VEAO is doing the A-4C "Skyhawk"?

[Darkwolf]

[Flagrum]

Dang ...

 

But before you are now looking for what to do next - true to the tradition of the DCS community, I will (mis)use this opportunity to suggest/wish for either a F-104 Starfighter or the Alpha Jet! Thanks! ;o)

 

(j/k ... but scnr)

[Buckeye]

Sad to hear, I was excited for these to make it to DCS. Thanks for keeping us in the know, your open communication is much appreciated.

[BIGNEWY]

A shame, but perfectly understandable.

[SkateZilla]

Hi Guys,

 

Unfortunately I have some not so good news on this project.

 

As a responsible developer one of our golden rules is that we will not develop a module without an agreement or waiver from an aircraft manufacturer, its common knowledge that this was one of the main hold ups with development of the Hawk.

 

As such we have been in talks with McDonnell Douglas (A division of Boeing) regarding obtaining agreements for the A-4C and the A-4M Skyhawks.

 

Sadly the terms offered to us in exchange for the licence are not economically viable for the project to continue. Therefore we have to stop works on the Skyhawk and park the project indefinitely.

 

Obviously this is a disappointing development not least for the DCS community but the members from the VEAO development team who have put blood sweat and tears into the project.

 

I want to publically thank the members of the Skyhawk development team for their hard work and commitment to this project.

 

But one thing in life is for sure, as one door closes another one opens.

 

Obviously due to the sensitive nature of commercial discussions such as this there is only limited amount of information that we can divulge in public but true to the nature of the relationship Chris and I work hard to maintain with you all we wanted to bring you this news as soon as we were able.

 

On behalf of everyone at VEAO we thank you for your understanding regarding this announcement.

 

Pman

 

VEAO Consumer Products Manager.

 

This is bad news indeed, seems we are heading right back to 2002 when Lockheed and General Dynamics wanted to bankrupt entertainment companies over licensing costs and disputes.

 

I recall that they had to settle as Lockheed cant control the visual , systems or military designation of the airrcraft in entertainment media.

The name "Skyhawk" maybe but thats about it. Doing a pro simulatorcontract for actual professional ( and not consumer use) is also a bit more complicated.

[NRG-Vampire]

This is bad news indeed, seems we are heading right back to 2002...

 

^ perhaps this is the reason why we wont get an F-16 module neither a newer/facelifted official external 3d model :cry: :wallbash:

[cichlidfan]

^ perhaps this is the reason why ... neither a newer/facelifted official external 3d model :cry: :wallbash:

 

What does one have to with the other?

[Abburo]

That's too bad...

 

Next time they (Boeing) will come to pay you for build it in DCS ... for their own publicity!

 

And we wonder why not so many modern jets.. :D

[Pman]

This is bad news indeed, seems we are heading right back to 2002 when Lockheed and General Dynamics wanted to bankrupt entertainment companies over licensing costs and disputes.

 

I recall that they had to settle as Lockheed cant control the visual , systems or military designation of the airrcraft in entertainment media.

The name "Skyhawk" maybe but thats about it. Doing a pro simulatorcontract for actual professional ( and not consumer use) is also a bit more complicated.

 

Its a little more complicated than that.

 

We could do an FC3 level aircraft without too many problems as long as we called it DCS: A-4C or the like with no clickable pit or ASM systems. That would then count as an artistic impression of the aircraft and would not infringe on current IP laws.

 

As soon as you start replicating systems such as engine behavior and management, radars, fuel systems etc etc then thats an entirely different ball game. That is then a replication of someones work and does need IP approval.

 

So without the agreement from McDonnell Douglas we could never do a ASM for the Skyhawk and doing an FC level module is not what VEAO is about :)

 

Military Spec, thats our standard and it doesnt drop for anything or anyone :)

 

Pman

[NineLine]

^ perhaps this is the reason why we wont get an F-16 module neither a newer/facelifted official external 3d model :cry: :wallbash:

 

Come on guys, lets not get carried away here... this announcement only effects this aircraft at this time... no need to go all assumption crazy...

[cichlidfan]

Next time they (Boeing) will come to pay you for build it in DCS ... for their own publicity!

 

Somehow I don't think Boeing is looking for ways to publicize a 60 year old aircraft as part of a marketing strategy.

[X93355]

That is sad news indeed. This does show good ethical decisions from VEAO though Pman. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

 

Just wondering if the Cortex team have good contacts at Boeing with their development that might be able to help?

[Abburo]

Somehow I don't think Boeing is looking for ways to publicize a 60 year old aircraft as part of a marketing strategy.

