Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: A clarification from the prepar3d team.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,477

    Default

    After looking at the Prepar3D website-

    http://www.prepar3d.com/


    I still can't figger what it's supposed to be able to do that FSX can't!
    It talks of 'creating training exercises', yet we (or any training school) can already do that in FSX simply and easily to any level of complexity we choose from easy to hard in all kinds of weather etc.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Getting warmer now
    Posts
    8,540

    Default

    I still can't figger what it's supposed to be able to do that FSX can't!
    When Microsoft first launched ESP, FSX was for entertainment purposes only and they wouldn't support it in a commercial environment. Also, similar solutions out there for commercial use were many times more expensive, so they launched ESP using the same core engine. It wasn't necessarily meant to have more features, and was geared towards customization and support in a commercial setting. After ESP was killed along with ACES, LM took a licence to continue development of ESP.

    The big difference P3D no has over FSX is that it is still being developed, and will be for some time. If you browse through the P3D forums you will find that they are working on overcoming the shortcomings of FSX and adding features. So no, there isn't any big feature right now that makes it overwhelmingly better, but eventually there most likely will be because it is still under development.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgh View Post
    As I wrote in another thread, don't suppose Lockheed Martin would really care what you do with P3D in the privacy of your own home. I think it would care if someone started distributing "through markets or channels for use as a personal/consumer entertainment product." That's why I don't believe it can become an FSX replacement.
    I have to disagree. Without trying to read the EULA etc. selectively to satisfy a desire for a "better FSX" it would seem LM does care or they would not have specifically included the wording "not to be used for..." and for the Academic License being clearly licensed for:

    "undergraduate student instruction", "K-12 student instruction", "K-12 after-school programs"
    http://www.prepar3d.com/prepar3d-license-comparison/

    I guess it's safe to assume that everyone who buys Prepar3d via the $49.95 Academic License
    -- is NOT using it as "a personal/consumer entertainment product" and
    -- IS actively and primarily engaged in providing "undergraduate student instruction", "K-12 student instruction", "K-12 after-school programs" or
    -- IS a student in a K-12 or undergraduate program.

    It seems that LM has an Academic purchase program so that traditionally under-funded legitimate educational institutions can provide a decent educational program for K-12/undergraduate students in a multi-student environment to give them a 'leg-up' if they are interested a career in aviation.

    Now, if a person wants to express a desire to develop add-ons (even if they fail miserably or get discouraged and quit) there is the Developer subscription, or a registered student or licensed pilot could acquire the "pro" version for legitimate training and development or one could create and market training programs for local (or worldwide) EULA-described groups.

    Of course, we CAN work on the additional assumption that it's OK as long as we don't flaunt it or get caught (after all, ENRON did it for quite a while).

    As for it (not) becoming an FSX replacement, as long as it supports FSX (and possibly some ported FS9) add-ons that is exactly how the majority seem to see it -- "what FSX should be". The only obstacle would be (and reading between the lines not likely) if LM somehow made it extrememly difficult or impossible to share the models between sims.
    Last edited by srgalahad; 03-28-2012 at 03:20 PM.

    Member | Executive Committee
    Microsoft Flight Simulator Around-the-World Race



  4. #24

    Default

    Did you miss that part of one of my posts where I quoted what Lockheed Martin said?

    Bottom line, don't use it as a replacement for a game, it needs to be used for non-entertainment purposes.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,477

    Default

    If any Prepar3D exec is reading this, I'd be happy to fully review your product here in this thread if you care to send me a copy; I'm already a wargame press reviewer for Matrix and Battlefront Games and my reviews are all over the net..

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    12,360

    Default

    Why would they want a non-entertainment piece of software reviewed as if it was?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,477

    Default

    If they've got a problem with that, it's their problem not ours..
    I reviewed an expensive 'professional' simulation a couple of years ago with the 'Steel Beasts Pro Edition' military simulator which is used by Euro military academies etc for troop training-

    http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmf...t=steel+beasts

    The makers of SB made the smart business decision to make it available to the home wargaming market and adjusted their advertising accordingly and sent out review copies to let everybody know that it was a dual-purpose product for the Military AND for home computers.
    But Prepar3D don't seem to want to call theirs dual-purpose in case it puts professionals and flight schools off buying it..

    POSTSCRIPT- Steel Beasts Pro never did catch on with the home computer market, partly because of its hefty 125 USdollars (75 GBpounds) price tag, and also because the 3D graphics were far below average compared to most other similar-genre wargames. Plus there were inexcusable flaws like smoke not drifting with the wind, etc.
    However the planning maps and tools were very good, but more suited to longwinded highly-detailed planning sessions and discussion classes at Academies than in homes.
    The bottom line is that there are other games around (eg the Armed Assault and Combat Mission series) which can do everything Steel Beasts can do at a third of the cost.
    I suspect Prepar3D might be like that too, great for drawing up flight plans, exercises and stuff in training schools for students, but otherwise no advance on FSX.
    Last edited by ScatterbrainKid; 03-28-2012 at 10:06 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Getting warmer now
    Posts
    8,540

    Default

    But Prepar3D don't seem to want to call theirs dual-purpose in case it puts professionals and flight schools off buying it.
    No, it's because their license with MS prevents them from marketing it for personal/entertainment use.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Imlay City, Michigan
    Posts
    8,632

    Default

    But Prepar3D don't seem to want to call theirs dual-purpose in case it puts professionals and flight schools off buying it.
    Bottom Line? They can't. It is that simple.

    As many times as it has been posted, folks need to realize that P3D, in anything but Commercial or Academic form, would violate the License terms with Microsoft.
    Does anybody actually believe that LM would jeopardize the whole P3D program to satisfy a few hundred folks?...Don
    HAF 932 Adv, PC P&C 950w, ASUS R4E,i7-3820 5.0GHz(MCR320-XP 6 fans wet), GTX 970 FTW
    16GB DDR3-2400, 128GB SAMSUNG 830(Win 7 Ult x64), 512GB SAMSUNG 840 Pro(FSX P3D FS9)
    WD 1TB Black(FS98, CFS2&3, ROF, etc.), WD 2TB Black-(Storage/Backup)
    Active Sky Next, Rex4 TD/Soft Clouds

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fxsttcb View Post
    Bottom Line? They can't. It is that simple.

    As many times as it has been posted, folks need to realize that P3D, in anything but Commercial or Academic form, would violate the License terms with Microsoft.
    Does anybody actually believe that LM would jeopardize the whole P3D program to satisfy a few hundred folks?...Don
    That point doesn't seem to be recognised, particularly by enthusiasts for P3D.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 12:18 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-26-2013, 11:04 AM
  3. Airport Traffic Pattern Clarification
    By Fitzwilliam in forum FS2002
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-02-2003, 05:44 PM
  4. Clarification on FSW Clouds for Fs2002
    By Chris_ in forum FS2002
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2002, 04:45 AM
  5. For Jeff S. KDTW An Apology/Clarification
    By rsmith6621 in forum FS2002
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-12-2002, 01:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •