Virtual Patriots L-39

[NineLine]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2169482#post2169482

[Tango]

I know a lot of code was written in LUA pre SDK access, so I just figured they converted the code that already existed from LUA to C++. That would make it 5 years.

 

Heck - even we had a lot of code for the L-39 that SE made a herculean effort converting to C++ after we got SDK access at about the same time. I'm still not quite sure how he did it so fast. :weight_lift: Even the initial codebase for the Hawk was using LUA DLL.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[cichlidfan]

Over two weeks ago, the head of the Virtual Patriots team was informed of this decision and was supportive of it.

 

??

[Anastasiuss]

Wags made a statement http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2169482&postcount=1

[Tango]

I have to address this post:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2169482&postcount=1

 

We are under NDA so we can not comment on some things (NDA that we had to agree to as part of the 3rd Party License, and that we maintain). Wags knows this, so to say that we are supplying an "incomplete explanation" is to ignore this fact.

 

Let me address Wags, point by point:

 

1) Eagle Dynamics has had an L-39 in development for several years. However, we put it on the back-burner after we awarded the Virtual Patriots team a license to create their own. A very lengthy amount of time was awarded to them and we feel that it is now no longer sound to hold off on our internal L-39 any longer.

 

To the best of my knowledge, we had no idea about this when we were granted a 3rd Party Developer license. I was certainly not aware of it. I will let SE and Blaze speak for themselves.

 

2) All third parties enter a license agreement with the full knowledge that they are not granted exclusive rights to develop the aircraft for DCS.

 

Correct. This is not the reason in isolation that we decided to cancel.

 

3) Over two weeks ago, the head of the Virtual Patriots team was informed of this decision and was supportive of it.

 

I will defer to Blaze on this point. To my knowledge, it was merely treated amicably. No-one would be happy receiving the news that you suddenly have a competitor product by the same people that made the sim, and dictate all the terms under which you operate.

 

I will split point 4 into two parts, 4a and 4b.

 

4a) The Virtual Patriots L-39 license agreement was not cancelled. They are free to sell their project well before the Eagle Dynamics version.

 

Correct. We are not sure what is meant by "well before" the ED version.

 

4b) However, given the massive amount of work we still believe needs completed, we see that this would be difficult for them.

 

This is pure conjecture on the part of ED. They have no facts to support this statement (and in fact, we are VERY capable of completing the product). Some delay has been incurred through ED being slow to respond to requests for information, but 98% of the product is independent of the base simulator so we are able to work at full rate (allowing for the usual R&D that goes into creating such products).

 

5) This was one of the first 3rd party license agreements we granted. Our requirements for licenses has changed drastically. This same project (even in its current state after two years), would not have passed current 3rd party project requirements to get a license now.

 

Frankly, we have no idea what this means.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Lizzard]

 

Frankly, we have no idea what this means.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

 

me too..it reads like ED wants 3rd Party devs to show up with a nearly finished module to get the contract?! This will most likely kill all future 3rd party devs...I mean who puts all the time and money into a product and does not know whether ED approves?!:huh:

[NineLine]

me too..it reads like ED wants 3rd Party devs to show up with a nearly finished module to get the contract?! This will most likely kill all future 3rd party devs...I mean who puts all the time and money into a product and does not know whether ED approves?!:huh:

 

I only think it means that proof that all components can be handled by the team needs to be proved better, not sure if there are some components that they are having trouble with, or have yet to show concept of? That's between them I suppose.

[derelor]

The decision was made because of the time and financial investment still required on our part to finish the module. ...

That sounds to me like the module was pretty unfinished and far from release. But what do I know...

[Python]

One less trainer.. i wont lose any sleep over it.

 

We are still getting it, just directly from ED now.

 

And plenty of us are looking forward to such aircraft.

[Tango]

not sure if there are some components that they are having trouble with, or have yet to show concept of?

We are not having trouble with anything, thank you. I think in light of the fact that I have worked not only on the L-39, but also the Hawk for VEAO, and the C-101 for AvioDev, should attest to that.

 

If you have seen the Hawk at Duxford (and you will have the oppotunity to fly her again this weekend at Duxford along with the Occulus Rift!) then you will know that I'm an accomplished DCS developer.

 

SE has worked very hard as well on the flight model and some of the aircraft systems, and if you could fly the flight model he developed, I think there would be no doubt left as to the true capability of our team.

 

We find the suggestion that we are somehow struggling or otherwise "can't do it", most offensive.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[NineLine]

Certainly wasnt meant to be offensive, but I havent see all aspects of your L-39, and was only trying to help understand the statement, but if all your components are in sim and functioning, only needing more work, then I dont understand either.

 

We are not having trouble with anything, thank you. I think in light of the fact that I have worked not only on the L-39, but also the Hawk for VEAO, and the C-101 for AvioDev, should attest to that.

