A2A and Flightsim World

[aonyn]

If the legal eagles at Microcrap ever decided to do something about it, and there's a buck in it for them, most P3D users would be looking for a new sim. The fact that it's probably not a commercial success in terms of sales numbers is a good thing for P3D users because if it was, given the way Microcrap licensed the development of Flightsim, there would be one almighty legal scrap which would only be to the detriment of us customers and the 3rd party development world too.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I know the details of the licenses between MS and LM / DTG.

That said, and based on my understanding of what I do know, with DTG having the entertainment license, it may likely be their right to make the demand that the P3D no entertainment purposes licensing be enforced. Also, it may be them and not MS who would have reason to do something about it, because (A) I suspect they had to pay for the entertainment license, and (B) every P3D license sold for entertainment use is one less potential sale for DTG, who legally should be exclusively serving the entertainment side of the market. I doubt MS cares either way, they have their money from both parties already. If one party or the other fails, I also suspect the license returns to MS to sell yet again.

Just my 2 cents, based only on the ramblings in my own head, but perhaps at least a reasonable guess at the truth of the license situation, and potential risk.

Regards,
Dave

[Ian P]

Gaaargh! Why do people always come back to it being "Microsoft stopping" Lockheed-Martin producing a consumer sim?

LOCKHEED-MARTIN DO NOT WANT TO PRODUCE AND SUPPORT A CONSUMER SIM.

Caps and emphasis intentional. Read that sentence. It's important.

Lockheed-Martin wanted a low-cost solution to develop simulators to support their real-world aviation activities. They don't want to have to support every Tom, Dick and Harriet who thinks that the "game" should do something it doesn't, who thinks that every future version should be free or reduced cost because they "bought P3D" once.

Nothing to do with Microsoft, nothing to do with Dovetail, everything to do with the fact that Lockheed-Martin obtained the code to ESP, not Flight Simulator X, and specifically market it as a commercial, non-entertainment, simulation platform. It's why it's not on Steam, licenses cannot be paid for using PayPal and why the EULA says what it does.

Calling Microsoft not at all funny rude names doesn't change the fact that Lockheed-Martin chose what it wanted to develop and how they wanted to market it. Lockheed-Martin could have purchased the rights to develop both FSX and ESP had they wanted to - the differential licensing schemes go back a long way before their, or DTG's, involvement with the platforms. Lockheed-Martin only wanted the professional, commercial, non-consumer-entertainment, software platform, so they got ESP. FSX/Flight! development remained dormant with Microsoft until Dovetail decided to enter the market and bought the rights to further develop the code of both FSX and Flight (they ended up choosing to develop FSX, for a variety of reasons) off Microsoft.

Seriously, this is all in the public domain, it's all been openly said, announced and published, so why do a small number of people keep wanting to come up with mysterious backroom conspiracy theories?

Ian P.

[CAPFlyer]

No one is saying that L-M wants to or is making a consumer sim. What we're saying is that L-M has chosen not to rigorously enforce their license restrictions to ensure that only non-consumers are purchasing their sim. There is a difference here. There is no "conspiracy theory" in that - it's fact. If they wanted to enforce the license, they would require you provide proof of your status to purchase a given version of the software and then require continuing proof that you are still eligible to have the software at each upgrade point, as is done with other restricted software titles. This is the warning that has been going out from many to those who choose to flaunt their purchase of P3D, especially since DTG purchased the FSX license (L-M bought the ESP license), that they are living on borrowed time and their purchases may be in vain because there will probably be a point where DTG, Microsoft, and/or L-M decide that it is time to enforce the license restrictions and all those who've spent so much money on P3D end up with nothing because they decided that the EULA didn't apply to them.

[jabloomf1230]

I'm surprised this thread has survived this long given it is a bunch of opinions about EULAs and licensing. But back to the original premise. I bought FSW when it was first released in early access. It is still far from a finished flight sim, just like Aerofly FS2. At least with the latter, it supports VR nicely. But more importantly, FSW has low market penetration among serious flight simmers (not those that buy a game on Steam, play it for a day or two and then never again), lagging far behind P3d4 and XP11. And that's the main reason 3rd party developers don't support FSW.

[Oracle427]

This isn't Avsim, the topic of EULA is not banned.

