phant Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 FONTE: - https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=763609570356779&id=130582376992838 - https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=763582457026157&id=130582376992838 Bye Phant
TkER Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Che copioni :D http://www.news3d.eu/index.php/topic,67805.0.html
jhonny912 Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Questo mi piace! la versione C praticamente non avrebbe il radar doppler e solo 2 piloni alari e uno sotto la fusoliera? ( da Wikipedia )
phant Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 FONTE: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2131314&postcount=216 Bye Phant
phant Posted October 31, 2014 Author Posted October 31, 2014 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. FONTE: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214751&postcount=223 Bye Phant
Mago Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Mi pare una mezza puttanata..... Skyhawk è di proprietà MC Donnel ma A4 e qualsiasi altra sigla è libero da copyright... Moderator
phant Posted October 31, 2014 Author Posted October 31, 2014 Mi pare una mezza puttanata..... Skyhawk è di proprietà MC Donnel ma A4 e qualsiasi altra sigla è libero da copyright... Pare essere di più di una banale questione di sigle: 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. FONTE: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214825&postcount=234 Bye Phant
Mago Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 Secondo voi perché l a10c di dcs non si chiana thunderbolt ? ;)q Moderator
phant Posted November 2, 2014 Author Posted November 2, 2014 L'UH-1H Huey della Belsimtek subì notevoli ritardi sulla data di rilascio per problemi di copyright. In quella occasione, parlando dell'argomento, vennero indicate (con tanto di fonte) alcune situazioni in cui grossi marchi aeronautici si erano messi di traverso sul rilascio della controparte virtuale dei loro mezzi. Un titolo parecchio noto come ARMA, che fa del realismo (quantomeno estetico) un punto di forza del suo marchio, ha optato per attribuire non solo sigle di fantasia ai mezzi riprodotti ma anche differenze estetiche sostanziali, proprio per non incappare in problemi di copyright. Ergo non credo che sia solo un problema di nomi/sigle. Il tutto a prescindere dalle motivazioni addotte da VEAO circa lo Skyhawk. Bye Phant
Mago Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 c'e tutta una serie di esempi sui nomi dei simulatori, ad incominciare da falcon, tanto per citarne uno. i problemi dell uh-1 erano con la Bell. Moderator
Recommended Posts