I don't hate ya Kyle, yet, I fathom that you needlessly over-think this topic. The truth is, is that the license is an agreement between the end user, and the rightful content owner. That's it. The truth is that most of us feel that we are NOT in violation of that agreement. The truth is that LM tacitly agrees that we are in NOT in violation of that agreement through their own actions and lack of grievances with the community. I don't hate ya Kyle, but I'm not fond of being told by an unconcerned party, that I am in violation of anything I do in the privacy of my home. If you still think that we, "are delusional," for god's sake man, allow us to be delusional in peace!

I'm also planning to switch to P3D in the future... But I'm quite confused about the difference of the licenses.

 

For example "Professional" and "Academic" (certeinly one of these should be the right option for the home simmer). As far as I know there are basically NO differences when it comes to using it as a home-simmer...so then I simply go for "Academic"...logical to me..?!

 

If LM really wants to restrict the use of their product to people involved in aviation(as a profession)or aviatic students then they should implement a verification system.

 

And why should they even bother whether some virtual hobby pilots use their product or not...

 

On their homepage they also exclaim that many add-ons for FSX now are well implemented in P3D as well. This appears to be highly encouriging to people to shift from FSX to P3D and since FSX was a product with a stamp "GAME" on it, this strategy implies that P3D can be used in a similar way

Every point you make has been discussed, explained, rediscussed, and re-explained in the past, even in this very thread.

Really, we're going around in circles here.

 

Just because you *can* buy it, just because you *can* use it, does not mean you have the right to do so.

PMDG is not trying to cover your &@($*, as an end-user. They're trying to cover their own asses, especially if they're going to grow into the commercial realms of the simulation market.

 

Honestly, I really don't see why that's so difficult to see.

PMDG is not trying to cover your &@($*

This statement doesn't even make sense. Keep the discussion in it's proper context please. I haven't read anyone's prose which intimated that they had a desire or need for PMDG to cover their six. Further, I find it high-minded for the moral police to come into these forums and continue to bring up this issue when it is unwanted. You (plural) have also been nudged by AVSIM to leave this topic alone, and yet time and time again, it continues to come up. I suppose you feel that Robert started this post for the 100,000+ commercial aviation centers who are members of this community. Now, if you don't mind, I would like to continue to follow this thread for information about a product that I would like to use, on a platform for which I have a license, without any more mention of my/our right to use it .

 

 

This statement doesn't even make sense.

Except, it does, in the main scheme of things.

In any case, the only reason I keep repeating what I do, is because others keep asking the same old questions. I'm just stating my opinion on it, as you are stating yours.

Nobody's forcing you to read the topic. Is Robert decides new information needs to be made available, chances are probably about 100 to 1 that he will put that information in a new topic, judging by PMDG's track record on the forums.

 

 

For example "Professional" and "Academic" (certeinly one of these should be the right option for the home simmer). As far as I know there are basically NO differences when it comes to using it as a home-simmer...so then I simply go for "Academic"...logical to me..?!

 

You should go to none of them, logically, actually.

 

Why, you ask?  Scroll all the way to the bottom of this: http://www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/prepar3d-license-comparison/

 

Big red Xs for personal home computer use.  Most "simmers" don't really get outside of the "entertainment" category.  If you're using FSPax, or any ATC add-ons, that's a good indication.  If you're in a VA, that's another.  Neither are absolute indicators (i.e. - all people in VAs use the sim only for entertainment; this isn't true), but VAs and FSPax add more of a gamey feel to the sim by adding asinine metrics.

• We're using the sim to train real world instrument procedures.  Simulation (professional - RedBird Sims uses P3D - used to be ESB).
• I'll jump in the sim today before my flight down to [airport I've never been to before] just to get an idea of how my real world flight will look later.  Simulation (professional).
• We're testing pilot workload during OPDs in non-VNAV aircraft.  Simulation (professional - that's grad level / research institution stuff).
• We're teaching a class of STEM students the fundamentals of flights.  Simulation (academic).
• I'm flying from Point A to Point B on my home computer because I think it would be fun.  You might be able to argue simulation, but that's a grey area at best...

From their FAQ page (which just about blows everything everyone else has said here out of the water):

 

Prepar3D is offered for simulation, training and learning. Example uses of Prepar3D are by professionals, students, or developers:

 

Professionals – This license is intended for professional skills training. This group could include private pilots, commercial flight schools, military personnel, civil organizations such as firefighters/emergency response or students pursuing a technical degree or an advanced degree such as a masters or PhD.

