NathanHalley

This is definitely wrong. You can't steal someone's code, but under certain circumstances you absolutely can reverse engineer it. Now, in this case that appears to have not been true, but such a broad statement strikes me as them trying to be overly reactionary to their behavior.

No, but in this case it is doing literally nothing. The ONLY point is that it is an irritant to people who have legitimately bought it. There are software developers out there who agree with this point of view. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/03/19/drm-hurts-companies-more-than-piracy-developer-argues/

Even with the activation, it won't stop anyone who wants to get it without paying for it. In this case what it primarily seems to do is make it obnoxious for people who have legitimately paid for it.

NL2000 is huge. Using torrents in this case makes a ton of sense. It spreads the load off their servers. There is nothing inherently illegal about torrents...

I used to write software for a large defense contractor not named Lockheed Martin. Not in the simulation arena, but in the realm of flight. We provided no upgrade path. When we released a new piece of software, you reinstall your operating system and then all the building blocks for our software and then our software. Why? Because so many things could have changed on your computer between when you installed version 1 of our software and version 1.1 software that could screw things up, and we weren't going to deal with it. You want to use our software? You get a fresh install. It would not surprise me if LM has a similar type of mindset. Keep in mind, this is not a game. It is primarily meant to be used in a professional environment for serious training, and in those types of environments it is not uncommon to do a fresh install. So while it might be obnoxious, I can totally understand that LM hasn't put a ton of time into making sure the patching process works with all possible combinations of hardware and software configurations. I'm not saying that it isn't obnoxious, though.

I got X-Plane 10 in the mail yesterday after playing around with the demo for a week, and so far I'm really happy. I was inspired by watching Helipilot7 fly it on Pilotedge. For me it has been a great experience. It runs MUCH smoother on my computer than FSX did, and I don't think that it looks bad at all. In fact, with some of the add-on scenery I've found, it looks really nice, especially at night. And personally, I find the roads MUCH better than in FSX. I was able to take off from KSTL, follow the highways around, find my parents street, where my wife works, and my house just by navigating the roads, something I've never had much luck with in FSX. I have to be honest. I don't understand a couple of the main complaints. For one, the AI. Yeah, the AI sucks. But so does the default FSX AI. It seems to me anyone who really cares about AI is using an online service, which X-Plane supports. And I think the UI is fine. So far I haven't had any trouble finding what I'm looking for. It is FAR better than it was back with X-Plane 9, which is the last time I had played around with it. And anything that isn't immediately obvious I've been able to quickly find by googling. Maybe I'll hate it more as time goes on, but so far it has been a really positive experience for me.

I know it is a little different, but the Dodosim 206 is widely regarded as being very accurate.

This (among other reasons) is why many people involved in software argue for things like Copyleft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft So something like Linux can never be "taken away." I don't always agree with all of the arguments made for it, but it is definitely an interesting thing to consider.

Okay, good. I was not trying to be provocative at all. My phrasing was just poor. I honestly don't know what the "truth" is here, and so many games can get played with these words that it is really hard to know WHAT something like this actually means.

You misunderstood my tone, so I apologize. I should have stated that it would be interesting to hear from an EU lawyer who can appropriately clarify this ruling for us from a position of understanding all the laws involved.. I'm assuming that neither Yahooligan, or you, or me, are that, so we really don't know for sure what we are saying. Perhaps I was wrong, and he is that. And, for the record, I was fully including myself in that. If anyone is that, who has legal expertise on this subject, including Yahooligan, that's who I'd like to hear from. And if someone in here is that, I'd be happy to rescind my statement.

I think the question that needs to be answered, though, is what if you are a US based developer that is selling to the EU. For example, Microsoft has to make different versions of Windows to comply with EU laws because they want to do business in the EU. I would be interested to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about on this. And also, I agree that there seems to be a consensus that you only own a "license," but could it be that this ruling is stating that you actually own the software? At least in the EU?

I am also curious about getting rid of the N Skip to next waypoint sign, but I'd also love to know if there is a way to turn off the green arrows and boxes showing me where to turn and where the runway is. A huge part of the fun of flight simming is the navigation, and so I don't want all these "helpers".

There have been images on TV here in St. Louis that show at least a 757 has suffered tail damage.http://www.kmov.com/home/SkyZoom-4-images-of-the-Lambert-Airport-damage-120536224.html?gallery=y&c=y&img=7#gallery-image

They are all freeware, but the planes at calclassic are just as good if not better and more complex than a lot of payware.http://www.calclassic.com/

I suggest that everyone who claims that piracy is left refer to the following court case:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...us/473/207.htmlBasically it says that copyright infringement is different from theft, because no physical items are lost by the act.This isn't an attempt to justify piracy, but in order to make arguments against it, it is probably a good idea to stand on a legal footing, which claiming it is theft is not. Copyright infringement is illegal, so saying that piracy isn't theft doesn't mean it is legal. It just means it is a different crime, with different levels of seriousness in the eyes of the law.