A2A Licensing with FSX and P3D

[AKar]

Scott (and all),

After reading this through a couple of times, I believe that your licensing options make much sense. Especially as you've recently taken steps towards real world training market.

While P3D is often regarded as FSXv2, it still is an advancement of Microsoft's commercial training environment, meant for education purposes. Of course, the market has been changing - today, many people who fly, maintain or dispatch airplanes, or teach pilots, or do other stuff related to aviation in real life, either professionally or for hobby, keep a touch, so to speak, into flying using PC software. Lockheed-Martin has, in my opinion, taken a fine step in making the P3D easily available to those individuals instead of keeping it hidden behind 'Ask for more information' link implying that if you're not a training organization at least, forget it. I think it's about the time for 3rd party developers to take their steps too, and decide whether they are willing to support the customers that wish to use the products as learning tools, or just merely keep them as flying game products. I see that at least the PMDG and A2A have done this, and I much appreciate it.

Regarding the pricing, I think that the bundle pricing of $100, the sole P3D license likewise, is very reasonable in absolute terms. Especially remembering, that there has been, and probably continue to be just about one, max two, Accusim products released per calendar year. So your annual 'procedure trainer fee' remains very low, considering the costs of just about anything that touches the aviation any way..

-Esa

[Cycliste1961]

If FSX is working for you dvm, that is great! The main idea of my post was that the move of A2A towards P3D was inevitable. Their models target a real-pilot clientele interested in accurate simulation. This fits the P3D SIM philosophy of training vs. entertainment.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Flocat]

Is the new Piper PA28 Cherokee 180 also compatible with Prepar3D 1.4?

[mer8771]

Just to step in here with a little news. P3D only got the license for Pro use. Microsoft is making and selling FSX as we speak so that P3D did not get the entertainment license and there for can not sell it as such. That as it is, is why other companies can't sell there products as an entertainment product for P3d. They have to make sure they sell it and market it differently than entertainment to be legal. If you thank Microsoft want sue you your wrong. They love money and get it any way they can.

[Hawker32]

Right, now I'm confused...

What I think I've understood so far is that all FSX Users only will be able to purchase A2A Aircraft (Such as the upcoming Cherokee) for the exact same price as we are used to being able to?

So, this means that all updates that are released for the aircraft are free of charge?

Basically, if I've got this correct, FSX only users are unaffected by this change and carry on as we're used to? Right?

But....

What puzzles me is the fact that in the past, if a customer has wanted to use the aircraft in P3D, they've just bought the FSX Version and then transferred it into P3D?

Surely now, by changing the pricing and so forth, users will still be able to do this, without paying the price asked for for the P3D only version?

Can anyone out there let me know if I'm correct or not?

[Aymi]

Okay I understand about professional licenses being more expensive and this is normal, but why do you have to pay more/2 times to get the exact same plane for the exact same personal use on "entertainment/academic" ?

[Andydigital]

If I buy the bundle version of the Cherokee and it requires the update of Accusim to 2.0 is that going to cause my existing install of the C172 to stop working in P3D? If it does I tell you now I won't be buying any version of A2A's aircraft in the future full stop, you can't go pulling the rug out from under your customers after the fact, you should have been more clear about P3D licensing a long time ago and not encouraged prospective and existing customers to use your products in that sim. In my opinion existing C172 users should either get a free upgrade to p3Dv2 or at the very most a nominal charge for the updated installer, especially when users like myself have only owned the product for a few months. There is no way I'm paying $40 extra to use something I was already told I could do for free anyway. Yes I understand there will be more costs involved for the dev team when making a product for two platforms, especially when said platform is still being developed but it doesn't double your costs.

[FHS]

If FSX is working for you dvm, that is great! The main idea of my post was that the move of A2A towards P3D was inevitable. Their models target a real-pilot clientele interested in accurate simulation. This fits the P3D SIM philosophy of training vs. entertainment.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Well of course it was inevitable. Still I'm a bit disappointed by this licensing move. I own both FSX and P3Dv2 and I am only gradually moving to P3Dv2 as most addons still are missing a propper installers for it and it is basically a nightmare to set it up with older FSX addons (simple solutions are always appreciated). I own plenty of those addons (among them the entire range of Accusim planes) and having FSX and P3Dv2 intalled is about the only way to migrate some older stuff to P3Dv2. Still it's on one rig and I cannot possibly use both at the same time. So far the hack of copying fsx.exe into the P3D directory works well for almost all Accusim planes (the 377 has some issues, but *kind of* works) and I can use either FSX where I have many regaion addons installed or P3D where I have some addons that work with it.

