MS Flight / Prepar3d topic

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Gents,l I made the topic on MS Flight and Prepar3d invisible.

Reading back I feel my comments on Prepar3d were not correct, most certainly not because I just do not know what versions of Prepar3d the images were made on (they were done on a customers system). We will this week test the latest version internally.

As I said before, we welcome ANY change that will alleviate some of the major issues with the existing sim engine. And as I also said before, we will follow the customer and will create software for any platform that is used by our customers.

[mopperle 4162]

I think the whole problem with Prepar3D respective Lockheed Martin is, that (at the moment) they are definitely NOT aiming the consumer market, as every body can read on their website:

Train for your missions and practice flight plans with Prepar3D®. Lockheed Martin offers Prepar3D for military, government, commercial, training and education applications. As provided in our End User License Agreement, the Prepar3D application is not to be used, offered, sold or distributed through markets or channels for use as a personal/consumer entertainment product.

Source

And as long as they won't change this policy, either by lowering the price or offering a OEM version that allows companys like aerosoft to build and distribute kind of a new Flightsimulator, this product is completely out of my scope.

[OPabst 2091]

And as long as they won't change this policy, either by lowering the price or offering a OEM version that allows companys like aerosoft to build and distribute kind of a new Flightsimulator, this product is completely out of my scope.

That's not in hand of Lockheed Martin, it's results from the contracts with Microsoft, when they takeover the ESP Plattform after the close of ACES, so they are not allowed to sell this product to the end consumer market.

But, we are all developers, aren't we?

[Sharrow 107]

What LM clearly is doing is openly encouraging the fs community to try P3D out. There can be no denying that fact. If you personally feel that all you would get out of P3D is entertainment then do not purchase or subscribe to it. On the other hand if you feel that it is educational (in whatever shape or form) then you will be in line with the LM EULA. Of course if all you ever did was alter an AFCAD or perhaps even [gasp!] tweak the cfg files then you can reasonably argue that you are a developer, as Oliver points out. LM are happy to look at it this way and therefore so should we be.

My undertanding is that technically the fs community would fall under the commercial part of the EULA, or indeed the educational if that takes your fancy more. We would not be viewed as traditional consumers in the sense that P3D is not available in any store which traditional consumers frequent and the chances of a genyouwine consumer stumbling upon the LM P3D website are essentially nil.

I'll stop there before I confuse myself again.

[bionicCrab 7]

I think it's not the contract thats confusing peoples. It's why Microsoft would make a decision that appears against their self interest. Come on guys 50,000 users isn't going to make or break Microsoft and that's if everyone of us went to Prepar3d. Sometimes it's best to make sure the entire industry uses Windows instead and just cut your losses.

[Razeers 6]

But, hows Prepar3D running compare to FSX today? More FPS? Less stutters?

[bionicCrab 7]

Night and day when it comes to stutters...it's more like FS9 in that regards,.. the way it's suppose to be.

[dukebe60 7]

BionicCrab

Could you share the details of your PC specs and comparison data between the two sims given equal flight conditionals/scenarios?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I think the whole problem with Prepar3D respective Lockheed Martin is, that (at the moment) they are definitely NOT aiming the consumer market, as every body can read on their website:

Source

And as long as they won't change this policy, either by lowering the price or offering a OEM version that allows companys like aerosoft to build and distribute kind of a new Flightsimulator, this product is completely out of my scope.

I spoken to Lockheed Martin and I can assure you they have no problem what so ever if our kind of customers takes the $10 license, in fact they like it a lot.

[bionicCrab 7]

The $10/month works out well. Not only do you get 2 copies, thus 2 channels of Prepar3d you also get all the updates even if its a major version change.

[mopperle 4162]

The $10/month works out well. Not only do you get 2 copies, thus 2 channels of Prepar3d you also get all the updates even if its a major version change.

On what kind of HW are you running p3d?