 

Sure not, but another military opportunity might have "collateral" requests... :D ...

[WinterH]

Damn shame :/ A-4, and in both C & M versions, was among the modules I wanted most. It is pretty crazy for those folks at Boeing asking crazy stuff for granting licences to create virtual versions of 50 odd years old planes.

[Python]

This is sad to hear but completely out of your hands of course. Can I ask if you have any thoughts yet on which aircraft you expect to be jumped to the front row of the planned list in place of this?

[SkateZilla]

Dang ...

 

But before you are now looking for what to do next - true to the tradition of the DCS community, I will (mis)use this opportunity to suggest/wish for either a F-104 Starfighter or the Alpha Jet! Thanks! ;o)

 

(j/k ... but scnr)

 

Lockheed is thr worst one when it comes to negotiating contracts, especially when it involves Starfighter, Hercules, and Falcon.

[MoGas]

That is sad news indeed. This does show good ethical decisions from VEAO though Pman. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

 

Just wondering if the Cortex team have good contacts at Boeing with their development that might be able to help?

 

Good question, a Super Hornet is possible and a Skyhawk not! Something is rong here!

[SkateZilla]

Its a little more complicated than that.

 

We could do an FC3 level aircraft without too many problems as long as we called it DCS: A-4C or the like with no clickable pit or ASM systems. That would then count as an artistic impression of the aircraft and would not infringe on current IP laws.

 

As soon as you start replicating systems such as engine behavior and management, radars, fuel systems etc etc then thats an entirely different ball game. That is then a replication of someones work and does need IP approval.

 

So without the agreement from McDonnell Douglas we could never do a ASM for the Skyhawk and doing an FC level module is not what VEAO is about :)

 

Military Spec, thats our standard and it doesnt drop for anything or anyone :)

 

Pman

 

Yeah, I figured the ASM and AFM would Complicate things and throw artist representation out the window.

 

But the fact is the price gouging that occured in early 2000's that essentially killed off High Fidelity Flight Sims for a while is coming back.

 

For some dumb reason the manufacturers automatically assume that since your developing to Mil-spec that you have or will have the income of a large military contract and they completely overlook the fact that small companies developing for consumer entertainment flight simulators do not have the financial ability to cover their insane terms.

[NRG-Vampire]

Yeah, I figured the ASM and AFM would Complicate things and throw artist representation out the window.

 

But the fact is the price gouging that occured in early 2000's that essentially killed off High Fidelity Flight Sims for a while is coming back.

 

For some dumb reason the manufacturers automatically assume that since your developing to Mil-spec that you have or will have the income of a large military contract and they completely overlook the fact that small companies developing for consumer entertainment flight simulators do not have the financial ability to cover their insane terms.

 

^ yes :cry:

 

i guess (pretty sure) McDonnell Douglas/Boeing gave a too high pricetag for the licenses/rights/documentations and VEAO guys know the most user wont able too pay the bill

 

however i can understand why ED developed only one modern full-DCS plane till now (A-10C) because USAF paid that bill (mainly) and navy/marines will pay(paid) for the f-18c as well

 

maybe that's why ED turned towards to the WWII aircrafts too (cheaper development and licence costs)

Edited October 27, 2014 by NRG-Vampire

[71st_Mastiff]

well I still don't understand the US Government paid for the equipment, the tax's payer owns it not the company that's making it, and beside wasn't there a lawsuit against those said companies for rights and freedom of art and expression of those US equipment?

Next all those Battle gear equipment that the US Army uses in Call of duty, Battle Field 4, Arma I, II, III. Those companies now have the right to sue for the use and artist representation in those games?

[NRG-Vampire]

Those companies now have the right to sue for the use and artist representation in those games?

 

i dont think so, but we can see how they show/display the modern aircraft/choppers in ARMA3 : fictional/hybrid stuffs/names :D (vehicles too)

Edited October 27, 2014 by NRG-Vampire

[cichlidfan]

well I still don't understand the US Government paid for the equipment, the tax's payer owns it not the company that's making it...

 

I believe it has been established that the government/taxpayers do not own the IP rights in these cases.

[Mode1961]

Also, and this is MOST important. Look up Controlled Goods regulations and ITARS. Someone referenced the Cortex guys. There is a very real possibility that if the Cortex guys are US Citizens this changes the game as well, especially when it comes to ITARS.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

[Gladman]

One of my favorite aircraft. Very unfortunate.

[71st_Mastiff]

I believe it has been established that the government/taxpayers do not own the IP rights in these cases.

 

then cancel the military projects for them!