 

Students – An academic license at a reduced price is available for educational purposes at the undergraduate college level and below (students in elementary, middle, high school or pursuing a bachelor’s degree). This is an extension of our philanthropic support for STEM education to engage the next generation of technologists and engineers.

 

Developers – For the individuals or companies who are interested in developing aircraft models, scenery, terrains and weather effects for Prepar3D, we offer a Prepar3D developer license.

 

...and now we see how "home simmer" doesn't fit into any of that.

 

Cue the masses to tell me I'm wrong in heaping doses of denial...

Most "simmers" don't really get outside of the "entertainment"

Now Kyle, that is conjecture. I thought you were stating facts.

 

Big red Xs for personal home computer use

No, that's big red X's for entertainment, not home use. Learning has a Blue Check, as does Simulation.

 

Example uses of Prepar3D are by professionals, students, or developers:

Did you notice the first word is "Example", not an unabridged list.

 

Seriously, why are you trying to spoil our experience? Do you have a Prepar3D license? If not, could you explain to us why you are here in a thread about P3D, continuing to bring up an unwanted topic? I don't get it, you seem like a decent guy (in other threads perhaps), am I wrong?

 

 

Now Kyle, that is conjecture. I thought you were stating facts.

 

Conjecture, sure, but in line with the quote from the FAQ...

 

 

 

No, that's big red X's for entertainment, not home use. Learning has a Blue Check, as does Simulation.

 

Right, but define "simulation."  They defined it on their FAQ page.  Most people's definition of "simulation" doesn't match that...thus my earlier statement...

 

 

 

Did you notice the first word is "Example", not an unabridged list.
 
Seriously, why are you trying to spoil our experience? Do you have a Prepar3D license? If not, could you explain to us why you are here in a thread about P3D, continuing to bring up an unwanted topic? I don't get it, you seem like a decent guy (in other threads perhaps), am I wrong?

 

I'm not trying to spoil your experience.  I'm trying to point out what is right and what is not.  I don't recall needing a license to know that the license is in line with, or not in line with what I'm doing (as a pilot, I certainly could get a license for a 100% unambiguous use).  Do I need to do meth to know that doing meth is illegal?  Nah, I don't.

 

If speaking up about improper use makes me not a decent guy, then I guess I'm not a decent guy.  Last time I measured "decent guy" though, it had more to do with doing the right thing and being generally respectable.

 

Here I am trying to clear people's misconceptions up a bit, and just because people are willfully ignoring it in order to feel better about their improper uses, I'm somehow the bad guy...

Here I am trying to clear people's misconceptions up a bit, and just because people are willfully ignoring it in order to feel better about their improper uses, I'm somehow the bad guy...

 

Telling a bunch licensees who have read the same documentation you have read and came to a conclusion that they are viable customers, per their own implementation of the product, may not make you a bad guy, but it is not cool. Further, it is frowned upon by AVSIM. Now before I get my own 6 o'clock in hot water, I am going to agree to disagree with you. May your skies always be blue, and your glass full.

 

 

but VAs and FSPax add more of a gamey feel to the sim by adding asinine metrics.

 

You could argue then that any sort of motion simulation in a Level-D is "asinine".  It's not needed to simulate procedures, in fact the whole graphical interface aspect isn't needed.  You could have a wireframe representation of a runway anything beyond that is not required and adds solely to the immersion factor.

 

Look it's pretty clear that LM are aware people on this forum are using P3D (full disclosure, I do not) they could have entirely restricted it to organisations; they didn't; in fact they are fairly responsive to suggestions from individuals.

 

I said right at the beginning LM want the input of the hardcore simming community i also said that if the interests of simmers and their corporate customers differ it is pretty obvious which side they will come down on.  For the moment, i would suggest it's a good marriage, i just don't want to be around for the messy divorce.  

 

 

Telling a bunch licensees who have read the same documentation you have read and came to a conclusion that they are viable customers, per their own implementation of the product, may not make you a bad guy, but it is not cool. Further, it is frowned upon by AVSIM. Now before I get my own 6 o'clock in hot water, I am going to agree to disagree with you. May your skies always be blue, and your glass full.

 

I also told a whole bunch of people that their understanding of the 250/10,000 rule was incorrect.  We both read the same language, but I was right and their interpretations were wrong.  What's your point?