[Sharrow 107]

I spoken to Lockheed Martin and I can assure you they have no problem what so ever if our kind of customers takes the $10 license, in fact they like it a lot.

Are any lingering fears unfounded then that Microsoft might have a problem with the above scenario at some point in the future? What are the chances that LM and MS did not discuss and agree upon this exact scenario during their ESP purchase negotiations? I would say pretty slim.

[bionicCrab 7]

Do you have any documentation that says otherwise? Preferablly one highlighting that scenerio you just brought up? Or one that shows that Microsoft isn't getting $5 of that $10 dollars? You've been asking the same question for a week despite being told numerous times otherwise, just let it go...

[Graeme Wright 4]

I've been watching the developing pathways of Prepar3d for a little while now as well, deciding if there is a viable enough add-on future to begin planning to adopt it, and the impression that I get from Lockheed Martin are that they are very concious of licensing implications for them and their customers, and are very quick off the mark to warn any user within the forums of potential EULA infringements through use of third party add-ons within their software. So I would factor that they would exhibit the same awareness of their own standing as far as their EULA with users of Prepar3d as well. If you are really really concerned, then simply ask John Nicol on the Lockheed forums, or via e-mail, the Lockheed Martin guys appear to be really accomodating regardless of your skill level or position as developer or potential user, so I don't think you need to really worry about getting flamed about asking.

It's really encouraging that organisations such as Aerosoft have such a positive perspective on Prepar3d though, in the way of they might not officially support it, but if you wish to try your Aerosoft product out under the Prepar3d system then by all means go ahead, and let us know how you go. This great attitude, combined with some tutorial tips posted on the Prepar3d forums by some of the guys on how to setup FSX and arrange your AppData, ProgData paths and cfgs, seem to be allowing some of the guys to run a lot of FSX stuff without too much trouble.

Unfortunately not all the FSX big names look to be road mapping in this similar style though. I know that another reasonably large scenery developer (which I'll leave unamed so we don't needlessly get off topic here) who has also started working with Lockheed Martin, however they are road mapping from a more high level commercial perspective. So the products that we would pay about $100 - $200 to purchase to run under FSX will be marketed on a commercial basis for Prepar3d in the $4000 to $7000 realm, and they are also very specific in saying that their products for FSX are not licensed to be used under Prepar3d.

Lockheed Martin expect to soon release their DRM software distribution system too, which will help protect the intellectual property interests of these commercial developers as well. So I think the real end game decider of whether Prepar3d will be a viable alternative to those more serious simmers / home based procedural trainers will probably more land in the laps of what you would consider your essential add-on developers and their perspective of how they wish to license and sell their products, rather than the price point Lockheed Martin is currently licensing Prepar3d for, and any risk that Microsoft will try to clamp down on the ESP resale agreement. I really think that given the feedback I've seen so far, the guys they'd lose to Prepar3d from their pending MS Flight product would probably be quite inclined to just continue using FSX for a long while yet otherwise, or trial the jump across to X-Plane 10 given the uptake of add-on development for that product as well.

So far though companies such as Aerosoft and a few other key essentials in the FSX community are being very positive about it all with Prepar3d, and may hopefully allow for a pathway under which the guys who are pretty serious about their sims and don't flinch at the $500 or $10 per month fee to obtain much of our add-on components we now consider essential within FSX, for roughly the same pricing (or possibly even at cross upgrade fee, or even no cost at all).

[Eric Bakker 736]

I spoken to Lockheed Martin and I can assure you they have no problem what so ever if our kind of customers takes the $10 license, in fact they like it a lot.

I decided to give it a go, paid my ten bucks, and am downloading now.

About 10,6 Gb, and their upload speed seems limited to 180 kB/s...

[bionicCrab 7]

Yeah it was 250kb/sec for me here in Canada. Probably the slowest FS download ever.

[mopperle 4162]

Just checked the Prepare3d shop and they offer a very cheap option to test Prepare3D:

One (1) Month Prepaid/Nonrecurring Subscription ($9.95 per developer)

Means, you pay only 9.95 USD once and that's it. Of course you wan't get any updates (Ok, for one month), but you get everything to test it. And if you decide to stay with p3d, you buy a subscription.

Really interesting IMHO

[Eric Bakker 736]

Means, you pay only 9.95 USD once and that's it. Of course you wan't get any updates (Ok, for one month), but you get everything to test it. And if you decide to stay with p3d, you buy a subscription.

Really interesting IMHO

That is exactly what I thought (and still downloading...). I am only wondering if the software checks an active subscription after the month passed, or just keeps on working undefinitely.

In one month and a day from now I will know the answer.

[mopperle 4162]

Although decided to give it a try, but have problems with my Logitech extreme 3D pro: Every button/switch works fine, except the throttle doesn't work. Didn't find an answer in the P3D forum. So may be anybody else got an idea?

[Eric Bakker 736]

Otto,

I use the CH Yoke and it works fine, also the throttle. Did you try to delete the throttle assignment and then assign again? I am not sure when P3D needs administrator mode, although I installed it not default but in separate directory it still needed administrator mode to rebuild the scenery database.

I also noticed that once I assign a function to a button the keyboard assignment is gone, I need to find an answer to that.

The Corfu X/P3D scenery works flawlessly. I also copied the default FSX Cessna 172 to P3D without a problem. Will try this with some more aircraft.

FPS is in general about the same as FSX, but much more stable when set to unlimited, it doesn't peak up and down as much compared to FSX on my system. Most important for me: the stutters seem a lot less, almost gone I think. But I need to do more testing to be sure of that. The sim feels more fluent, like BionicCrab already said. The water improved nicely.

Very interesting project....

[Snave 466]

X-Plane 10 arrives in December.

And you only have to pay for it once.

[Eric Bakker 736]

X-Plane 10 arrives in December.

And you only have to pay for it once.

A valid point, we live in interesting times. But maybe you do not need to subscribe, and only pay $10 once. Until you want updates of course.

The simulator is only a small part of the total cost if you count in all the add-ons. And if I can port my Aerosoft products to P3D, that makes it even more interesting.

But no doubt I will get X-Plane 10 as well.

[bionicCrab 7]

Quite honestly and brutally I think I have to agree with others in that Austin has been a little too concerned about Apple and less about his own product. Tearing it down instead of building it up... if you want to be a Flight Sim developer you need the state of the art, not a 1 ghz ARM without a real GPU.

[Graeme Wright 4]

I think regardless of the sims we end up using the most, it's really tremendous to see such a great re-surgance in the flight simulator as a product in general. It's certainly painted a smile on my face to see things now vs those years of the later 90's and early 2000 where things were looking pretty glum as far as companies willing to gamble on investing and promoting the simulation market.

Even though we do have a few various products that we'll all undoubtedly be scratching our heads over in choosing which way to go next, though many of us will probably own a few of them anyway given the fairly reasonable pricing. Hopefully at the end of the day it will mean that our add-on developers have a much greater market of customers to ensure that they are able to viably stay aloft and continue offering services whilst making a profit. Like for example REX and Carenado, who are now providing products for both the MS Flight Sim franchise as well as the X-Plane series. I really hope that it all leads onto the continuation of this great and developing simulation market we now currently enjoy, rather than any downturn into savage competition between the products.

[Snave 466]

Quite honestly and brutally I think I have to agree with others in that Austin has been a little too concerned about Apple and less about his own product. Tearing it down instead of building it up... if you want to be a Flight Sim developer you need the state of the art, not a 1 ghz ARM without a real GPU.

You raise a point Sharrow and I were discussing privately. The only conclusion to be drawn is NOT, NOT, NOT to be an early-adopter, but wait until the knowledge base is wider, limitations are known and promises are kept.

And the same goes for Xplane10 and Prepar3D...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..."