Now as A2A starts charging more for basically the same use, can I really expect the fsx.exe trick to last? Or will it suddenly "not work anymore" with with core updates post v1.6? While it is easy to put the "tax" on the download part of it, I think it's rather a difference between single user/computer vs. flight school with many users per system. There of course you are compelled to charge more for a license.

To keep the Cessna going on both installs, fair enough, I have a month time to get to like the idea that the pizzo "to keep things working" is about 20 bucks. This is of course an offer I can't refuse: after that, when possibly the first core update might say "Oh-oh... only FSX dude!", I can pay in full or write off a lot more $$ spent on P3D (as I absolutely don't mind paying developpers, they make the great stuff that I like). Same goes with the Piper then.

I'm aware of the licensing subtleties between MS and LM. So no discussion about that. Still my point is that it would be only fair for a single user having a dual installer as it comes with ORBX, REX etc. I don't mind paying premium for your products because I know I get great products. So, charge what you need. I'll be happy to buy the F-104 as well. But spending 20 bucks extra because I'm prompted that "I'm professional" now leaves a really sour taste. I'm professional flying FSX too, I practise approaches to Airfiels I haven't flown to before, IFR, etc... Along with more goofy stuff, but I take the liberty of doing such with P3D as well.

I can make investments when I know the product will keep working. If I can't be sure about that one has to reconsider.

So, please charge what you need, but save us from the legalese. If you don't, your punishment shall be reading the Windows EULA 10 times!

Cheers,
f

[FHS]

...SNIP... you can't go pulling the rug out from under your customers after the fact, you should have been more clear about P3D licensing a long time ago and not encouraged prospective and existing customers to use your products in that sim. ...SNIP....

Totally agree.

[Eric Bakker]

Rob,

Correct. We're offering $30 off to FSX customers who also wish to purchase P3D simply because it makes sense. Bundles are a fact of commerce, and we've always offered them in some form for most of our products. If our store offered the ability to automatically discount existing owners we would have put the rebate in permanently. But we have to handle these rebates manually, so we put the 30 day limit.
Scott.

Hi Scott,

I respect your logic in the new license structure (although I prefer the triple installers of Aerosoft and Orbx), but so far you left out the one C172-user category I belong to (like Arwen).

Since more than a year I use P3D only, and I stopped using FSX.
After reading and asking for a long time here in the forum I decided to purchase the C172 when I learned that 'core update 1.6' specifically supports installation in P3D. I purchased on 15 March 2014 the C172R in the A2A Simulations Online Store for 49,95 to use it solely in P3DV2. Apart from the strobe light problem (which needs the aircraft to be reloaded to function) the C172 works fine in my P3Dv2.2 Academic version.

If I now would need a dedicated license for P3D, to fit in your new licensing structure, that is fine with me. I willing to 'exchange' it, or even pay a modest exchange fee ($5 -$10) for administration.
But I don't need a 'bundle' for FSX, because I do not want it for FSX, and I never used it in FSX. So I am not willing to pay for a bundle.

I trust you will solve this gracefully.

[LaFri]

In my opinion there should be only two prices:
one for FSX plus P3D with double installer (like ORBX) for personal use
one for flight schools.

Anything else would prevent me from buying any A2A product in the future.

Best regards,
Fritz

[Fabo]

allright, so, I own the trainer... aand I only use it in P3D. Where do I stand on this?

In the original post from Scott:

For our existing C172 Trainer customers who wish to take advantage of the bundle discount, we will honor the $30 rebate for the next 30 days after launch of the 2.0 core update.

In other words you can buy the FSX/P3D license combo deal for $69.99, minus a $30 rebate A2A will be offering, so that's $40 for the proper Prepar3D license for 30 days after the release of the 2.0 Core Update. For future purchases, you would just buy the P3D license for $49.99 and get a P3D installer - in other words exactly what you've been doing for years, except for P3D now instead of FSX.

Yes, but I do not with to use the addon in FSX, same as here:

...
I bought your C-172 trainer on Jan 31, 2014 for $49.99 and I'm ONLY using it in P3D2 . . . I have never even installed FSX on my current PC (nor do I ever intend to). I even made that clear when I posted in these forums and was basically told that A2A did not officially support P3D, but that the C172 would work just fine in P3D2.

So now, less than 4 months later, I have to spend another $39.99 ($69.99 - $30 rebate) if I want to update to v.2.0 of the Accu-Sim core. So the total cost of my C-172 will be just shy of $90! That's a lot to ask from a faithful customer. I don't even want the FSX/P3D bundle version; all I have ever wanted is a P3D2 version (but that would now cost me an additional $49.99!).

