P3D V2 Details/Pricing

italoc said:
I fully agree with you, Dino (and I understand also the legal implications)
In fact Flight Simulation for many of us is not a "game" but a way to replace the temporary or final loss of "flying for real" because of many reasons such as age, cost, difficult access to flying facilities etc.
Italo
Click to expand...

Well said, Italo. In fact, I got much more involved with flight simulation when I realized that acquiring a private pilot's license and renting/owning a real aircraft was not financially possible. Flight simulation allows me to "fly" the aircraft I helped maintain in the USN. It is an amazing creation, and one that continually evolves. NC
 
Is there info available what aircraft each version comes with?

If the academic license includes the Iris F-22, Carenado A36 and Alabeo Extra 300 it's already worth $60 to me...

And can someone tell me if they accept PayPal...?
 
Ferry_vO said:
Is there info available what aircraft each version comes with?

If the academic license includes the Iris F-22, Carenado A36 and Alabeo Extra 300 it's already worth $60 to me...

And can someone tell me if they accept PayPal...?
Click to expand...

All of the aircraft mentioned plus a F-35A are included with all versions. PayPal is not accepted.

Lyn
 
My issue is with the BIG RED X for "Personal Consumer Entertainment" says as a developer I am going to need to purchase an expensive aircraft OEM license since now it is not for entertainment and only as a professional simulation, training tool, or education. Before we had some protection under the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use, which granted us the ability to create an artistic impression of aircraft.

Example if someone builds a Boeing 787 or Airbus, and they go after the developer for licensing or cease and desist. Before we had more leeway to claim artistic/entertainment. Now even if you put on your product that it's for entertainment purposes only, we break the LM EULA contract we agreed to, and if we don't then we are in direct violation with the aircraft company as claiming this is a simulation and have no license or permission to represent the company's product leaves us open to damages or fees.


Some cases you may remember is EA v. Textron Bell helicopter. Since it is a video game and with the recent ruling from the SCOTUS, there is now a precedence that says it's freedom of speech. As a FAA regulated simulation tool, we have to adhere to stricter guide lines which will make it harder for 3rd party developers to create content in the small market.

I'm not trying to scare or insight negative output to this discussion, but to be aware of any legal or future problems which might arise from this.
 
Developing Aicrafts

@timghetta

I completely understand your point *BUT* in my specific case (freeware T-45C, F-14D, F-35A/B/C and S-3B) I am not planning to develop *specifically* for P3D. All of my add-ons work in FSX and P3Dv2 - the exception to the compatibility are very minor and can be fixed easily (e.g. some .fx) also in the FSX "version"... therefore, I would have a FSX add-on that is completely compatible with P3Dv2 (and P3Dv1).
Should I be in danger of a copyright infraction lawsuit because my FSX add-on is compatible with P3D?
If so, that applies to a large number of existing add-ons.
Or would the fact that I am declaring full P3D compatibility be the issue? If I just label them FSX add-ons would I be fine?
Again, not a legal expert - and I completely understand your concerns (especially beacause I am an European freeware guy, and you may be an US-resident professional) - but if omitting to declare P3D compatibility is what changes the game, well... I am omtting that, and be a little sad.

PS - I'd need to find the time to check-out you F-15...looks awesome! Good job!
 
Hi Dino,

When 1.2 comes out, I'll set you up with a free copy.

If the license is FSX then it's on the consumer's responsibility since we did not grant it to use in P3D and only FSX, and if we create specific V2 aircraft and do the weapon system, new FLIR, working mirrors or external flight model system, well we can't claim FSX usage and will have to claim P3D license. This concerns me since if we officially license the product for P3D we loose that entertainment/artistic right protection. Freeware is sure harder for them to do anything since you give it away. But with companies that want to protect their trademark/trade dress, they will have an easier case to win with anyone selling that product.

I love the new version 2.0 it has nice new features. Somewhat of a sticker shock with the $2300.00 USD for pro-plus, I also think that will hinder the Military aircraft when you and I love to create to a limited market. What options would we have, and how hard will it be with the aircraft companies try to defend their trademark/ trade dress? Look at Dassault, Saab, Cessna, and I am sure you heard that they are ruthless when it comes to licenses and even removed freeware downloads. What options will we have and how will we navigate to get around loop holes that don't put us at so much risk?
 
The discussion in the A2A forum is interesting - and to some extent concerning...
My point is that, as far as I can tell with the Beta 4, the compatibility with FSX is pretty good - and, as much as I understand the implications of P3D not being an "entertainment" product, I can't see what would stop the user from using my planes in P3D.

