Farewell FSX - off to Prepar3d forum.

[Barnes]

No matter what PC I have owned I have never been able to get a good FPS in FSX when it comes to scenery.

I have now swapped everything over to P3D and can get decent FPS on scenary that I bought log ago but abandoned.

Guess I will mainly post my repaints, comments etc on that forum now. Might see you there!

[mmann]

Until Prepar3D changes the EULA to allow it to be used for entertainment, I'll have to stick with FSX or move to X-Plane or FlightGear.

[Francois]

I don't like it one bit..... and hence am NOT entertained. That means I can use it any way I want to.

[dhazelgrove]

Until Prepar3D changes the EULA to allow it to be used for entertainment, I'll have to stick with FSX or move to X-Plane or FlightGear.

Define 'entertainment'.

Dave

[Naismith]

There is so much misunderstanding of P3D - anyone is entitled to use it. LM have said this time and time again, if they were a person as opposed to a corporate entity they would be blue in the face by now.
But there are just as many issues maybe more with P3D as there are with FSX. Start adding stuff to it and it soon slows down as per FSX. It is akin to FSX before it was SP2'd and accelerated. Some claim it to be more stable, I am not convinced, again the naked sim may be as was FSX, but once you start adding to it expect issues.
Yes LM have done stuff to it so one would hope there were improvements, but bear in mind FSX is now approaching 7 years old and its fixes 6 years.
I am looking forward to what LM do with the next generation of our sim.

[TheGrunt]

There is so much misunderstanding of P3D - anyone is entitled to use it. LM have said this time and time again, if they were a person as opposed to a corporate entity they would be blue in the face by now.
But there are just as many issues maybe more with P3D as there are with FSX. Start adding stuff to it and it soon slows down as per FSX. It is akin to FSX before it was SP2'd and accelerated. Some claim it to be more stable, I am not convinced, again the naked sim may be as was FSX, but once you start adding to it expect issues.
Yes LM have done stuff to it so one would hope there were improvements, but bear in mind FSX is now approaching 7 years old and its fixes 6 years.
I am looking forward to what LM do with the next generation of our sim.
I've used solely P3D now since 1.4 came out and it works hugely better than FSX, at least for me and that is all that matters personally. And it really isn't "FSX before it was SP2'd and accelerated", because it includes all that code and is fully Acceleration compatible. Developement started from where ACES left it 2009.

[Naismith]

I accept that except there is no front end, where did that go? And the ATC box - that was a step backwards - there is other stuff which means it sits unused on my HD though I see a bright future.

[TheGrunt]

I accept that except there is no front end, where did that go?
Was there front end for ESP? Prepar3D is based on ESP code, not FSX, though the game engine itself is basically the same. I use freeware SimLauncher isntead, which beats FSX frontend 100-0.

And the ATC box - that was a step backwards - there is other stuff which means it sits unused on my HD though I see a bright future.
True, ATC box isn't the way it is in FSX. They bumped into problems with transparent window and the way ESP/FSX was handling them when making other optimizations to the code. I myself don't mind at all window being opaque, as it is open quite short time at once. Annoying black flash when opening the window can be avoided fully using pseudo full screen script with autohotkey.

[Hughes-MDflyer4]

I wouldn't say that any hard core flight simmer uses P3D or FSX for "entertainment purposes." I'm certainly not entertained, I'm just learning about aviation and how to operate aircraft, as well as develop add-ons. :mixedsmi:

[Roger]

I guess we're all different...for me flightsim is pure escape and I don't see that in their eula, but the eula only exists in it's present form to appease MS who no longer give a damn about flightsim. If P3D.V2 is dx10/11 then I will jump, especially if they manage to go 64 bit. If not I will probably stick with FsX/A.

[MCDesigns]

I guess we're all different...for me flightsim is pure escape and I don't see that in their eula, but the eula only exists in it's present form to appease MS who no longer give a damn about flightsim. If P3D.V2 is dx10/11 then I will jump, especially if they manage to go 64 bit. If not I will probably stick with FsX/A.

I am with you Roger! I want to support P3D also, but my main issue, and I know there is really no such thing as a garuantee, but what is to stop them from pulling the plug on non pro users at any given time? What is to stop MS of not giving 2 cents when they realize LM is making money off the entertainment based user group, (US!), and decide they want a piece of the pie now? I know ORBX is really backing LM and P3D, but you also have respected developers like PMDG and Flight1 that don't allow their products used in P3D, guess time will tell.