How exactly is my $90 C-172 any different/better than the $50 FSX version?

and more users down from there. I bought the airplane with understanding that it might, or might not work in P3D. Later on, P3D2 support was officially included in form of joint installer at the very least. I continued to use the Cessna in P3D solely.

Can I forego my current FSX license and get P3D only license in stead? I, too, am willing to pay a reasonable administration fee, as was mentioned.
Otherwise I understand I can have no claim to a P3D license, as could the other mentioned user, who only bought the airplane after written reassurance that it worked in P3D, but I would definitely feel cheated.

A2A had not been a company that was known to work like this. I trust Scott will try to step in and handle this as best as he can. I am confident in his will to help small time guys and the community here and elsewhere.

The whole P3D licensing situation is a bit of a fiasco. Here's kind of how I see it:

They're using and building on the FSX engine, but don't actually own the game or the name, and as an aerospace company they have no interest in officially entering into the "video game" industry. So for the lawyers, they market and license it as a professional training device, and strictly NOT for entertainment under any circumstances. Meanwhile, they're practically BEGGING for the casual, desktop flightsimmer to come in and buy their product by advertising third party scenery addons, control devices, etc. with giant banners on their homepage. Not to mention the direction they're going with development: why would a training device need volumetric fog? Cloud shadows? HDR?

You may or may not be surprised, but for some applications this is a serious consideration. I am talking commercial sphere here.

[Aymi]

So what is behind that, is that it is now illegal to use a recent A2A product with academic license on P3D publicly somewhere like an airshow or a school or a museum if we don't have the 100$/200$ license ? Considering P3D cost line taking your computer out will get expensive. It's a bit weird to see the ridiculous professional costs and strict laws that are behind the license , applied to our everyday toy that 99.9% of people use for private entertainment like any other video game ( even if it's the master race of video game, it's still a video game ) .

Hopefully normal customer won't be really affected by that. I only don't get why can't we have 1 entertainment license that have both P3D academic and FSX . For me it sounds like you buy a dvd you can watch on a computer, but you need to pay more if you want to watch it on your tv ? Both are for personal uses, why placing a '' fee '' for the 70$ bundle if it's the same product that we use only for ourselves without making money out of it ?

[Arwen]

If I now would need a dedicated license for P3D, to fit in your new licensing structure, that is fine with me. I willing to 'exchange' it, or even pay a modest exchange fee ($5 -$10) for administration.
But I don't need a 'bundle' for FSX, because I do not want it for FSX, and I never used it in FSX. So I am not willing to pay for a bundle.

I trust you will solve this gracefully.

I would also be totally willing to pay a 10% exchange fee. But I'm not willing to pay an 80% upgrade fee for a 4-month-old product, while FSX users get the Accu-Sim Core Update v.2.0 for free (especially since I feel like I was mislead about the possibility of a P3D2 version . . . even if I was perhaps unintentionally mislead).

And why is A2A charging 60% more to owners of the Professional version of P3D2, than what the owners of the Academic version have to pay? Nothing has been posted that indicates that there is any difference between the two versions of the C-172 (or between them and the FSX version). As far as I know, no other 3rd party developer has done this yet, and being first is likely to do even greater PR damage to A2A (which is why I wrote in my original post that this was a really, really BAD idea). And how would you even enforce this? (My guess is that this is mostly just another attempt to shore up the legalese, in which case there are likely no enforcement plans.) LM's licencing for P3D is problematic enough without 3rd party developers adding yet more layers to it . . . to 'ensure' that we are all following the 'rules.' I love flightsimming and my chosen platform is P3D2, but I hate all this 'training' (non-entertainment use) restrictions, with all its cryptic legal language (and I have a degree in Legal Studies).

I've always supported A2A in the past and I have never complained about the pricing, because it was reasonable and fair. This new A2A Licensing structure is neither reasonable nor fair. Using a flightsim should be enjoyable, but it loses a lot of its appeal when we begin to feel that Big Brother is watching our every move.

[HighAlpha]

The new licensing system only makes sense. Like it or not, these are no doubt steps A2A has to take in order to support both simulators lawfully. I don't mind at all paying for that service considering I use both sims...

I'm sorry, but I can't help but find it kinda funny that some would first complain that they had to essentially "hack" their way to install the FSX product they purchased on to Prepar3d. And then complain further that now there is a licensed installer available to give them the support (and product) they're looking for.