Hi everyone,

Just a week ago, I decided to fire up FSX again after a long break from it. I installed my usual FTX scenery, REX, did the bojote cfg tweaks, and some basic aircraft add-ons. After 3 days of tweaking, playing with options, installing scenery, I STILL cannot get it to run how I want. I feel like I'm spending more time tweaking the sim than actually flying in it.

Here's my question. I've read a lot about Prepar3d and I think it sounds like an amazing idea and don't even get me started on the improvements scheduled to be in version 2.0, but is it for me? I keep reading their license agreement and it says not for consumer or personal use, but then it's readily available to purchase and download right from their website.

I would LOVE an updated version of FSX to take advantage of my newer hardware, and I see so many people on forums speaking about Prepar3d. Do I have to start my own company or what?!

You aren't the only one confused by the licensing. This topic has been beaten to death at Avsim, so much that it's now officially off limits for discussion. Some people there act like they're trying to find reasons not be able to use it, which always puzzled me. My guess is that the licensing is part of the agreement with Microsoft and Lockheed technically has to tell you it's not for entertainment purposes. Otherwise Lockheed probably couldn't care less what you use it for. They aren't going to come knocking at your door to make sure you aren't using P3D for entertainment purposes.

That being said, here is a breakdown of their licenses. http://www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/prepar3d-license-comparison/

As long as you are using P3D for "training", "learning", or "simulation", you fall under the professional license option. I don't know about you, but I think it would be darn near impossible not to do one of those three things when using the software. No where does it say that you aren't allowed to have fun or be entertained while also accomplishing those other things.

For me personally, I plan on using P3D to educate a K-12 student(s) about flying, so I plan on getting an academic license.


edit - I obviously do not work for LM, most of this post was just my opinion or interpretation.

Sorry to bring up such a worn out topic, I haven't really visited Avsim forums. You answered my question perfectly though so thank you for that.

It's funny, I used Microsoft Flight briefly, but I LOVED the fsx engine with some more modern updates. I'm going to save up for the professional license, and grab version 2.0 when it comes out.

Thanks again.

-Kris

No worries. My intention was not to discourage it being discussed here. I was just letting you know that you aren't the only one confused by it. (I edited my post to make that a little more clear)

to be fair, other touchy topics at Avsim these days include favorite colors, days of the week, and weather


Anyway, in addition to Malibus points (all of which I agree with) some things to other consider about P3D/P3d 2.0:

While its a touchy subject among some groups of users, it's also been very dividing among developers. Some devs support it 100%, even letting you choose the option to choose to FSX or P3D when installing the add on. Some devs are (IMHO) taking a advantage of the situation and making you buy a separate package for either title. Some devs offer their title for FSX "only", and look the other way/don't care/won't officially support P3D use, but it's usually pretty easy to port their products over. Finally, there are some devs that have products that just won't work with P3D (for any number of reasons) including a few that actually go so far as to actively block the usage of their product in P3D.

And that's the current state. As of this writing, P3D is basically "FSX Accelleration Plus." The improvements to the engine amount to being a (badly needed) service pack. It fixes some minor issues like the "blurries" but other than that, it's going to be 97% the same experience, except some of your mods might not work.

And that last point, for me, has been the deal breaker. P3D doesn't fix enough (again, as of this writing) to off set loosing mods like my A2A collection, PMDG products, or VRS Tacpack. (if any of these work, someone please correct me).

I'm waiting to see how P3D 2.0 turns out before I jump into the waters. THe double edged sword will be that the more they change/fix, the more they'll aftermarket products will become incompatible. For Me, FSX with mods> P3D 2.0 without.

LOL. Very true!



I'll clarify that I'm not buying P3D on day one or anything like that. I'm waiting for release and and reports of compatibility issues (or hopefully lack there of), and what kind of visual and performance gains people are really seeing. Assuming all my addons will work with P3D, I'll probably make the switch if I can get a little more eye candy and a decent performance boost.

I don't have nearly as much payware as other folks do when it comes to addons, and I think what I do have is supposed to work. REX, ORBX/FTX, A2A C172, AF F-4U. Not sure about the GAS PT-17.

FWIW - the A2A C172 is supposed to be P3D compatible, and I believe the Aircraft Factory F4U is too. So it's possible some of the other A2A stuff is.

Thanks for your replies guys.

I also don't have too much payware for fsx at the moment. Just the big ones. I do have A2A's P-51D but, overall, I haven't wanted to put too much into fsx because I can't stand the engine. I've always had trouble getting it to look right, and is the main reason why I've recently been looking into Prepar3d.

I may wait also, and just see how it goes in a few months... I just hope ED's Nevada map comes out before then to keep me occupied!

Yeah for me the main thing with the license is mainly whether the license is solid enough to attract the 3rd party developers...

I'm interested in P3D v2.0 but only if I don't have to spend tons of time doing my own ports of FSX products to get it to work, I want official support, needing to do all my own porting and tweaking is why I don't fly X-Plane10 much...

And if the licensing isn't confusing enough, the name Prepa3rd makes no sense. Prepared for what? And why is the a freaking 3 in the name?

Prepare for flying airplanes? Using modern 3d graphics?

LM is positioning the product as a way to train pilots, thus preparing them for their jobs. The branding makes sense to me. ::shrugs::

But yes, the licensing is pointlessly confusing. I'm guessing there are two factors driving why things are this way:

1. Microsoft wanted to get some cash out of FSX's dieing husk, but not have to do any work for it. BUT they also didn't want to completely close the door on FSX coming back in sequel form one day, in case that market opened back up. Namely, they wanted to make sure Flight didn't have competition from P3D 2.0.

2. LM doesn't want the support headaches that come from dealing with individual consumers. To them, that market is too small to warrant the support overhead. So for them, loosing the ability to directly market to consumers wasn't a deal breaker.

Well, I'm excited that FSX is living on in one form or another. Maybe they'll even include Occulus Rift support?! ha

A2A planes work in P3Dv1.4 out of the box, but don't have P3D native installer, with the exception of C172 Trainer which has dual installer (FSX/P3Dv1.4) and is supported on both platforms.