[mmann]

I wouldn't say that any hard core flight simmer uses P3D or FSX for "entertainment purposes." I'm certainly not entertained, I'm just learning about aviation and how to operate aircraft, as well as develop add-ons. :mixedsmi:

Your use would be protected by the EULA. I use FSX for entertainment; so if Prepar3D can't or won't change their EULA, I could not agree to the EULA which would preclude me from using their product.

[skyhawka4m]

sorry to see you go.....but I'm sticking to FSX till the end. Way too much invested and not about to start over.

[ShawnG]

Lockheed martin legally can't change their EULA. developing for pro flight training is the condition under which they purchased ESP, anything else would mean having to buy the rights for the consumer end from Microsoft. so we have this "wink wink, nudge nudge" situation. Lockheed Martin would probably love it if everyone ignored their EULA and bought it for whatever purpose, but they are legally bound to say otherwise. So buy it and promise not to have any fun. seems simple.

[AussieMan]

Just to touch on a few of the comments above.

To begin my system is Windows 8 Pro, with Intel i5-2500 CPU @ 3.6GHZ with 8GB RAM with a GeForce 9600GT Video card with 1GB on board.

I only have P3D installed on my computer. I have 95% of ORBX products running. The only thing missing are a few airports. I am also running about 100 scenery addon files and including repaints I have over 700 aircraft. I also run Active Sky as there is no default Real Weather.

I have P3D locked at 30FPS and constantly get that rate although I may experience a drop to about 23FPS flying into somewhere like Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, London or Seattle. Previously in FSX those airports attracted a drop down to something like 12 -15 FPS. In FSX I had the FPS locked at 30 but was struggling to get above 20FPS. So I can see between 50% and 70% increase in FPS.

Also when I am using a joystick or my CH yoke I find I am getting smoother results to my input. With FSX the slightest movement of either the elevators or ailerons would either put the aircraft into an almost vertical climb or a barrel roll.

So you can see I am more than happy with P3D. By the way I am using the Academic version and I can actually land larger planes with little or no bounce :).

By the way what is entertainment? I use it mainly for relaxation.

Also Barnes, welcome to the New World.

[dhazelgrove]

One major point about P3D - namely the cost of the product.

$199 seems excessive to me.

Dave

[TheGrunt]

I want to support P3D also, but my main issue, and I know there is really no such thing as a garuantee, but what is to stop them from pulling the plug on non pro users at any given time?
Is there a guarantee, that MS continues to operate their FSX activation servers for the years to come?

[Montie]

One major point about P3D - namely the cost of the product.

$199 seems excessive to me.

Dave

The Academic license is available at $49.95 I believe. I will wait and see what Prepar3d V2 can do before switching.

[DaveWG]

I tried P3d for a while, but didn't find any improvement over FSX performance wise. Indeed, with the same scenery, aircraft, AI, settings etc, overall performance was lower than FSX in DX10 mode.
As my FSX is now pretty stable and performs well, combined with a few niggles with P3d I don't see any reason for me to swap at the moment.
Things may change when V2.0 comes out, and I will certainly give it a try.

[MudMarine]

I paid $80 for fsx when it first came out. It's NEVER worked for me! It was so bad it pretty much ended the enjoyment I got from simming. That is until P3D came along. I paid $49 for it and it's a life saver! All of the fsx addons I bought for fsx work with it. P3D saved the hobby of flight simulation for me! I've said it before and I'll say it a again, for me, fsx was is a piece of garbage! I know it works for other people and that's great! But for me fsx was a waste of money.

[falcon409]

Your use would be protected by the EULA. I use FSX for entertainment; so if Prepar3D can't or won't change their EULA, I could not agree to the EULA which would preclude me from using their product.
Mike, you're overthinking this to the excess. I would imagine that within our community there are far more average users who have purchased the Academic version for $49. than any other option LM has at the moment. Don't take the EULA literally. . .LM's legal department has to earn their money too and the EULA is their contribution. I promise the EULA Police won't come knocking if you purchase P3D. Now, be forewarned however. There is a new version being worked which probably won't be out until sometime next year. One of the supposed changes could be that it will fully support 64bit technology and if that happens LM could see a surge in "Academic Students" going over to P3D. It will also be a completely new purchase, so just understand that if you buy now, you'll also have to do it all over again if this new version has the expected "bells & whistles". Bottom line, don't make deciding to purchase any harder than it needs to be. If you want it. . . .buy it.

