New Version of P3D Coming?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, pmb said:

Hi,

A2A has (to my dismay) different licenses and prices for P3D Academic, P3D Professional plus a separate package for P3D commercial usage, e.g.

https://a2asimulations.com/product/accu-sim-c182-skylane-p3d/

Kind regards, Michael

You posted while I was typing. 😉 My point exactly. 

[simbol 5,819]

2 minutes ago, pmb said:

Hi,

A2A has (to my dismay) different licenses and prices for P3D Academic, P3D Professional plus a separate package for P3D commercial usage, e.g.

https://a2asimulations.com/product/accu-sim-c182-skylane-p3d/

Kind regards, Michael

Right, well I am dismayed now!!!.

Just for user information, that is their decision as the LM SDK functions works exactly the same between P3D Academic and P3D Professional, there is thought more advanced functions inside the SDK available only for the P3D Professional Plus, but what this means is that if you decide as a developer to use these special and advanced functions your add-on's will not work unless the end user has the "Plus" license.

Hopes this clarifies.

Regards,
S.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, simbol said:

Hopes this clarifies

Not sure what that clarified... A2A is selling the same product for two different prices. And it’s not just a few bucks extra but 60% more.

[simbol 5,819]

1 minute ago, J van E said:

Not sure what that clarified... A2A is selling the same product for two different prices. And it’s not just a few bucks extra but 60% more.

It clarifies how the SDK works so you take your own conclusion and decisions when purchasing Add-on's in the future.

It is up to you as a customer to support software vendors or not, I just gave very useful information. 😉

S.

[Guest]

Off topic, but I'd like to see Lockheed Martin move towards a "P3D Certified Add-on" scheme and provide test kits to third-party developers so that they can test their product's compatibility, similar to WHQL.  Certified add-ons could then be purchased from an app store and installed into the core product through a plug-in framework.

I'm no financial expert, but there would need to be a mechanism for paying the 3rd party developers an appropriate fee depending on the popularity and success of their plug-in.

I believe the current model of multiple add-on installers, processes and configuration files and the associated compatibility and configuration headaches isn't sustainable and is only going to get worse and drive people away.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Guest
Typo

[skelsey 765]

15 hours ago, J van E said:

Not sure what that clarified... A2A is selling the same product for two different prices. And it’s not just a few bucks extra but 60% more.

....just like Lockheed Martin themselves, actually; the Academic version is identical in functionality to the Professional version, with the sole exception of the watermark.

I have to choose my words carefully here as we are close to licence discussion, but put simply: the difference in price has nothing to do with functionality and everything to do with usage. This is not new or extraordinary. The easiest example which comes to mind is images/video/audio etc from stock footage companies, who will charge you significantly different fees for the same image or piece of music depending on where you intend to use it: something for non-commercial or academic use might be only a few pounds, whereas if you want to use an image in a Hollywood feature film the fee could run in to the hundreds or thousands. Identical image, but what you're paying for is the right to use it in a particular setting and make money off it.

When I was student a number (😢) of years back I was able to buy a copy of Microsoft Office Student Edition. Same functionality as the 'normal' Office product, fraction of the cost and with a strapline in the title bar saying "Non-Commercial Use". Same product, different usage rights, different price.

In the same way, LM charges you different prices for P3D based on how you wish to use the software, and A2A follow the same model. If you are a flight school using P3D Professional and you want to use A2A's products, you have to pay professional prices, for the same reason that if you want to use a piece of music in a TV or radio commercial you are generally going to be paying a heck of a lot more than if you are using it as a backing track on a home video.

I've said in the past -- this is one of the 'problems' with P3D as a product. It is at the end of the day a professional product aimed at the commercial market, and if you want to play in that arena with a 'Professional' product licence then you have to expect that you may be asked to pay 'Professional' prices for things.

[pgde 571]

Perfectly stated Simon!

[Guest]

4 hours ago, skelsey said:

and A2A follow the same model

The point is they didn't have to do that. Most developers don't do this. So why should A2A?

A difference with P3D itself is that you can get P3D for CHEAP if you qualify for the Academic license. However, A2A Academic license prices are the regular prices and the Pro prices are higher. So you don't get a discount as an Academic user but you have to pay more as a Pro user. Not even PMDG or FSLabs are asking higher prices for Pro users and 'simply following LM licensing' so why should A2A? Easy money, that is why. 😉

Edited October 30, 2018 by Guest

[WarpD 824]

5 hours ago, part_time_punk said:

Off topic, but I'd like to see Lockheed Martin move towards a "P3D Certified Add-on" scheme and provide test kits to third-party developers so that they can test their product's compatibility, similar to WHQL.  Certified add-ons could then be purchased from an app store and installed into the core product through a plug-in framework.

I'm no financial expert, but there would need to be a mechanism for paying the 3rd party developers an appropriate fee depending on the popularity and success of their plug-in.

I believe the current model of multiple add-on installers, processes and configuration files and the associated compatibility and configuration headaches isn't sustainable and is only going to get worse and drive people away.

Yeah.... no.

[WarpD 824]

17 minutes ago, J van E said:

The point is they didn't have to do that. Most developers don't do this. So why should A2A?

It is their choice and they can do it if they want.  If you don't like it, you don't buy their stuff, that's your choice and you can do it if you want.

See how easy that is?

[Jim Young 2,356]

Discussions about the P3D licensing system at AVSIM are not allowed.  Full details of each license can be found at the Lockheed Prepar3D website.  Topic locked.