Perhaps we need a new thread on aircraft compatibility in P3D2.1.  Have noticed that two aircraft, the Milviz C310R and B55, installed with the EST, were fully compatible in P3D2, but in P3D2.1, the GPS is not fully functional.  For example, the map page doesn't work, the NRST pages don't work. 

We know about this bug. Our Eula will be changed such it will not be allowed to use both FSX and v2 with the same product.

 

And your proof of purchase?

 

Thanks.

And your proof of purchase?

This isn't the Milviz forums, Colin. You are in the Avsim forum and you don't get to make the rules...

And that means what exactly?  Someone can use our products out of Eula or illegally and I don't get a say?  I hardly think that's fair...  and I'm pretty sure Avsim's rules of the road allow me to ask this.  He doesn't have to answer BUT... most honest people will do so.

 

Thanks for your gesture... I appreciate and will remember it.

If you are not positive as to what a Commercial Member can or cannot do while a guest of the Avsim forums, you should send a PM to one of the higher ups and ask. I'm pretty sure... they will be happy to fill you in on what is permissible. Having one guest place demands upon another guest doesn't seem like it falls within the definition of permissible actions.

 

I'd love to have a discussion about EULAs and how developers feel they can alter them whenever the whim strikes, but it's not the time or the place. But someday, somewhere, a Commercial Member is going to learn what the term "unilateral reformation of a contract" means and how dimly courts view such attempts.

The guy is asking for support. Right there gives me the right to ask for his proof of purchase. (As I see it)

 

As well seeing as we're the ones fixing the "bugs" in v2.1 you can expect us to make 100% sure that none of our existing products work with it.

 

We will, as previously stated, release a new set of products that are specifically for use in v2.1 and onwards. There will be a charge for this. It will not be expensive for existing customers (with proof of purchase) but it will be there.

 

The contract in question is for FSX and NOT P3D. We've been lenient up until now on this subject by allowing people to use it but we also warned them from the get go that this is not something that will last.

 

We will produce products for v2 at our leisure and it's, as always, our decision when and how that happens.

 

Finally, until the moment that I am specifically told that I am not allowed to ask someone who is asking about products he/she "owns" in terms of a support issue, I will keep asking for that proof of purchase.

 

I am fed up of being ripped off. I am sure other devs feel EXACTLY the same way. That you don't, is a bit of a shocker...

 

Colin

Now here's one developer I will avoid. Change Eula? Proof of purchase? Arrogance comes to mind.

 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

All the sparing aside, which is what P3Dv2.1 basicall is these day. I believe the OP has a valid proposal. But then, jokingly, will there be a 2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8,2.9, and finally a 3.0 compatabilty forum?

We know about this bug. Our Eula will be changed such it will not be allowed to use both FSX and v2 with the same product.

 

I always thought one of the basic rules of retailing is "No one ever won an argument with a customer." 

I don't mind paying a few buck extra for an P3D EULA for an addon that I have already bought for FSX

so long as the addon is 100% compatible with P3D but your position Colin is quite telling if what you posted is indicative of off all 3PD's at your level. It makes me wonder why LM are trying to maintain backwards compatibility at all if you Devs.'s are deliberately braking it.

They're absolutely not trying to maintain it. The exporter for v2 is not, repeat NOT, backwards compatible at all in any way with v 1.4 or with FSX. To get our models to be 100% native to V2, we have no choice but to use that exporter. That means we have to have two product streams. And if we want all of the nice extras that v2+ does/comes with... Even less choice.

 

We are treating this like the jump from FS9 to FSX.

 

In terms of the customer is always right... Sure if they paid for it to be used in that way. Which they didn't.

 

Our Eula doesn't really need to be changed. But what does is the attitude of customers. We cannot and will not support two sku streams at the same price point. As time goes on and v2 becomes v3 and then v4, we will have to choose.. As will you.

 

It's not arrogance. It's the future.

 

Don't want to buy your stuff? What can I say or do? We cannot afford to do it. Any dev that does is only going to do it for older products. Not for newer ones.

 

I just bet that other top end devs will do what we're doing. And, in the end, they all will.

 

I'm sorry if you find what I'm saying ugly, rude or otherwise, not very nice... But it's the truth. We hardly break even as it is. Asking us to be giving you v2 and fsx products for the same price is pulling the trigger on our death

Colin I think overall customer expectations are for a price point that is seen as a compromise. I myself take the view that if I am going to dump one sim for another, then I am going to do what it takes to maintain as many addons that I can. Now if the cost becomes too prohibitive, then bugger the EULA. You may see that as copyright infringement or piracy, I don't because I have already purchased the product and the right to use it, plus that product is staying in the same house on the same pc. However, like me you have a business to run and like me, you have to make decisions that will either have positive or negative outcomes on that business. Regardless, one thing I have learnt is to treat my customers with the utmost respect and I could not help but think that your opening response could have been a little more embracing.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Our price point is fair. 10$ more if you want it for both sims. Same price for one or the other...

 

In terms of respect, why should I have the utmost respect for you, the customer, when you clearly advocate theft of my product??? You would do well to remember that respect is earned. Not given. And you just lost any chance of having mine.

 

Sheesh. The double talk you have is unbelievable.

 

And, of course, how am I to know he's a customer unless I ask? Which I did and have yet to get an answer...

Are you on drugs or something ??? Advocate theft of your product ???

 

Yes, your price point is fair but you still come across as a very bitter piece of work. No wonder your business hardly breaks even with such a mindless attitude. Advocate theft of your product ???

I really have heard it all now. And be thankful I toned this response down out of respect for other developers who actually do show some respect for potential customers and deserve our respect and financial support in return.

 

You however are are clearly an exception as demonstrated by the way you attacked the OP and then me. Perhaps it is time you stepped back a little as some things clearly touch a raw nerve.

No. I am not on drugs. Your words: "then bugger the EULA. You may see that as copyright infringement or piracy,"

 

I do see it as exactly that and you just advocated it. In your own words.

 

Read what you wrote again sir. I think you'll find that it is not I who has a lack of respect but you.

 

I never attacked anyone. I asked for his proof of purchase. No attack there. I'm justified in doing so when he's making comments about using our products. It's you who've been doing the attacking. I only want to get paid for the work my team and I have done. Every thief and Eula breaker takes the food off of our tables. Like it or not that's the truth of the matter.

 

If I had said "please" would that have changed the reactions? I have my doubts but I'm willing to use the word. Please, may I have your proof of purchase?