[stansdds]

I'm still sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see what comes about with P3D v.2. FSX runs well enough for me as it is, to take advantage of DX10 or DX11 or a 64 bit version of FSX, I would have to build a new computer and move to Windows 7, none of that is in my budget with the current economy and now my wife is enjoying a 20% pay cut thanks to sequestration.

[Brian_Gladden]

I can say... I had a terrific and fairly stable FSX instal for about a year. Then out of the blue, I got random CTD's and other problems that would never go away. Now, with P3d I Use the $10 a month developer license (Hey... I am a published FS addon developer... right? I know it's been a while though) and I have been very happy with P3d. Only thing I don't like is Flight 1's issue with it so no addons like AFX and Instant scenery. I am however starting to get the hang of ADEX. It's kinda like going backwards a little to the days of Airport 2.1 when I go so used to adding objects in sim.

Anyway, My rig runs P3d fine and I have tons of AI (A killer on any system) and I run a solid 20 fps just like FSX did when it worked. The only thing I don't like is that clouds really drag my system down. I use FS Real weather lite for real time weather. and an opening screen would be helpful.

Other than that I'm a very happy LM customer.

[Dangerousdave26]

One major point about P3D - namely the cost of the product.

$199 seems excessive to me.

Dave

If we look at the amount of money in addons the typical user purchases over a life time in Flight Simulator I think that price is far too low if I were the developer.

How many of us have 1000s of dollars tied up in hardware and software just to enhance our FS experience.

For a stable 64 bit platform with an accurately modeled world (mesh, landclass, waterbodies, and roads) I would pay more than the $199.

That is why I am also waiting for P3D version 2.0.

[Skyhawk_310R]

Until Prepar3D changes the EULA to allow it to be used for entertainment, I'll have to stick with FSX or move to X-Plane or FlightGear.

That's the part I think so many people are glossing over. Microsoft retains considerable influence on this issue. Their EULA with Lockheed Martin is very clear. LM is prohibited from releasing Prepar3D for entertainment purposes. Their contract with Microsoft restricts its use to training. That is precisely why the EULA of Prepar3D restricts its use to training. People should understand it was Microsoft who specified that limitation to disallow LM to becoming a potential competitor in the PC gaming industry. LM has no desires or strategic plans to change the mission of Prepar3D from training. Frankly, a lot of people have purchased Prepar3D for reasons of entertainment knowing it violates the EULA.

How much longer is Microsoft going to ignore what is happening? I certainly don't know. But, it cannot be forever. Without question a large number of people are using the Prepar3D product outside its specified EULA. It is certainly one of the more frustrating realities that a business retains control over something they have abandoned. Microsoft has abandoned flight simulator games and it seems very doubtful they will ever enter it again. But, contractually, they control how their software is used.

Few people thought the RIAA would ever successfully prosecute and heavily fine end users for violations of their copyrights. But, they did. Would Microsoft do the same? I would say doubtfully, but I also never expected the RIAA to do what they did, and the courts backed the RIAA 100% of the way despite great protests. I just thnk people ought to understand what the EULA for FSX and Prepar3D both say. It is a legally enforceable agreement, and frankly, anytime someone uses Prepar3D for gaming entertainment, then they are violating a legally binding contract.

Ken

[Dangerousdave26]

That is one of the other reasons why I am waiting for V2.0.

My hope is not that Flight is done MS will throw the recreational use to P3D and get paid a license fee for each copy sold. Let LM support and develop it. MS can just keep getting paid.

Will that happen who knows.

[Stickshaker]

Does P3D have the same possibilities for carrier operations as FSX Acceleration? And do utilities like AICarriers, AccuFeel and the VRS TacPac work in P3D? If yes, a 64 bits version becomes an attractive option when the time comes.

[falcon409]

. . . . . .I just think people ought to understand what the EULA for FSX and Prepar3D both say. It is a legally enforceable agreement, and frankly, anytime someone uses Prepar3D for gaming entertainment, then they are violating a legally binding contract.
Ken
In that case. . . all you folks who are not using it for strictly "training" purposes, needs to cease and desist. Last thing I need is someone coming after me for violating a legal contract. On a side note. . . .if that is the case. . .then LM needs to insist on "proof of Academia" prior to issuing a download or registration key. At this point, they're just as guilty for allowing it to happen as are the thousands who have already downloaded the Academic" version. JS:mixedsmi:

[Skyhawk_310R]

That is one of the other reasons why I am waiting for V2.0.