As for the "military" functions of the Professional Plus P3Dv2...I had a look at the SDK and while there are some very interesting aspects, I am not interested in developing for that.
My plan for future designs is to continue developing with the FSX SDK, implementing Tacpack SDK functionalities where appropriate and check P3Dv2 compatibility.
As for flying... well, P3D looks and runs much better than FSX on my machine and I like it very much. I swear to God, Lockheed Martin and every corporate that I will use only to learn things and will not be entertained.
 
@findus

I'm sorry but I believe you are wrong. Even if it was twenty years ago, I remember very well the Latin Literature class during my high school years: it was very clear that learning was meant to oppress the students with boredom ;-)
 
Dino Cattaneo said:
@findus I'm sorry but I believe you are wrong. Even if it was twenty years ago, I remember very well the Latin Literature class during my high school years: it was very clear that learning was meant to oppress the students with boredom ;-)
Click to expand...
I fully understand you, I have had 5 years Latin in school. But you won´t hardly believe it, in the last year I had a teacher with entertaining attitude - and suddenly it was fun, nearly ;-) My statement is just, that learning and entertainment are not compulsory exclusive as we will hopefully experience in P3D.
 
Try to explain this when Lockheed Martin lawyers will sue you for millions of dollars when they find you are "entertaining" yourself with P3Dv2 :)

Anyway, I was just joking... I am really looking forward to P3Dv2: after I've flown it in Beta 4, it is very hard for me to go back to FSX - even though it has some (rare) occasional crashes.
 
Hi,

I'm gonna buy this sim for sure. I was wondering; would an AMD/ATI HD 5870 with one GiG RAM be a little on the slow side for this sim?


Best
Dag
 
DagR said:
Hi,

I'm gonna buy this sim for sure. I was wondering; would an AMD/ATI HD 5870 with one GiG RAM be a little on the slow side for this sim?



Best
Dag
Click to expand...


I have the same card. Am hoping it will run it. Tell you what, you buy it first and let me know!!! Grin..
 
@hae5904

OH MY GOD I WILL NEED TO PAY MILLIONS OR I AM GOING TO JAIL!

My joke about the "users" being sued is that, well, I thought there was some debate on the fact that a user (not a consumer?) could buy the a Prepar3d licence and have fun.
Again, just a joke.

As for myself, I have seen the Prepar3d SDK and I am following the path I said: Develop on FSX SDK + eventual Tacpack features, and check for P3Dv2 compatibility. From what I have seen, with my workflow and the features I usually include in my plane, there should be full compatibility. If this is not acceptable by the law (and it may well be) then we (freeware developers) should stop developing immediately and withdraw from download anything we did - and this includes FSX stuff.
This has been enforced in the past by some aircraft vendors in specific freeware and payware cases.

By the way, I fail to grasp why a freeware is legally different than payware in terms of copyright enforcement. The argument that being free I am not making money hence I cannot be sued is IMHO false. By developing, say, a realistic simulation of the T-45C I am chopping the potential customer base of a payware project, which should then create a profit, via licensing, to Boeing. Different story would be if I shared my projects privately - and afaik the Internet is anything but private.

Anyway, I'll (try to) continue doing what I am doing - hopefully lawyers of Boeing (T-45C, along with BAe), Lockheed Martin (F-35 and S-3) or Northop Grumman (F-14) are not reading this...

EDIT - Sorry if my comments sounded harsh. I understand the concerns, and I did not want to sound aggressive. Thing is, having read the SDK, the "new features" are basically tied to the Weapons SDK which only applies to the Professional Plus version, which I have no interest to develop for. So, for me, there is literally no change to what I am doing.
 
Last edited:
All sounds good to me Dino. Thanks for the insight into all the avenues of P3D version 2 you were able to explore. Sure helps those of us who have not had the opportunity to check things out first hand. Really appreciate you letting us know.
 
stovall said:
All sounds good to me Dino. Thanks for the insight into all the avenues of P3D version 2 you were able to explore. Sure helps those of us who have not had the opportunity to check things out first hand. Really appreciate you letting us know.
Click to expand...

No apologies needed Dino. Your fine.

First, Im tired of people talking about the entertainment clause. Are we here to talk about law or flying? Well, in this room, it will be flying.

Second, it was Microsoft that brought this clause to bare.

And that's it on the legalities! Lets talk planes, missions, shaders and flying.

Back to the focus of the thread, I still cant believe 4 entire planes are coming into the simulator. Nice.... I was hoping an airliner would have come in. It would be nice to see airline pilots getting something to train with.


Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top