I understand what's going on from LM's perspective . What I don't understand is a developer who creates one aircraft model and then distributes the that model as an FSX model for one price, tacks 10 to 20 dollars more for a P3D standard model, and then hikes the price again and labels that a P3D professional model, when in fact the only difference in the model is where the installer directs the model to be installed. Correct me if I am totally out in left field, and I'm not trying to piss anyone off, but this would seem to be the case.
P3D vs. non P3D aircraft
- Thread starter ST0RM
- Start date
jmig
SOH-CM-2024
T-Square, I don't know if I am correct here (Maybe Bill or another dev. can tell us) however, the additional charges may have to do with the licencing agreements with LM? I have know Scott Gentile with A2A for many flight sim years. I have always found him to be straight, up front , and honest. I know A2A is one of the companies that charges more for the different versions of PD3. VRS will not sell the inexpensive TACPAC version to Professional and Devs. I know, I had Professional 2.4 and when I upgraded to 2.5, I bought the Academic version just so I could fly the F-18 and use the TACPAC. VRS has said that they can't be sure an owner of Professional PD3 won't use the inexpensive TACPAC to make money. So, they only allow it to be used with Academic.
When you consider the pervasiveness of piracy among flight sim consumers, is it any wonder the developers are concerned. I have been a beta tester for several companies over the years. I have seen the complexity and time to develop an aircraft go from months to years. The Milviz F-4 took over two years to develop. That is a lot of time and money Milviz needs to recoup. Milviz charges more for the combination FSX/PD3 version of their aircraft. You get two aircraft for only a few dollars more.
Considering the higher experience of PD3, I don't mind the devs. getting another $10 or so. I suspect when the 64 bit version comes out, we may be re-buying a lot of add-ons.
John
If I am wrong please correct my thinking and I truly hope I am incorrect. I know it takes the developer/artist, a lot of work and time to design a model, and they also deserve to be paid for that effort. However if I am correct and what I am saying is true, then this type of behavior not only will eventually destroy the hobby, but promotes piracy ?
If I am wrong please correct my thinking and I truly hope I am incorrect. I know it takes the developer/artist, a lot of work and time to design a model, and they also deserve to be paid for that effort. However if I am correct and what I am saying is true, then this type of behavior not only will eventually destroy the hobby, but promotes piracy ?
jmig
SOH-CM-2024
T, I can't argue with anything you just wrote.
Hopefully, no one will abuse the exchange.
fsxar177
Long-Time Enthusiast
First The P3D SDK is free ... (It's basically just the MS SDK with a few little tweaks and upgrades)
And the P3D Dev. License is only $9.95/Month for TWO copies. So that's about $60 per year for a developer, if you share with a partner or friend. I would rather the developer raised his price because he had to buy fuel for the aircraft being studied.... But charging a large percentage extra, PER DOWNLOAD, and then simply lying about the compatibility.. That is just flat-out false advertising, and frankly I don't care how honest or upstanding the person or company appears to be. It's still false advertising.
Please people go look at P3D's list of featured developers.
Now .. ask yourself.. How many of those guys are making a big markup on their P3D compatible add-ons? Also - How many are once size fits all price? There's your honest companies, and your dishonest. Simple.
It used to be we would read consumer reports, then go make a purchase.. In the FS realm, we're dropping $50-$100 on stuff all the time.. Do your homework guys.
Now remember, I'm mostly speaking of aircraft.. I know the weather guys, and some scenery devs, face a different set of obstacles. That is a whole different story... I understand that aspect.
- Joseph
And the P3D Dev. License is only $9.95/Month for TWO copies. So that's about $60 per year for a developer, if you share with a partner or friend. I would rather the developer raised his price because he had to buy fuel for the aircraft being studied.... But charging a large percentage extra, PER DOWNLOAD, and then simply lying about the compatibility.. That is just flat-out false advertising, and frankly I don't care how honest or upstanding the person or company appears to be. It's still false advertising.
Please people go look at P3D's list of featured developers.
Now .. ask yourself.. How many of those guys are making a big markup on their P3D compatible add-ons? Also - How many are once size fits all price? There's your honest companies, and your dishonest. Simple.
It used to be we would read consumer reports, then go make a purchase.. In the FS realm, we're dropping $50-$100 on stuff all the time.. Do your homework guys.
Now remember, I'm mostly speaking of aircraft.. I know the weather guys, and some scenery devs, face a different set of obstacles. That is a whole different story... I understand that aspect.
- Joseph
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
Joseph, if you read the partner developer details, you will see that the developer subscription allows for "complementary" add-ons (in my book that is freeware) and if you wish to make commercial offerings you need to buy a commercial license.
This little line: * Note that development licenses are for internal development use only. Deployed systems will require a full commercial license.
is the one that matters.