My hope is not that Flight is done MS will throw the recreational use to P3D and get paid a license fee for each copy sold. Let LM support and develop it. MS can just keep getting paid.

Will that happen who knows.

It won't. I personally wish it would, but I work for Lockheed Martin, albiet in a different department. Nevertheless, I have spoken a few times with the project manager of Prepar3D, and exchanged a few email, and she explained to me that LM will never market Prepar3D for entertainment for two reasons. First, Microsoft's contract with LM is ironclad in that area. Second, entertainment simply is not a market goal of Lockheed Martin and never will be.

LM paid Microsoft considerable money for the baseline code and the authority to modify that code to optimize it for training. LM's strategy is to market Prepar3D as a low-cost platform for training and mission rehearsal. This is not limited to aviation either, as a major portion of the code revision was to facilitate surface and sub-surface maritime uses. Poorer nations are seeing the possibility of using Prepar3D for certain kinds of formal training at a cost much lower than required for the more typical full fledged motion simulator devices. I've seem it also used by the USAF but I won't comment on the details.

The academic license was an effort to market the product to civilian flight academies. I also know that LM is aware that this license has been -- how shall I say this -- "creatively employed" by people looking for an interim replacement to an increasingly aged FSX because they just want to have fun on their home PC. Few people desire to be killjoys. So, I don't think LM is going to become aggressive unless forced to.

I learned all this because I was able to test the first version of Prepar3D a few years back. I offered feedback that echoed what others before me did so I wasn't of much help frankly. LM had already planned to incorporate all my inputs before I offered them. Like a lot of people, I immediately recognized the untapped consumer entertainment market and expressed my recommendation that LM release Prepar3D for the home PC market. That's when I was told it was never going to be an option.

But, what does concern me is the allure of available untapped money, and Microsoft right now has an opening to use the courts to pursue money from everyone who has provided any indications they have used Prepar3D for entertainment. It would not shock me to see a day when folks start opening their mailboxes and find unwelcome letters from some legal firm asking people to pay fines to Microsoft for unauthorized use of their proprietary software. And yes, another letter going to LM asking for payment of fines for insufficient oversight of their own EULA. Then, LM would be browbeat by a larger company (yes, Microsoft is bigger than Lockheed Martin) and forced to take action.

What I cannot understand is Microsoft's choices on this. They saw a moneypot from LM, took the money, and restricted its use to avoid creating competition. Then, despite FS being the biggest money-maker in PC gaming that MS has ever seen, they fired the developers in the series and closed the doors. They fully knew the future of PC chipsets and the reality that multi-processing was the way to go and yet refused to spend the money to develop FSX to support it. With the function of multi-processor PC's today, and the advent of modern graphics features, I have little doubt that MS could release a new FS title that would fill in the missing code to support all of flight dynamics, and we could see PC platform flight games that would actually rise to the level of scientifically accurate flight simulators.

Perhaps the problem holding this development up is one market analysis. Too few people care about aviation any more. Shocking as that is to us, especially myself since I know the joy of actually flying your own GA airplane, I'm forced to concede that general aviation is dying because people don't see the thrill of it like they used to.

Ken

[heywooood]

so multiple prepar3d fan websites, where people are posting their screenshots and videos and talking about how much fun they're having with it..and 3d party developers are posting about their addons for it....

...probably wont...draw the attention of...MS legal department...at all....ever...

[Skyhawk_310R]

so multiple prepar3d fan websites, where people are posting their screenshots and videos and talking about how much fun they're having with it..and 3d party developers are posting about their addons for it....

...probably wont...draw the attention of...MS legal department...at all....ever...

I hope your dismissal remains true. I really do. But, I remember how many decades people were very public with all their websites and discussions of how easy it was to share music and video files, even going so far as to call people suckers who kept paying for it instead of joining the many file sharing websites.

I remember how people laughed at the first letters they received to cease and desist. I joined the chorus saying how out of touch the RIAA was and how badly they were erring in refusing to figure out a more friendly reaction to it. But, the RIAA kept saying they would take action and when they started sending out court summons and receiving multi-thousand dollar settlements from average citizens, the laughter stopped and the protests began in earnest. But, the RIAA never stopped. They just kept going after people by the thousands and shutting down those file-sharing sites and suiing their owners into bankruptcy.

