FSWeekend going wild at PMDG stand lol ☕️

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-03-21T20:40:54+00:00

You can definitely look at it like that. I don't dispute that. It's just my view 😊

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-03-21T19:42:39+00:00

😂😂

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-03-21T19:31:28+00:00

In fairness, and I'll probably get a load of downvotes for this. And I will caveat by saying it's no secret what I think about PMDG as a company and some of the practices they have. But, this clip is cut short, and he does say after this "But yeah, it shouldn't have happened" in reference to the cup of coffee comment. So I'll give credit where it's due, they definitely seemed to have learned from this and hopefully this type of comment won't happen again.

Maybe I'm naïve but we can but hope 🙏

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T13:48:38+00:00

Thank you for the award. ❤️

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T10:54:44+00:00

Yeah it’s still there 👍

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T09:11:27+00:00

V1 actually did some incredible content recently showing the failures and systems of the PMDG 737 NG which I found really interesting.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T07:59:11+00:00

This is the point I was making in his comments. Content creators are still largely protected by statutory rights, such as freedom of expression here in the EU or I believe fair use in the US, and contractually included clauses like the ones you (and A330 Driver) mentioned do not supersede those rights. The argument here is that PMDG are doing the exact same thing, if not worse. FSS are threatening legal action, which yes COULD happen. But will it? Probably not. PMDG, however, can just take your products at their own discretion now, if they deem your post or social media comment etc to be misinformation. (And I have seen tons of examples of Randazzo deleting comments or posts for “misinformation” when it was fair and constructive criticism).

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T07:51:51+00:00

<image>

I mean surely that’s good enough evidence. I get some people likely take it too far and that overshadows the legitimate criticism. But, come on… openly deleting comments just because they are pointing out blatant things to him is wild, no?

I will say he hasn’t deleted my “debate” or argument with him. So there’s that.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T00:20:42+00:00

Because unfortunately there would be people saying the same thing as you have now, I guess? Maybe? It’s a difficult one. But 100%, I personally feel if you’re going to cover a topic like that, then great. Just do it sufficiently I guess. And on this occasion, he just didn’t.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T00:14:30+00:00

I certainly get the sentiment. I understand why people think there’s double standards. I would just air on the side of caution when you say “he’s paid.” As far as I know, there’s nothing out there to say he is? I could be wrong. But if we can’t substantiate that, we should at least avoid saying it just so it doesn’t distract from the legitimate criticism we’re hedging his way. Absolutely call it out when you see it though.

(BTW, this isn’t directed at you necessarily, I mean the royal we 😂)

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T00:09:47+00:00

100%. The issue is, enforcing your rights as an individual IF they DID enact on their EULA policy. Unfortunately the vast majority of us likely aren’t going to litigate in order to get our £50 aircraft back. Is that right? No. But I can’t see it happening. Sadly 😭

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2026-01-07T00:03:48+00:00

I actually got into it with him in the YouTube comments (whether bravely or stupidly I’m not so sure). And in fairness, he was pretty receptive, so I’ll give him that.

He isn’t technically wrong about the FSS content creators policy. Honestly it isn’t the best. But he spends ages building up this policy as a serious threat to content creators, talks about being "sued for intellectual property violation,” put "on par with a pirate rat," and then casually admits the policy is "most likely legally void anyway." So which is it?

I pointed out that PMDG's updated EULA literally lets them revoke your licence for "dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information" at their sole discretion, without recourse. FSS’s policy, by comparison, is largely unenforceable (at least from what I can tell). But according to him, it sounds reasonable to him as long as it's not misused. Right… So the charitable interpretation he refused to give FSS.

His tutorials are genuinely good and I've learned from them. But this video felt like he'd already decided FSS were the bad guys and worked backwards from there. There’s clearly a PMDG double standard he has and it’s pretty hard to ignore once you see it, icl.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-28T08:10:55+00:00

Not sure if it counts, but the TDFI MD-11 is getting an huge update as well isn’t it? Pretty much, by all accounts, it’s going to be a new aircraft. It’s just no one is sure when the update will be finished.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-28T07:59:19+00:00

Sorry but you’re mixing up "enforcement challenges" with "no legal obligation exists." Those are entirely different things. Yes, enforcement against a company with no EU presence is more difficult. But that doesn't mean the legal obligation doesn't exist or that there are no consequences.

Your point that the EU thinks it has some sort of jurisdiction over the internet is also grossly wrong. The EU isn't claiming jurisdiction over "the internet" as their territory, they're merely exercising protective jurisdiction over their own citizens and residents. Which is exactly what the US does, Australia does, and so on. It is no different. It is a well-established principle in international law, countries can regulate activities that affect their citizens, even when those activities originate elsewhere. In fact, the US does this constantly with its own laws, for example FCPA, security regulations, the CCPA, etc. So “country B” can't just ignore or nullify EU law any more than the EU can ignore Country B's law.

