 

haha - baaaa-zinga!

I truly hope P3D will fall. Who wants to pay 500 dollars for add-ons anyway? On a side note XPlane is technically far ahead of P3D and looks objectively better (just look at the night lighting). LR are also implementing community released airport scenery into their game.

What else do you want?

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

The thing the sim hobby fails to realse is the following, and I'll write it extra big, with bright red letters in hopes to drive the point home for everyone:

 

Prepar3D is not meant for you.

Prepar3D is meant for the casual simming market about as much as the [Airline Training Center's] FTDs are (note, I didn't say Level D).

Prepar3D is meant for the casual simming market about as much as an Indy Car is meant to be a street car.

 

Prepar3D is meant for use in commercial settings where you're getting money for the use of the sim.  As such, commercial licenses will cost more because they expect you're making money from the product.*

 

Why are the Adobe products so expensive?  You're making money with their software.  Adobe wants some of that.

 

Getting upset about the pricing of Prepar3D is like getting upset because Ferrari prices their cars above the casual car owner's price range.

 

It's not meant for you.  Let it go!

 

*Apart from academic licensing, where the use is similarly "professional" of sorts - again, not casual simming.

 

 

Prepar3D is meant for use in commercial settings where you're getting money for the use of the sim.

 

*Apart from academic licensing, where the use is similarly "professional" of sorts - again, not casual simming.

 

Why are you so anti P3D? Its a shame such pessimism. The invitation from LM is there. They clearly know FSX users are there in abundance and theres no "go away sentiment" whatsoever.  And theres nothing professional about academic which includes undergraduates, and kids in school who want to learn about flying. Just simulating a product, or action doesnt mean youll make money. It means you can learn a whole lot about whats going on. 

 

So as per topic, Ill have to say P3D wins out. XPX trailing close. Then all our computers will blow up because we pushed them too hard trying to add pneumatics and hydraulics to the whole scenario and we all digress to Sublogic Flight Simulator. 

 

 

Why are you so anti P3D? Its a shame such pessimism. The invitation from LM is there. They clearly know FSX users are there in abundance and theres no "go away sentiment" whatsoever.

 

I'm not anti-P3D.  I love P3D.  I use it as my primary instrument trainer (loggable hours, too) on a commercial license:

 

 

 

 

 

The invitation from LM is there. They clearly know FSX users are there in abundance and theres no "go away sentiment" whatsoever.

 

There really is no "invitation" from LM.  They've been very specific about their wording in their responses.  Note that their responses are pretty much verbatim of what's on the product page, which is really just a list of valid uses.  Did they say that it was okay, specifically?  No.  Did they say that it was not okay, specifically?  No.  So what did they say?

 

They've advised people of the valid uses.

 

I asked a cop once how fast you could get away with driving on Interstate 81.  His answer was "the speed limit is 70, and you can get a reckless charge at any speed over 80."  Did he say he would pull you over at 70?  No.  Did he say that he wouldn't pull you over at 70?  No.  He stated the limits.  What I choose to do with that information is at my own risk and expense if I'm operating outside those limits.

 

 

 

And theres nothing professional about academic which includes undergraduates, and kids in school who want to learn about flying. Just simulating a product, or action doesnt mean youll make money. It means you can learn a whole lot about whats going on.

 

The school isn't making money, but the licensing for academic products is still a professional agreement between two entities to ensure that a professional-grade product is being offered at a discount price for cases where the software will not be used for profit.  Note that I excepted the academic licensing from the profit side of things, while still making note that it's the same professional product/service being offered.

 

In a similar vein, Adobe offered CS2 when I was in college for $222.  The discounted price came at the expectation (license restriction) that the end user would not be using it to make profit.  The CS for the commercial market was priced at a level that ensured Adobe would have a decent amount of profit from the sale of the product.  This higher price is more easily justified by professional users in their ability to make money from the end products of the use of the software.

 

So, Adobe covered academia and the commercial market with the same professional product.  What about the home user?  Chances are, home users couldn't justify an academic license, and commercial was well above their price point.  How did Adobe respond?  A watered down versions in the "Elements" series.  The full version wasn't meant for them.  There's a separate product for that.

 

Same thing here...as much as people don't like hearing it.

 

 

Why are you so anti P3D?

 

He is not anti P3D, he is anti rulebreaking.

 

And so am I.

 

While on that topic. If you want to simulate at home, nobody is stopping you. But don't take the "they didn't tell me - personally - not to do XY" to mean "we can all do whatever we wish to".

The school isn't making money, 

 

Have you looked at prices of tuition lately? 

 

j/k. 

 

 

Have you looked at prices of tuition lately?

j/k.

 

haha - correction: "from the IRS perspective, they're not making money"

 

...and don't get me started.  I'm still groaning at paying my school loans.

Thats a sweet setup Kyle. 

 

Nothing wrong with anti rule breaking, but the facts are that it doesnt matter who you are. To simulate flying an aircraft and learning its systems, and principles of aviation is not a crime in the least. Just because I will never be able to fly an aircraft in real life, doesnt make it invalid. It doesnt say no FSX users. Pro license dictates users of all types that simulate and learn. I dont see that rule breaking, nor does it stretch the line as in the police and speeding analogy. And academic includes students in school. My son has a great interest in it and like to fly my simulator. So what is the issue. 

 

Its this reason that I think that P3D will prevail. For everyone. 

 

 

Thats a sweet setup Kyle.

 

haha - it's my flight school's, honestly.  My house is too small for that thing, and I'd need an instructor to log the time anyway.  It does run Prepar3D now (used to be MS ESP), and I do use it frequently, so I definitely value P3D.  I just realize that it has a purpose that is restricted from what most are willing to accept: it's not for them.

 

 

 

...but the facts are that it doesnt matter who you are.

 

That couldn't be further from the truth, honestly, and I find it irresponsible that people are parroting this idea that it's okay, simply because Joe Bob at SimSiteGalaxy.com said it.

 

 

 

Just because I will never be able to fly an aircraft in real life, doesnt make it invalid.

 

That's not the point.  It's not related to what you can and can't fly in your life.

 

 

 

It doesnt say no FSX users.

 

Correct - but again, not the point.  It's not about what sim you currently use.

 

 

 

Pro license dictates users of all types that simulate and learn.

 

False.  It states licensed pilots, commercial organizations, militaries and academia (graduate).  Not in that list?  Not a valid use.

 

 

 

I dont see that rule breaking, nor does it stretch the line as in the police and speeding analogy.

 

If you're using it outside the specifically sanctioned uses, then it's breaking the rules.  I really don't know how else to put that.  Based on the forum responses that people are referring to when trying to argue that it's okay, it's nearly exactly like the speeding analogy.

 

 

 

And academic includes students in school. My son has a great interest in it and like to fly my simulator. So what is the issue.

 

Then your son would have a valid use for the product.  There's no issue in his case.

 

 

False.  It states licensed pilots, commercial organizations, militaries and academia (graduate).  Not in that list?  Not a valid use.

 

I am pretty sure he is right, Kyle.

 

Their product description states that those use it - but not that ONLY those MAY use it. Neither does EULA specify nor mention any of those terms.

I think we'll see the FSX user base fragment between those who continue to use FSX and those who move to P3D or X-Plane.

 

I'll write some more thoughts later...

Kyle,

 

The Pro License includes using P3D as a simulator. In fact, one or two guys from LM have been on this forum and stated that anyone can use it for that purpose. What is the problem?