This little line: * Note that development licenses are for internal development use only. Deployed systems will require a full commercial license.
is the one that matters.
donnybalonny
Members +
I completely agree with what you are writing. (also this about the hobby and piracy) But for me its very easy to understand even though I dont agree and dont like with how things are being done.
The flightsim addon world is just a mirror of the rest of the world. Moral ans ethics is something from a romantic past. What there is now is consumerism and if you can sell a product for x-money then its ok and allowed. There are no rules. If you dont like it dont buy it. Unfortunately that is what there is.
I make and sell a product myself and putting a price on it is very complicated. You can find the same kind of product which implies the same materials and the same amount of work but which cost twice and you can find again the same materials and workhours that cost half my price. Its the law of the jungle and nothing else. There´s nothing correct or incorrect, there´s only chaos and we the consumers accept or dont.
Personally, I buy most of my addons on sale and I look for freeware scenery. There´s a lot of very good freeware scenery out there. And at the same time I tell myself that i dont need everything in order to be happy.
Paul Domingue
SOH-CM-2023
A savvy entrepreneur sets price by one rule, what the market can stand. Knowing this takes a lot of homework. Since we live in a capitalist society we can't fault this. As far as setting two different prices for the same product we have been living with that for a long time. Case in point, Ford Motor Co. had been selling the Crown Victoria for one price then with cosmetic changes selling it for more under the name Mercury Grand Marque, the Lincoln Towncar was just a Crown Victoria with a different body. This may be considered lying by omission but it's what the market can stand.
Sorry, but that is simply not factually accurate.
The Header tag on a native P3Dv2.x model is:
RIFFmŒ‘ PV20MDLH
The Header tag on a native FSX mode is:
RIFF‹n„ MDLXMDLH
When FSX reads the Header and sees PV20MDLH it will refuse to load with a "Model Format Unsupported" message.
fsxar177
Long-Time Enthusiast
Baz,
I understand what you're trying to say..
To Re-quote "...development licenses are for internal development use only. Deployed systems will require a full commercial license."
What they mean, if you read all of their licence(s), is that to 'deploy' a system would be to include the P3D software, with an external system (ie motion simulator), and market that commercially. Internal means add-ons that function within P3D software.
Regards,
- Joseph
I understand what you're trying to say..
To Re-quote "...development licenses are for internal development use only. Deployed systems will require a full commercial license."
What they mean, if you read all of their licence(s), is that to 'deploy' a system would be to include the P3D software, with an external system (ie motion simulator), and market that commercially. Internal means add-ons that function within P3D software.
Regards,
- Joseph
The "64-bit xtomdl" has nothing to do with the final compiled model. What this compiler allows is for larger and more complex models to be compiled without running into the memory limitations that the 32-bit xtomdl compiler will stumble on.
I've been using the 64-bit xtomdl compiler ever since it became available. I use the P3Dv1.x 64bit Max2012 tools (exporter and xtomdl compiler) for FSX and P3Dv1.x models, and the P3Dv2.x 64bit Max2012 tools for P3Dv2.x native models.
fsxar177
Long-Time Enthusiast
Well, I'll be danged to heck...
I completely understand the benefit of the 64, with OOM on compile, and such.
I apologize..I was on 1.4!!
It took a witch hunt through my registry, but I finally found that I was using the 64-bit xtomdl from late late version of 1.x (dated April of '13?), and not the v.2.+ that I had installed as well!
Low and behold, I was exporting .mdl with the fsx header tag, as Bill describes. -- Geeze. Guess I had just never opened up the .mdl in a editor to see.
Okay, I'll retract everything I said about the v2.+ exporter..
However, this doesn't change anything as it pertains to cross-compatibility. At least not until LM starts adding a bunch more goodies.
- Joseph
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
I disagree. I believe, Ïnternal development use only" means for use internally in other words within your organsation as a development process and per seat. Why. otherwise, would they have a full professional developer package and a developer package. You require the full development package to make and disttribute add-on models. That would seem to me to be logical. The subscription is just one step up from the academic, non-commercial license. $190 is not a lot of money if you are going commercial so the need for a small monthly license would seem to me to be unnecessary if it had the same permissions.
The problem for all is the way all this is left to interpretation. It should be clearly and distinctly defined so there is no ambiguity and no risk of litigation. It is a disgrace that the developer is left to guess what the actual situation is. The whole site is plastered with ambiguous statements.
Obviously written by lawyers and not developers.
The whole thing has been a struggle from the outset. It is abundantly clear that LM were wrapped in a cloak of conditions when they purchased the rights from MS. This caredful avoidance of the word "leisure" is quite ridiculous.
For the leisure market, I believe Dovetail have been able to do more with the FSX franchise.
That is interesting.
pilto von pilto
Members +
fsxar177 : It's actually going to be the pro-plus professional license at $19.95 USD a month or the professional one off $195 USD.
