>>>>Are you being serious? >>>>Yes, I am.>>>Violating an EULA does not equate to piracy. I think that>>since he owns a legally purchased copy of the software, I>>think he should be allowed to install only a portion of the>>software. Besides, as strict as the FS EULA is, we are>still>>allowed to mod it even when we try to make changes which>>aren't documented our supported through the SDK. This seems>>to fall into the same category.>>No... he legally purchased a license to use a single copy on a>single PC. He doesn't own the software. Period. The license>is the EULA. If you violate the EULA, you have no right to>use the copy.>>I'm intimately familiar with EULAs... having taken major>corporations to task for trying to find ways around them. I>can assure you, that if you violate the EULA, you no longer>are licensed to use the software. No exceptions. I can also>assure you... you don't own the software.>Yawn...Same old argument - "you don't own the software, you purchased a license, etc". We get it. Whatever - he's still not a pirate, no matter how many times you "assure" me.- Martin

>>>>Are you being serious? >>>>Yes, I am.>>>Violating an EULA does not equate to piracy. I think that>>since he owns a legally purchased copy of the software, I>>think he should be allowed to install only a portion of the>>software. Besides, as strict as the FS EULA is, we are>still>>allowed to mod it even when we try to make changes which>>aren't documented our supported through the SDK. This seems>>to fall into the same category.>>No... he legally purchased a license to use a single copy on a>single PC. He doesn't own the software. Period. The license>is the EULA. If you violate the EULA, you have no right to>use the copy.>>I'm intimately familiar with EULAs... having taken major>corporations to task for trying to find ways around them. I>can assure you, that if you violate the EULA, you no longer>are licensed to use the software. No exceptions. I can also>assure you... you don't own the software.>I'm not arguing, he has the right to do this, he doesn't, but that doesn't equate to a crime as piracy and theft is. It is though a breach of contract which doesn't permit you to use the software (or a portion of it) unless you agree to the terms of the license. Violating this, MS could take civil action against you, but not criminal action. Only if he returns it for a refund, and he continues to use it, in this way, or distributes it does it become piracy and a crime.

Hi Ed. Since, per you and others, I was supposedly in violation I have since deleted all of the Acceleration files from my FSX that I have tried to get working. As it turns out I had better FA-18's and P-51's with working 2d and VC panels anyway. I did not really want the EH101 as I never fly helos. I hope this puts an end to this thread and that the Moderator locks the thread. Best regards, Bob.

I suppose that makes me a pirate for importing my Century of Flight aircraft into FSX? LOL!

>Hi Ed. I bought the Accelerator the first day it was>available at Circuit City. I have the box, the CD and the>activation key. I did not pirate it like I am sure others have>done. There are all kinds of Torrent sites with it. When I saw>all of the posts stating what happened to existing aircraft>when it was installed I decided not to install it. I saw>nothing on the box that stated "Warning- This product might>cause damage to some existing installations". Best regards,>Bob. You should be complaining to the developers of those aircraft that are "damaged" and not blame MS.At least to the devs that are selling these aircraft as true FSX versions only to find out they are lame port overs that weren't built using the FSX SDK.Michael

>You should be complaining to the developers of those aircraft>that are "damaged" and not blame MS.At least to the devs that>are selling these aircraft as true FSX versions only to find>out they are lame port overs that weren't built using the FSX>SDK.>>MichaelSorry I have to disagree with you here! These aircraft, ran out of the box in the RTM release, and SP1 Patch. It was Aces, that decided to change the rules in the middle of the game! While I realize Aces needs to break backward compatibility at some point, that is something that should have been done at a RTM release. Since it wasn't done at the RTM FSX release, it should have waited until FSXI RTM release, when they could have started with a blank slate. Doing it in a Patch/Addon release is just the wrong time to do something this drastic. Especially for the little gain in graphics and loss of performance we got in Acceleration/SP2. FSX in WinXP far out performs Vista in DX9 or DX10 Preview. IMHO if DX10 wasn't going to be implemented fully, it should have been dropped in SP2 and waited until FSXI, where it could have been implemented the way it was intended to.

So far so good for me with Accelleration. The F-18 was definatly a new aircraft with all the carrier ops feature added to the sim. The P-51s also aren't the old CFS P-51 thrown into FSX the new engine controlls and dammage models. The acceleration P-51 has as much in common with the CFS one as "Dago Red" has in common with a stock WWII P-51. So if you whant the new planes you have to install the whole thing. Acceleration has been running fine in both the DX-10 and DX-9 configs for me. I have taken the time to do a couple of small things to keep it smooth.Back up you FSX config file. After installing acceleration delete the FSX confic file and let FSX build a new one.When switching between DX9/DX10 remove the config file and let FSX build a new one.After that reinsert your tweeks.For DX-10 you must have Vista AND a DX-10 compatable vid card. Every FS install needs a little tweaking once you know where your system is happpy it's not that hard to keep it there.