You are making the assumption LM would lose the case ...

No... actually not... in fact, you answer it with the following:

 

Nothing can prevent expensive lawsuits, wasn't my suggestion.

Which brings us back to my (earlier) point:

 

What company (with respect to lawsuits) says, "Bring it on!"

"Win" or "lose" or "draw" (settle out of court) there is going to be a cost.  So there is always "risk".

 

 

What I see repeated by some is the use of fear of legal consequences to steer people away from a flight simulation platform ...

Who's the "some"?  Sorry, I did not see this implied anywhere in the thread.

 

The only "steering" I have seen is "read the EULA".  And we know, for example, "AVSIM's" position is "abide by the EULA".

 

 

I don't know what all the commotion is about. Are there actually a lot of people who have P3d2 and would also want to install any of the A2A planes on FSX? If someone has FSX alone, the choice is easy. If someone has P3d2 alone, that is also easy. If someone has both sims and can't effectively use P3d2 for one reason or another, that choice is also easy.

 

After all the complaints about A2A not officially "supporting" P3d2, A2A has responded, in my opinion in a sensible fashion.

Guys, would you please cease discussing P3D's EULA already! You are just going to get yet another topic locked.

 

I started this tread because I wanted to pass on A2A's upcoming rebate/trade in policy for C172 owners, who are using this aircraft. There will only be a 30-day window for this, so this is a bit more important than debating P3D's licencing policy (yet again). Take that up with LM, or start a PM debate.

Good luck with that.  :lol:

All the legalese kinda goes out the window here in the end.  Everyone around knows, including LM that most people in this hobby are using P3D for 'entertainment' regardless of which P3D license you paid for.  Neither of which is in accordance with their terms of use regarding entertainment.  So it doesn't really matter which license you get if you are going to 'entertain' yourself anyway.

 

 Even some developers are kind of pushing education/entertainment line a bit, with addons that you would have a hard time justifying as 'training aids'.  Are things like HD scenery/cloud/sky textures really a training enhancement?   Maaaaybe...if you use the same loose definition of 'learning' mentioned above.  

 

In the end it doesn't really matter.  It is obvious LM doesn't care, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place or would have had tougher restrictions on P3D acquisition/purchasing.  I find the whole thing kind of amusing actually.  

 

If it makes you happy and you enjoy using it, go for it!  Enhance your entertainment...er 'training platform' to your liking as you would for any other sim.  I say use P3D to your heart's content and as you see fit as most here already have.  If you learn stuff along the way, even better.

 

Anyway, while this discussion is entertaining, I don't want to irk Bill any further with all this amusing armchair lawyering.    

 

Back to the OP, I hope everyone will be able to enjoy their 172 and or Cherokee in P3D.

 

Cheers,

TJ

The only reason to mention the EULA here is to make the point that P3D = professional training platform, and professional training platform = much higher risk of expensive lawsuits for aircraft developers, and risk of expensive lawsuits = high-cost license to use those aircraft in P3D.  So it's an answer to the question, "Why is A2A [or some other developer] dong this horrible awful thing by charging us more for something we already own and/or could use in FSX and/or whatever else?"  Why?  Because of the risk.  Which is because of the EULA.  That's all.

 

Beyond that, I agree completely - whatever you do, don't mention the EULA!

Crikey, I can't wait to read the threads that pop up when PMDG release their pricing and licencing structure :lol:

Has anyone here bothered to look in their Prepar3D v2 folder and read the eula_academic.rtf document? Search carefully and note which specific word is not to be found in that document.

Then, just stop talking about it and enjoy yourselves... B)

I don't think people want a cripple-ware entertainment version.  Maybe we should just leave it alone and let money talk.

I'm almost an attorney (pending bar) and just wanted to add that I think A2A's licensing is more than generous. Please take this with a grain of salt (caveat) but if I were representing the next-of-kin of someone who died in a C-172 crash when the pilot was known to use P3D and own the product that can be licensed professionally, you can bet your butt I'm at least going to serve a discovery request.

 

You would have a hard time placing liability on a simulation product.  It would be similar to you failing to pass the bar in which you file suit against your text book publishers for not properly preparing you for the exam.  A2A's change in licensing seems to just be a move to match P3D licensing to their own.  It keeps it affordable enough for end users to continue to buy but allows them to gain more revenue on someone using it in a school.

 

Which brings me to another topic, has anyone ever heard or seen a flight school use FSX/P3D in an official capacity? I've seen some GA simulators that were FAA certified but they were a bit more robust than what I have sitting in front of me and the software didn't look like FSX.

 

 

has anyone ever heard or seen a flight school use FSX/P3D in an official capacity?

 

The Redbird Jay is based on P3D, and IIRC it's used in other Redbird products as well.  A2A does a version of the 172 for Redbird, specifically for training.  So there you go.  

The Redbird Jay is based on P3D, and IIRC it's used in other Redbird products as well. A2A does a version of the 172 for Redbird, specifically for training. So there you go.

 

 

And strangely enough, before P3D came along, the Redbird Jay originally shipped with FSX, not ESP.  For whatever that's worth other than to point out that lines often get blurred.

 

Should also probably point out that the Jay is, and always has been, intended for personal home training, not flight school use and it is not an approved simulator.  I don't know what Redbird's more expensive approved simulators use as base software.

 

Scott

Should also probably point out that the Jay is, and always has been, intended for personal home training, not flight school use and it is not an approved simulator.  I don't know what Redbird's more expensive approved simulators use as base software.

 

Per their website their 2nd level of product is FAA certified as a 'basic aviation training device' assuming you get the rudder pedals.  A few of these cost $200k so I would hope a facility could train on it for that cost.

 

Thanks for the reference, interesting to read about.

 

 

For whatever that's worth other than to point out that lines often get blurred.

 

Without wanting to reopen a can of sleeping dogs (apologies, but that's my all-time favorite mixed metaphor), the blurring of lines between professional and consumer is the basic thing we're all struggling with.

 

I tried to find out what software Redbird uses in its high-end rigs but haven't yet found out (or had time for a lot of searching).  It'd be interesting to know that.  Wouldn't surprise me to find out that they migrate to a P3D-like platform across the board at some point - but that's purely conjecture on my part.

 

In a separate discussion, I was reminiscing early today about being a member of CompuServe AvSIG (Aviation Special Interest Group) in the late 80s.  I was one of maybe two or three flight simulation enthusiasts, and it was unbelievably difficult to get the real-world pilots to pay any attention to PC simulators ("why are you bothering us with those toys?")  Times have changed...

I think the option to swap over your licence to P3D from FSX is brilliant.