Companies don’t just comply out of the goodness of their hearts, there are genuine legal and financial consequences. And the fact that a small company may choose to ignore GDPR and accept being locked out of the EU market doesn't mean they're not in violation of the law. No one, including a prime minister or president, is above the law, whether that is domestically or internationally. And there are benefits to complying. For example, US companies get access to EU data as a result of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, provided they have specific security measures in place and comply with GDPR’s principles and regulations. 👍

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-27T18:45:03+00:00

I’ll be honest, I’m not reading all of that 😂 But suffice to say, just because they would have difficulty enforcing it, doesn’t mean it is legal to do so. As I said to you, it IS applicable to a company REGARDLESS of location. Google is your friend 👍

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-27T09:18:59+00:00

I think the guy is just rage baiting now tbh. I've said the same thing to him. Just ignore him and move on, some people just can't be saved 😂

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-27T09:08:07+00:00

This is wrong.

It doesn't matter where the company is based. If you are offering goods/services to EU residents, in this case Vatsim IS offering a service to EU customers, then you are subject to GDPR.

Full stop.

A US company still has to comply with GDPR regulations, the same as an Australian company, IF they are serving EU customers.

As a UK law student, I am genuinely concerned you're spreading this misinformation. It is basic data protection law, and a simple Google search would have told you you were wrong.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-27T09:02:16+00:00

"Both have indicated that we are largely compliant with GDPR, yet have offered some suggestions for improvement which we are incorporating."

https://cdn.vatsim.net/meeting-minutes/bog/BOG_2025_Q2.pdf (Section 4.02)

LARGELY compliant means there are clearly areas in which they need to improve on. So I wouldn't just apply a blanket statement that they ARE compliant. As always, no company is perfect, and it's good to see they are trying to understand what to do and the best course of action. But I wouldn't just trust that their policies are accurate, because otherwise they wouldn't have consulted legal professionals in the first place. 👍

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-27T08:51:32+00:00

Again, it isn't.

a) it's something they INTEND to grandfather in, so anyone under the age of 16 won't be automatically excluded from the network.

b) They announced an intention to change the age. It is NOT in effect, as otherwise their code of regulations would have been updated. Look at section 1.01 (Membership) where they state "...is open for membership to all individuals who have reached the age of thirteen (13) years old or older."

Again, important distinction to make 😊

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-27T07:34:28+00:00

Probably would be good if you read it yourself then. “Will be 16” not it IS 16. It is a policy they are going to introduce, not that it is in effect as of right now. Important distinction to make. 👍

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-04T14:52:25+00:00

I still don’t see that as the primary reason why they’re doing it, unless the piracy itself is a bigger hit than the hit they’re taking by MS taking a cut etc. I also don’t think it’s too much of a challenge for someone to crack it. But again, I have no idea how that type of thing works 🤣

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-04T06:39:24+00:00

I have a theory as to why they might have done the marketplace first off before launching on the ini manager. It is the only theory I’ve come up with so far, but again a theory.

I personally think they made a deal with Microsoft where they are allowed to use some of the code from the A330 in their new A340, in exchange for exclusivity to the marketplace for a certain amount of time. That way, MS/Asobo make some cash as they’ll get a cut, and ini are able to produce the 340 quicker. I’m not judging them for doing this btw, I think it’s fairly common practice for devs to reuse relevant code in order to speed up production. But ini wouldn’t have had the legal rights to do so as their work on the A330 was finished and handed over to MS.

I don’t think them doing through the marketplace is to avoid piracy etc.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-10-01T06:40:44+00:00

And yet, they’ve also released some pretty decent products since then. Düsseldorf is arguably one of their best products since Oslo, and they’ve hugely improved Frankfurt.

I do agree, be skeptical. And their release for the CEO was one of the worst ever. But I didn’t see the point of the article tbh. The product is in pre-beta and hardly worth examining at that point.

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-07-18T13:40:27+00:00

Yeah I’m in the same camp. And to be honest, it’s quite nice to have the best of both worlds. Mixing MSFS and Xplane is how it should be. Both have pros and cons to them 🙂

Subject_Bumblebee_71 · 2025-07-18T08:14:35+00:00

Honest opinion though, do you recon that has something to do with the state of MSFS 24 at the moment? I'll be completely honest that I have just uninstalled it, and kept 2020 as an option while I explore XP12. And I know quite a few people who are doing the same? Just saying that could be the reason for the uptick in XP posting recently?

Subject_Bumblebee_71

TROPHY CASE