[Tutmeister]

They haven’t yet, but there is the fact that the current owners of the flight sim entertainment license could have a word with LM for infringing on their market. If dtg wanted, they could cause a lot of problems by insisting LM don’t sell to home users.
LM were never making a consumer sim but they are perfectly happy to sell it like one. There is no driver for this situation to change but that’s just because so far we have been lucky.
In a way I’d like things to change and force users to fsw because it would make things so much clearer. Fsw can do everything p3d can do and more. Once finished, add on makers can carry on making the same products but for fsw instead of p3d. It would stop the endless Eula arguments and elitism that a lot of p3d users exhibit (not here but on a certain AV forum....) and the consumer market will stabilise like it was before. Devs will have fewer products to support too as there will not be the same demand for consumer products in p3d. The only reason there is so much demand for p3d compatible stuff is because there are so many home users. I bet not many commercial users are hassling orbx for a redone FTX England or updated Africa land class. A successful fsw is better for every Microsoft based sim home user despite all the naysayers, they just don’t know it yet!
Chris

[Ian P]

CAPFlyer: Actually, if you read back to the last post on the previous page, you'll see that it's exactly what Mike said... Once again, he's saying that it's "[Microsoft's] lawyers" determining L-M's openly stated decisions and that MS will somehow force Lockheed-Martin to enforce their own licensing and decisions, "to make a quick buck". DTG, like MS, have no say at all about how or whether Lockheed-Martin enforce the legal agreement between an end user and Lockheed-Martin, so that's entirely a moot point as well.

I think everyone is in agreement that if L-M do ever decide to enforce their licenses, then a lot of people will find themselves without access to the sim as it stands. The funny thing is that if people are prepared to pay so much for Prepar3D, then the wording of the Developer product really does entitle almost anyone to two Professional licenses with no problem.

Anyway, this is supposed to be a FSW thread, not yet another pointless debate on P3D licensing.

One of the big uphill struggles that DTG face is the insistence that many very vocal people have that DTG are "just in it to make a quick buck" and "just want to sell rip-off DLC". A lot of these people then go on to openly state that they use FSX, or another sim, and have "thousands of dollars of add-ons or hardware" for it, but the fact that the DLC catalogue on Steam for Train Simulator is several thousand USD/GBP whatever somehow makes that a "rip off". Anyone who dares to challenge the assertion that DTG just want to grab your money and run is apparently a "shill", "sycophant" or "being paid by DTG". Unfortunately this has moved across directly from the TS forums and chats to the FS ones, which will be very difficult to get around, because people do read this rubbish, repeat it elsewhere and, clearly, there can be no smoke without fire, so DTG really must be guilty of trying to rip their customers off at all times.

During one of Cryss's recent streams, the abuse he and others on the Twitch chat were receiving got so bad that he was forced to drag in one of the viewers to help moderate the stream for him. Is that really the attitude we want to display, as a potential market and community, to both a developer and potential newcomers to our hobby?

Ian P.

[AKar]

The funny thing is that if people are prepared to pay so much for Prepar3D, then the wording of the Developer product really does entitle almost anyone to two Professional licenses with no problem.

Precisely, that is the way it is. Professional software in general is not restricted from individual, private purchases. Of course, it goes without saying that software such as MATLAB is by its nature seldom sold for "consumer entertainment".

These debates come unavoidable as the "real aviation" as was once called, and PC flight simulation probably slowly converge to make up a single field.

Anyways, to the FSW.... so far I'm not fully convinced, but I am interested, and following the development.

-Esa

[Ian P]

No, Akar. Wrong. If someone is using the sim in violation of the license, as a private user, then they are in breach of the license and L-M have the right to terminate it immediately, without recompense. That user agreed to this when they accepted the license terms. The fact that it's impossible to prove the interest or otherwise in developing for the sim is no excuse for using the Education and Professional licenses and claiming that the license somehow shouldn't apply to a private user. The license absolutely does apply to people who have no professional or formal education use for P3D and if/when L-M enforce it, then those people will lose their licenses if they are found. That really is the simple fact of the matter.

Likewise, if someone installs FSW to a simulator for use in real world aviation training or education would be in breach of that license and DTG would be entirely within their rights to terminate the license without recompense.

There's no correlation at all with things like MATLAB, or for that matter CATIA, Microstation, 3DStudioMAX or other such software which is used to develop a product. A flight simulator is in itself the end product and how it is used is therefore licensed. If you license a creation tool purely for your own entertainment and don't actually produce anything with it, then by all means have fun in return for no income, with your multi-thousand dollar license! The license you have will, however, allow you to produce and be paid for products you create using it - or will restrict you to specifically not being allowed to produce commercial end products, in the case of a training/education license.

The worlds of "Real aviation" and "Entertainment software" are no closer to coming together at all. Technologically yes, they are, but legally no, not at all. They will not converge, either, until all consumer entertainment products are licensed and approved for real world aviation, which will not happen any time in the near to medium future. The cost of doing so is prohibitive.

ian P.

[AKar]

No, Akar. Wrong. If someone is using the sim in violation of the license, as a private user, then they are in breach of the license and L-M have the right to terminate it immediately, without recompense. That user agreed to this when they accepted the license terms.

Where precisely? The only line in EULA that restricts the user base of the professional license is:

[...] but only on no more than one computer; and only by no more than one user at any one time and for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment.

I find no restrictions for private pilot, for instance, using it to keep up his currency on his home computer. Among various other scenarios. Only the academic license is specifically limited to:

(3) in connection with Academic Education

...further defined as:

14.13 "Academic Education" means education programs for elementary through undergraduate students in fundamental academic disciplines such as science, technology, engineering and math, including history and social sciences related thereto, but NOT in connection with graduate students, professional training or certification of any kind, including, but not limited to, military training, emergency responder training, commercial flight training, private pilot training, air traffic control training, airport ground control/logistics training, driver training or nautical training.

Oh, BTW, I'm sure you misunderstood what I mean by this "converging" of them. There was a time when PC flightsimming was solely a game, bringing little meaningful additions to those who fly, or are otherwise involved with aviation in reality. Rather nerdy business, I recall. Nowadays, instead, we've got folks like A2A Scott, making some business from flight simulation while being an aircraft owner & operator himself. There are airliner pilots and engineers in the development teams creating simulations of these, having their own interests in the fidelity of the final simulation. Consumer products get mixed with the training products even all the way to the military, in a way that they share the development resources. Damn, even ten years back I recall fighter pilots mentioning they used consumer flight sims at home to recreate some stuff they found of interest, as their "proper" sim hours were somewhat limited, and they lacked better options.

This convergence is not about any legal issues, even if they do necessarily come up. It is about the fields in professional aviation, flight simming, flying for recreation and so on, ultimately coming towards a single community.

-Esa

[Tutmeister]

DTG, like MS, have no say at all about how or whether Lockheed-Martin enforce the legal agreement between an end user and Lockheed-Martin, so that's entirely a moot point as well.

Actually MS do have a say, if they think LM is openly selling as an entertainment product then they could revoke the license. DTG are the sole entertainment licensee so if Microsoft allows another entertainment product to exist hen they are in breach to DTG and no doubt would have a word in LMs ear rather than get sued themselves by DTG.

Regarding the developer license, that is what I use. I am primarily flying the sim but also ‘developing’ some scenery and also working on some sim hardware. It says anyone can be a developer, not just a commercial venture.
P3d is roughly every 2 years so I pay $10 for 2 computers which isn’t much more than a pro license.
Chris

[CAPFlyer]

..But more importantly, FSW has low market penetration among serious flight simmers (not those that buy a game on Steam, play it for a day or two and then never again), lagging far behind P3d4 and XP11. And that's the main reason 3rd party developers don't support FSW.

3rd party developers "don't support" FSW because 3rd party support hasn't been officially released. They have only just (as of 2 weeks ago) released the initial SDK. There have been several developers who've claimed that they won't support FSW, but then DTG clarified their stance on 3rd party addons and most of them changed their tune. DTG having a long meeting with the devs present at FlightSimCon last summer changed the opinions among many as well.

Also, the SteamDB numbers are not just sold copies. The "Total Players" number is how many still have the software still installed on their system. If you look at the XPlane 11 numbers, you'll see that they're steadily growing as it's a game in current development so people are buying it. You'll also see that the active community is about the same as the FSX:SE numbers per week, but a larger number overall are playing for a given 2 week period, which is what I'd expect, so I'm not seeing how the numbers are inaccurate, since FSX (boxed) is not counted in it so having XPlane 11 not showing the purchasing through their website doesn't really skew anything to me because I would figure the ratio is pretty similar between FSX boxed edition players versus FSX:SE sales and XPlane 11 Steam players versus other sales. So it's a good representation of the market penetration.

[jabloomf1230]

I am heartened (not really) that this thread has nothing to do anymore with A2A's products nor anything of substance to flight summing in general. It's just a bunch of pointless rants promoting a marginal incomplete flight sim.

[bladerunner900]

I am heartened (not really) that this thread has nothing to do anymore with A2A's products nor anything of substance to flight summing in general. It's just a bunch of pointless rants promoting a marginal incomplete flight sim.

Exactly. The original post asked if A2A products could be imported into FSW. The answer from Lewis was no, so in theory that is that. The rest is of no consequence and should be ignored, as it has no bearing on the point in question.

[Rimshot]

I'm surprised this thread has survived this long given it is a bunch of opinions about EULAs and licensing. But back to the original premise. I bought FSW when it was first released in early access. It is still far from a finished flight sim, just like Aerofly FS2. At least with the latter, it supports VR nicely. But more importantly, FSW has low market penetration among serious flight simmers (not those that buy a game on Steam, play it for a day or two and then never again), lagging far behind P3d4 and XP11. And that's the main reason 3rd party developers don't support FSW.

Third party developers don't support FSW? So far they have; Orbx Global textures, Carenado aircraft, A2A Accufeel. So there is support. Furthermore, the game is still in early access and the SDK has only been out for a couple of weeks. Give it time. My bet is third party developers will be all over FSW in due time.