In the end, the RIAA crushed the file sharing sites and the file sharing industry. I was very glad I never joined one. When the RIAA sued for and finally obtained the registration membership rosters for the largest of these sites, and used them to send out the notices of collections, when combined with the successful court judgments, a lot of average Joe's got hurt badly, including parents who didn't even know what their children were doing but still had to pay for it!

People are free to make their choices. I just figure once every blue moon or so someone ought to point out the legal realities of all this. But, likely MS is more customer savvy than the RIAA was. I also hope that's true because I think the RIAA still made a huge mistake.

Ken

[TheGrunt]

It won't. I personally wish it would, but I work for Lockheed Martin, albiet in a different department. Nevertheless, I have spoken a few times with the project manager of Prepar3D, and exchanged a few email, and she explained to me that LM will never market Prepar3D for entertainment for two reasons. First, Microsoft's contract with LM is ironclad in that area. Second, entertainment simply is not a market goal of Lockheed Martin and never will be.
Very true. Especially the whole business sector that LM deals with is quite defining and some consumer business is just something out of their area completely.

The academic license was an effort to market the product to civilian flight academies.
This is incorrect. Using P3D in flight academies and pilot training requires Pro version. If you use it yourself for personal private pilot training, pro version is required.

I also know that LM is aware that this license has been -- how shall I say this -- "creatively employed" by people looking for an interim replacement to an increasingly aged FSX because they just want to have fun on their home PC. Few people desire to be killjoys. So, I don't think LM is going to become aggressive unless forced to.
I agree. They also benefit from wider user base having a big bunch of software testers. They are, as I've understood, quite small team after all.

But, what does concern me is the allure of available untapped money, and Microsoft right now has an opening to use the courts to pursue money from everyone who has provided any indications they have used Prepar3D for entertainment. It would not shock me to see a day when folks start opening their mailboxes and find unwelcome letters from some legal firm asking people to pay fines to Microsoft for unauthorized use of their proprietary software. And yes, another letter going to LM asking for payment of fines for insufficient oversight of their own EULA. Then, LM would be browbeat by a larger company (yes, Microsoft is bigger than Lockheed Martin) and forced to take action.
This is something I disagree. First, some people seem to have really strange image that this whole enthusiastic simulator market is something big. It isn't. That's why there practically aren't any companies left, that offer their hard core simulators only to consumer market, except 777 Studios with their historic Rise of Flight. Both Laminar Research and DCS have strong professional markets and those three are pretty much all the companies still producing some way serious simulators for the consumer market at all. Now, if there really would be some serious money involved, we probably would have several companies making these sims and I'll bet that MS would be there too. There is only one figure relating to FSX sales that is somewhat confirmed, and that is 280,000 copies sold for the first year. That is simply ridicilously small amount of sales for a software that took long time to make with quite big dev team. At the same time, their ESP business really didn't go that well so they were losing money. Whole focus of the company was already somewhere else and for the gaming, Xbox business was thriving. ACES needed to go. We of course saw some revival with Flight, which IMO was quite bold attempt to "casualize" simming, but after few months it too failed to bring money in and, boom, it was gone and with it the MS flight simulator business.

Second, I can't see how microsoft can sue some user by any law. You haven't bought Microsoft software, but LM software and that is just not going to happen. What is possible though, is MS suing LM based on the contract they have made when LM purchased ESP code. If that happens, LM may of course enforce the EULA some other way, like revoking the license activation, which probably would be the most likely way IMO. Then, why haven't that happened already? Why isn't MS suing LM's a** off and LM enforcing their EULA? Pretty much of that lies behind that contract MS and LM made and nobody here knows what is truly written in it. Period. Both companies have armies of lawyers and believe me, if there would be possibility to make some true money from whole affair, MS would be on their way already. On the other hand, because LM has battalion of lawyers too, wouldn't you think that they know what they are doing here instad of almost deliberately ending up in a costly corporate trial battle? So, there are practical reasons behind everything and other fact is that nobody cares: Money involved in consumer sim market is so darn low.

What I cannot understand is Microsoft's choices on this. They saw a moneypot from LM, took the money, and restricted its use to avoid creating competition.
Why not to sell the ESP code? MS have still full rights for the FSX code and to market the software and develop it if they will. They practically didn't lose anything. About possible restrictions, you know those if you've seen the contract. We don't know what is based on the contract, and what is corporate strategy.

