19 minutes ago, WarpD said:

This has zero impact with Prepar3D.  I have no idea why people keep thinking otherwise.

You should always preface comments like that with IMHO since you have no inside knowledge as to how LM are thinking.

I think almost all of us here recognize that posts regarding the policies of flight sim business practices are obviously opinions. Unless of course someone from that specific business is the author of the post.

Edited May 9, 20188 yr by jabloomf1230

6 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I think almost all of us here recognize that posts regarding the policies of flight sim business practices are obviously opinions. Unless of course someone from that specific business is the author of the post.

Up to a point I agree but WarpD's comment suggested to me that LM will continue to turn a blind eye to the type of licences that are purchased when there's a considerable financial benefit to them by placing restrictions on who can purchase the Academic licence.

I don't wish to go down this route any further as we're encroaching on delicate areas of the T&Cs of the forum.

Let me approach the issue by analogy, so we don't get the thread locked. First some background. On another flight sim website forum that I visit, there is an ongoing thread regarding updating the base airport file of payware airports with Airport Design Editor (ADE). In this thread people have been using ADE to correct minor errors in payware 3rd party airports.

The thread went off the rails when someone started that the EULA from one developer clearly stated that doing so is not allowed. So the question then becomes, who enforces such violations? If someone uploads such an ADE file to the AVSim Library, either AVSim or the specific developer could get it removed. But if someone did the same editing for personal use, it is the responsibility of that individual to do what they think is correct. 

There are no secret flightsim police that are watching our every move.

Edited May 9, 20188 yr by jabloomf1230

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You should always preface comments like that with IMHO since you have no inside knowledge as to how LM are thinking.

Ray, that's not entirely accurate. Some of us developers do have a limited view of L-M's thinking. At least more than the general public.

Understood Fr Bill and although WarpD is a commercial member I have no idea what software he produces.

Is it safe to assume all commercial developers have 'contacts' inside L-M?

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Let me approach the issue by analogy, so we don't get the thread locked. First some background. On another flight sim website forum that I visit, there is an ongoing thread regarding updating the base airport file of payware airports with Airport Design Editor (ADE). In this thread people have been using ADE to correct minor errors in payware 3rd party airports.

The thread went off the rails when someone started that the EULA from one developer clearly stated that doing so is not allowed. So the question then becomes, who enforces such violations? If someone uploads such an ADE file to the AVSim Library, either AVSim or the specific developer could get it removed. But if someone did the same editing for personal use, it is the responsibility of that individual to do what they think is correct. 

There are no secret flightsim police that are watching our every move.

I've modified several 3rd party and default AFCADs but wouldn't dream of uploading to AvSim because I'm sure in both cases it would breach the agreement I 'signed' when I bought the product.

But I have seen modified AFCADs for both the default and 3rd party products so I suppose as long as it's just the AFCAD the base product remains intact. It's down to each person if they wish to download and try the alternative. Bit of a grey area really.

Bit off track but no harm done.

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You should always preface comments like that with IMHO ....

As a general practice, I second that rule of thumb. 

Edited May 9, 20188 yr by Anders Bermann

There is a lot of speculation in this thread. Just reminding y’all to not delve into the area of EULA debates.

What's interesting is that some commercial developers start with the stock airport and then make changes and additions. I don't see MS and/or LM protesting such efforts. And since the FSX SDK is silent regarding the various file formats such as MDL, BGL and AIR,  "reverse engineering" has been going on for a while also without any ramifications. Some developers have signed NDAs with either MS or LM but others and all freeware developers haven't.

This road of EULA-worship is best left untraveled by us users in my opinion.

On 4/30/2018 at 1:09 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I watched Froogle's video last evening on the demise of FSW and the possible impact it might have on Lockheed-Martin's P3D. You can watch the video below but the pertinent bit starts at 16m where he suggests Dovetail could sue LM for damage to their product by offering the Academic licence of P3D at a similar price to FSW.

One result of this could be LM either withdrawing the Academic licence or hiking its price. Froogle has never supported the Academic licence and believes serious simmers should buy the Pro Licence.

What's your take on how things might pan out? Would Dovetail have a reasonable case against LM? Should we be concerned about which licence to purchase? I know there are rules here about talking about the licences and I don't want to break those but this is more about whether Dovetail might sue LM and whether we should be concerned about the outcome of that.

This would not fly in any court.  Vendors have a right to choose their own pricing and the market they sell to.  I bought the P3D pro version due to the license for it, which I fit into but not the other version.  But Lockheed Martin has the right to sell their product as they see best and up and coming or smaller players in the market cannot dictate that pricing, they have to have a product that competes, simple as that.  I considered FSW but it just did not compete with either Xplane11 or P3DV4 IMHO, both sims are much more full featured, Xplane11 especially wows me with its ability to save recorded flights and its better crosswind handling, most realistic haze and great landclass, plus its outstanding photo-real support with Ortho4XP.  P3DV4 wowed me with its backward compatibility with so many aircraft add ons and sceneries, plus its photo-real support, for instance my Colorado photoreal scenery I placed in Avsim's library, made for FSX, also works fine with P3DV4.  My ultralight trike for which I created XML gauges works better in P3DV4 than it did with FSX--it was originally designed for FS2002 using FSDS2.  My landclass assistant program works for P3DV4 as well.  It is a shame that FSW did not have the time to develop further, they might have been able to add some good features to their program but if they are astute maybe they can sell their source to a new vendor, the way Lockheed Martin acquired FSX.

John

Moved to FSW Forum as the Hangar Chat is for topics where there are no forums to place the discussion. 

As far as AFD files are concerned, I modify them for my own personal use as and when required....and I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.