 

Just because you read something, and make an assessment thereafter doesn't mean you made the right one.

 

There's a speed limit sign on our grounds that says 15 MILES PER HOUR.  The dude next to me read it, and I read it.  He drives 30.  I drive 15.  His assessment seems to be "the likelihood there's a cop on our campus is slim to none...what's gonna happen?"  Valid assessment, sure, but is it right?  Nope.

 

Same thing here.

 

...and you can disagree all you want.  I could swear up and down that a clear sky is green, but it isn't going to change the fact that it's blue.

 

 

 

You could argue then that any sort of motion simulation in a Level-D is "asinine".  It's not needed to simulate procedures, in fact the whole graphical interface aspect isn't needed.  You could have a wireframe representation of a runway anything beyond that is not required and adds solely to the immersion factor.

 

Really?  You're going to try to pull that card?  I'm sorry, but that's utterly false, and a terrible comparison.

 

The FAA has a standard by which full-motion simulators are kept.  This is proof that the FAA sees value in motion, and it is not, in fact, asinine.  Last I checked, the FAA has never required any FSPax-like programs, and any ATC provided is provided by a person (usually the instructor sitting there, but definitely not an unrealistic program).

Telling a bunch licensees who have read the same documentation you have read and came to a conclusion that they are viable customers, per their own implementation of the product, may not make you a bad guy, but it is not cool. Further, it is frowned upon by AVSIM. Now before I get my own 6 o'clock in hot water, I am going to agree to disagree with you. May your skies always be blue, and your glass full.

 

Can you please fill my glass too while you're at the bar?

 

Kyle, generally I agree with you, but in this case, you gotta know when to call "knock it off" before it gets ugly.  Realistically, LM probably reads these threads as much as we do, and if they percieved one iota of improper usage, they would probably let us know.

 

Me, I have a license, and I use it, but technically I fall right into the slot for "student".  However, reading the terms of usage, I think that any person acting responsibly could use the product without fear of reprisal by the developer.  Using it for simulating flight is acceptable, and remember, even a B707 can do aileron rolls in real life.

 

 

The FAA has a standard by which full-motion simulators are kept.  This is proof that the FAA sees value in motion, and it is not, in fact, asinine.  Last I checked, the FAA has never required any FSPax-like programs, and any ATC provided is provided by a person (usually the instructor sitting there, but definitely not an unrealistic program).

 

No no no Kyle you aren't getting away with that; my point wasn't that they are realistic, you indicated that they detracted from the "Simulator" aspect, this isn't about FAA approval, the FAA approves certain installs of X-Plane, motion is not required for this, it simply adds to the immersion much like 'nice graphics',  

 

LM is very clear that the 'professional' P3D license allows simulation you cannot simply state that adding bits to the simulator that in YOUR opinion detract from the simulation aspect invalidates the EULA.  Back to Level-D, in Europe, many Level-D simulators now allow the public to use them (for a cost), these people could well be having fun, that doesn't mean they aren't simulators.

 

P3D already comes with an ATC add-on, it's the default MS ATC, why haven't LM removed this, wouldn't want those business customers breaking the EULA by using an unrealistic ATC add-on.

 

When i am flying anything from the Twin Otter to the 777 i am doing my best to SIMULATE the operation of those aircraft. If i use FSPax (i used too) to keep a log of my flights, even if i follow some of the 'asinine' rules why does that detract from the simulation?  What about the rules some airline companies impose, are they not 'asinine', what makes it different, we are both simulating.

 

So Kyle, in your opinion if i set up a limited company composed of just me would i be entitled to use P3D how i saw fit? 

Is there any moderator oversight in this thread?  It ran its course 10 pages ago and is getting quite silly.  So much wasted time and energy.  It is quite simple, folks.  Even if you know you are right, take the high road and let it die... it'll lessen the torture the rest of us who actually want to hear about PMDG development updates have to face.

Kyle,

 

No one is getting upset at you because you type the truth.

 

At the end of the day people who have chosen to move to P3D as their next simulation have made their own choice, no one cares what you have to say about that discussion, your constant repeating of the EULA just falls in the TL:DR category as do most of your ramblings here.

 

We have all read the LM EULA, we have all made our own choices.

 

Last time I checked you were neither a representative from LM or PMDG, so I fail to understand why your constant bleating of the EULA is so important to you.

 

Instead of pointing out the same thing over and over again, why don't you go and do something constructive.

 

Kirk