 

If you have seen the Hawk at Duxford (and you will have the oppotunity to fly her again this weekend at Duxford along with the Occulus Rift!) then you will know that I'm an accomplished DCS developer.

 

SE has worked very hard as well on the flight model and some of the aircraft systems, and if you could fly the flight model he developed, I think there would be no doubt left as to the true capability of our team.

 

We find the suggestion that we are somehow struggling or can't do it, highly offensive.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Tango]

That sounds to me like the module was pretty unfinished and far from release. But what do I know...

 

The item we are missing most is a cockpit model. We hacked together a model so we can get on with the systems and AFM development, but it is the cockpit model that we can't do (we are technical guys, not artists).

 

We are open to offers.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[cichlidfan]

The item we are missing most is a cockpit model. We hacked together a model so we can get on with the systems and AFM development, but it is the cockpit model that we can't do (we are technical guys, not artists).

 

We are open to offers.

 

That does put a bit of perspective on the situation.

[Taproot]

That does put a bit of perspective on the situation.

 

Enlighten me please :)

[derelor]

The item we are missing most is a cockpit model. We hacked together a model so we can get on with the systems and AFM development, but it is the cockpit model that we can't do (we are technical guys, not artists).

 

We are open to offers.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Aah, now it all makes sense. Thank you for being so honest :thumbup:

[Tango]

We were about to invest in a professional cockpit model when we got the e-mail from ED. We had been in discussion with a model developer about the project.

 

Aah, now it all makes sense.

 

Understand the systems and AFM are better than Beta status. They are nearly complete.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[SilentEagle]

Just to clarify Tango's comment. We had a deal on the table for a modeler to create the L-39 cockpit and contract agreements were drafted the day before we were informed. We had every intention of completing the project within Q1 of 2015, but it required a financial investment; one that we can no longer provide given the loss of marketability.

[SkateZilla]

That does put a bit of perspective on the situation.

 

Enlighten me please :)

 

IIRC, When VRC inquired about a 3rd party Dev License for the F-100,

We were told basically Proof of Concept consisted of External Model, Flight Model, and Cockpit Model.

 

Which may or may not be Point 5 related.

 

 

Just to clarify Tango's comment. We had a deal on the table for a modeler to create the L-39 cockpit and contract agreements were drafted the day before we were informed. We had every intention of completing the project within Q1 of 2015, but it required a financial investment; one that we can no longer provide given the loss of marketability.

 

If I was VPJT, I would have looked at what they needed to finish the L-39, and still finish it.

 

Once Finished, Market it, and competitively price it against whatever ED's Set Price point is for theirs, or one up them with more features.

 

Which is pretty much what Every FSX Team does with the Airframes they all seem to want to do, despite having immediate competition.

 

That way your 28 month investment is not just thrown away, and you get some return for your efforts.

Edited September 8, 2014 by SkateZilla

[sobek]

I'm sorry, i'm not trying to play devil's advocate, but if you are essentially done pending the integration of a cockpit, then certainly you would be able to deliver it prior to ED, leaving you to reap the lion share that is to be made of such a module?

[Taproot]

IIRC, When VRC inquired about a 3rd party Dev License for the F-100,

We were told basically Proof of Concept consisted of External Model, Flight Model, and Cockpit Model.

 

Ah, ok. But for me it looks like the graphical part is the fastest, and the coding of AFM EFM ABS CDU PDA CBA and what not is what takes time doing? Or am I mistakin here?

[Tango]

if you are essentially done pending the integration of a cockpit, then certainly you would be able to deliver it prior to ED, leaving you to reap the lion share that is to be made of such a module?

 

Well, Wags comment is intriguing us greatly. I can't say more due to NDA.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Silver_Dragon]

Only Bad Luck. I Think.

[Flagrum]

Ah, ok. But for me it looks like the graphical part is the fastest, and the coding of AFM EFM ABS CDU PDA CBA and what not is what takes time doing? Or am I mistakin here?

Probably true, but one can not really claim to be "as good as finished" if the whole cockpit is missing. Even if it is the easier part, it still needs to be done.

[Tango]

Ah, ok. But for me it looks like the graphical part is the fastest, and the coding of AFM EFM ABS CDU PDA CBA and what not is what takes time doing? Or am I mistakin here?

 

Modelling definitely requires skill, but it is safe to say it requires the least amount of time to complete.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[derelor]

We were about to invest in a professional cockpit model when we got the e-mail from ED. We had been in discussion with a model developer about the project.

 

 

 

Understand the systems and AFM are better than Beta status. They are nearly complete.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Tango, I highly respect you, your team and your capabilities. I was - and still am - very excited when I saw your Flight Model Visualization Tool and your systems programming update regarding the ADF radio simulation.

But now I can also imagine ED's reaction when they found out that after 28 months there is only a hacked-together cockpit model.

 

In my dream world, I would love to see your team and ED work together to create the perfect L-39 for the community!