That's precisely why it is ambiguous. To offer the most flexibility to the end users, and not bog down the system, while still complying with the licensing agreement from MS for the ESP platform. This way LM will get the MOST user base from the software. I'm not sure how creating even more restrictive language will help us, the end-users? If anything, it will cramp our style. we'll be complaining that 'why should such a great platform not be open enough to be able to support xyz activity?'. I'm glad the verbiage is flexible enough to allow our niche market to still survive and our hobby to grow and develop and that LM knows this and is building it into their market is a GOOD thing. 
Alan_A
Charter Member
Am coming late to this thread and I don't want to get into axe-grinding or long drawn-out EULA debates. So I'll confine myself to one nit and one broader observation.
The nit: in US or English law, at least, someone who violates the EULA isn't doing anything illegal. The EULA is a private contract, and if you violate it, you're in breach of contract or committing some other sort of contract violation that would be addressed under civil law. It's not like piracy, where there are criminal statues. It's more like an argument - the kind that leads to cease-and-desist letters and lawsuits and such. Apologies, but the "illegal" thing about EULAs is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. So I had to get it out of my system. I feel much better now. Aren't you glad?
The broader point - I've been on P3D v2 pretty much exclusively since it came out, and have had very few compatibility issues (though a couple have hurt - the RealAir Spitfire and the Aerosoft/4X Katana come to mind). So I buy the argument that to date, the additional charges for P3D licenses have more to do with potential liability and with the rather weird LM-Microsoft agreement that started us all down this path. However, like some of you, I'm concerned about what happens when the platforms diverge. I haven't seen much commentary about this, but in the last few weeks there have been a couple of hints dropped - mostly in the Avsim P3D forums - that 1) LM is working on a P3D v3, targeted for some time in the next year or so, and 2) LM is trying to figure out how much compatibility to maintain. Now, that could all be noise and smoke, but it would also make sense that at some point, LM decides to evolve ESP into a different-enough platform that developers will have to make major changes to their products, or opt out and point toward FSX and its Dovetail descendants. If that happens, P3D becomes not only divergent, but also pretty expensive to live with.
What I'm doing at the moment is experimenting a bit with FSX Steam Edition to see how it performs and whether I can live with it. Am not sure where I'll come out, but it's nice to have an exit strategy.
It's nice to be back in the RealAir spit, too.
My (belated) $.02.
The nit: in US or English law, at least, someone who violates the EULA isn't doing anything illegal. The EULA is a private contract, and if you violate it, you're in breach of contract or committing some other sort of contract violation that would be addressed under civil law. It's not like piracy, where there are criminal statues. It's more like an argument - the kind that leads to cease-and-desist letters and lawsuits and such. Apologies, but the "illegal" thing about EULAs is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. So I had to get it out of my system. I feel much better now. Aren't you glad?
The broader point - I've been on P3D v2 pretty much exclusively since it came out, and have had very few compatibility issues (though a couple have hurt - the RealAir Spitfire and the Aerosoft/4X Katana come to mind). So I buy the argument that to date, the additional charges for P3D licenses have more to do with potential liability and with the rather weird LM-Microsoft agreement that started us all down this path. However, like some of you, I'm concerned about what happens when the platforms diverge. I haven't seen much commentary about this, but in the last few weeks there have been a couple of hints dropped - mostly in the Avsim P3D forums - that 1) LM is working on a P3D v3, targeted for some time in the next year or so, and 2) LM is trying to figure out how much compatibility to maintain. Now, that could all be noise and smoke, but it would also make sense that at some point, LM decides to evolve ESP into a different-enough platform that developers will have to make major changes to their products, or opt out and point toward FSX and its Dovetail descendants. If that happens, P3D becomes not only divergent, but also pretty expensive to live with.
What I'm doing at the moment is experimenting a bit with FSX Steam Edition to see how it performs and whether I can live with it. Am not sure where I'll come out, but it's nice to have an exit strategy.
It's nice to be back in the RealAir spit, too.
My (belated) $.02.
My guess is that with 3rd party devs joining P3D it won't get too far from the core fsx platform...but it might be the graphics engine that changes enough to cause a cease of backward compatibility with non-p3dv2 sdk? kind of like fs2002 in fsx?
If we want to see some major changes we need a better way to improve autogen that isn't so FPS intensive. Orbx is great but I can only takenso.much or over certain areas where it slows pretty good...we need something that allows flexibility and speed....so in those areas I could see some divergent possibilities.
If we want to see some major changes we need a better way to improve autogen that isn't so FPS intensive. Orbx is great but I can only takenso.much or over certain areas where it slows pretty good...we need something that allows flexibility and speed....so in those areas I could see some divergent possibilities.
DaveWG
Charter Member
Fair point, well made.
Regarding the RAS Spit, I've drag 'n' dropped it in, and it seems to work fine, although I admit I haven't done a full startup & thorough check.