Then, despite FS being the biggest money-maker in PC gaming that MS has ever seen, they fired the developers in the series and closed the doors.
This is just nonsense. Halo franchise and many other AAA titles published by Microsoft for their own consoles and partly ported to PC also are far more profitable than some poor flight sim, not to mention the revenue whole Xbox business is bringing in. Just first three Halos have sold over 21 million copies and Halo 2 brought $125 million just in the first day. For FSX I've seen many times that since its launch, its sales are barely a 1 million copies. That is really, really bad business and MS didn't even get a dime from 3PD sales for the whole time. That they tried to change with Flight.

They fully knew the future of PC chipsets and the reality that multi-processing was the way to go and yet refused to spend the money to develop FSX to support it. With the function of multi-processor PC's today, and the advent of modern graphics features, I have little doubt that MS could release a new FS title that would fill in the missing code to support all of flight dynamics, and we could see PC platform flight games that would actually rise to the level of scientifically accurate flight simulators.

Perhaps the problem holding this development up is one market analysis. Too few people care about aviation any more. Shocking as that is to us, especially myself since I know the joy of actually flying your own GA airplane, I'm forced to concede that general aviation is dying because people don't see the thrill of it like they used to.

Yes, of course MS could create a simulator. Every major game studio or software company could create one, if they just would want to. Truth is that there is not enough market for them to get back the expenses and make some money out of simulators. Aerosoft, for example, came to this conclusion while they couple of years ago studied the possibility to create a simulator software. If there would be some money in it, we would have simulators like we have first person shooters right now. There seems to be some sort of viable consumer market for three studios right now (perhaps four if 1C can jump back in with their co-made WW2 sim with 777 Studios), which may be a bit overestimated, because two of them is seriously in professional simulator market. Based on all this, I am not that surprised that MS, which is a corporate operating in one of the most competitive business areas in the world, decided to shut down its sim franchise.

IMO this whole EULA talk is really boring. Few guys in Avsim seem to pop this stuff up in every chance they get, but discussion really goes nowhere. Because no one here knows the contract (or if one does, probably won't tell about it) and decisions made in LM and MS based on that, all this is quite futile.

[jmig]

Very true. Especially the whole business sector that LM deals with is quite defining and some consumer business is just something out of their area completely.

This is incorrect....
IMO this whole EULA talk is really boring. Few guys in Avsim seem to pop this stuff up in every chance they get, but discussion really goes nowhere. Because know one here knows the contract (or if one does, probably won't tell about it) and decisions made in LM and MS based on that, all this is quite futile.

Very well written. Your logic seems well reasoned and you stated it quite well.

As for following EULAs, there are people who get a sense of security from following the rules, they see themselves as good citizens. They will not knowingly violate the EULA. There are people who get a sense of excitement out of breaking a rule, to see if they can get away with it. They may see themselves as rebels. These people will give the classic finger to the EULA. Finally, there are the vast majority of people who could care less about a EULA. They hit "I Agree" because they have too in order to use the software. These people will then go about life doing whatever is convenient. While they might not willfully violate the EULA, they will if it gets in the way of doing what they want to do.

These are the vast majority of software users. These are the people who will cut off the mattress and pillow tags, not because they get a sense of "in your face", but because they just don't like it on the mattress or pillow.

The end result is that around 75% of the users could care less about any software EULA.

[mmann]

When all is said and done, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Enough has been written about the Prepar3d EULA on the various flightsim community websites, that most interested people are well aware of the restrictions. After all, it's not like they can just grab a copy of Prepar3d at their local computer store.

For those that "give the classic finger to the EULA", they have a lot of confederates residing at the various online piracy torrent sites.

This is going to be my last post about the EULA's in this thread; we all sound like broken records representing our opposing views on this subject.

[Naismith]

Whoa there folks, all this comparison between a "loose interpretation of EULA" and piracy is unfair and way off the mark. I feel pretty sure LM have lawyers and have considered all the implications before allowing their product available generally on the marketplace. All this talk is just silliness.

[Roger]

Thanks Naismith, that is my cue to end this thread. Eula scaremongering has past it's sell by date; Avsim had this at the beginning of P3D and locked down such threads as I will do now.
P3D is a product, which when bought for academic, developer or full license allows a wide and varied customer base to experiment to their heart's content, which as far as I can see is exactly what they do!