Canclelled L-39 -> what licence agreement...

fjacobsen · September 9, 2014

Following this announcement from Wags:

"Regarding the announced cancellation of by Virtual Patriots of their L-39 project, there needs to be a few items clarified after the rather incomplete explanation provided by the Virtual Patriots team that painted an inaccurate picture:

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.
All third parties enter a license agreement with the full knowledge that they are not granted exclusive rights to develop the aircraft for DCS.
Over two weeks ago, the head of the Virtual Patriots team was informed of this decision and was supportive of it.
The Virtual Patriots L-39 license agreement was not cancelled. They are free to sell their project well before the Eagle Dynamics version. However, given the massive amount of work we still believe needs completed, we see that this would be difficult for them.
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.

This is all that I and Eagle Dynamics have to say on the matter. "

I need to ask what the terms are for getting a license ?

Does the rules in the license agreement also hold true for other 3rd party developers and partners ?

I ask, and I know I´m a PITA, because one thing is that the developement time for a project runs for too long to be acceptable, but we also have another 3rd party / partner who shows little progress on their developement for modules allready sold as open betas.

Do I need to mention UH-1 and Mi-8 ?

From a customer side prolonged projects doesn´t mean anything, cause we did not pay for them, but for beta modules we ahev paid for, developement progress should be first priority.

May I ask about ED's thoughts on this ?

FinnJ

Flagrum · September 9, 2014

Following this announcement from Wags:

"Regarding the announced cancellation of by Virtual Patriots of their L-39 project, there needs to be a few items clarified after the rather incomplete explanation provided by the Virtual Patriots team that painted an inaccurate picture:

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.

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

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

The Virtual Patriots L-39 license agreement was not cancelled. They are free to sell their project well before the Eagle Dynamics version. However, given the massive amount of work we still believe needs completed, we see that this would be difficult for them.

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.

This is all that I and Eagle Dynamics have to say on the matter. "

I need to ask what the terms are for getting a license ?

Does the rules in the license agreement also hold true for other 3rd party developers and partners ?

I ask, and I know I´m a PITA, because one thing is that the developement time for a project runs for too long to be acceptable, but we also have another 3rd party / partner who shows little progress on their developement for modules allready sold as open betas.

Do I need to mention UH-1 and Mi-8 ?

From a customer side prolonged projects doesn´t mean anything, cause we did not pay for them, but for beta modules we ahev paid for, developement progress should be first priority.

May I ask about ED's thoughts on this ?

FinnJ

While not an uninteresting question, I doubt we will really get to know what exact terms such a license consists of (-> NDA). But my understanding is, that every 3rd party dev is required to get such a license first - while, as Wags hints - they might have changed over time and not every 3rd party dev has signed the same agreement.

But besides that, and I am repeating myself here, I don't see any evidence that such an license agreement includes a fixed schedule for release. ("If the 3rd party dev is unable to release the product until xx.xx.20xx, ED reserves the right to ... whatever"). Instead, my interpretation of what was said by Wags and other officials, I believe the agreement just contains a paragraph like "We, ED, will not compete with your product for the next 24 months".

So, basically, yes, I believe ED could now legally release their own Huey, but probably not their own Sabre. And it matters not if they are happy with the state of the Huey and/or Sabre or not - it is just not their beer.

Ofc, all this is just my own 0.02 $

aeliusg · September 9, 2014

No need to mention UH-1H or Mi-8. These modules have been delivered, and your money already taken. :P

As far as I know, we have no agreement with ED concerning further development of beta modules. :book: And neither the UH-1H nor the Mi-8 are actually in beta anymore.

But FWIW, from the September progress update, apparently we can expect multiplayer cockpit in the Huey and Mi-8 in the future. And I remember a Belsimtek dev popping into one of the Huey threads concerning EGT modeling to say that no, it hadn't been forgotten. Mi-8 manual has been promised. It isn't all bad.

Besides, for what I paid, I feel like I have gotten a good deal out of both of these modules. More than any boring "AAA" retail game I've ever paid $59.99 for.

lmp · September 9, 2014

And neither the UH-1H nor the Mi-8 are actually in beta anymore.

The Mi-8 is still in beta.

159th_Viper · September 9, 2014

........

You do know that you have an absolute zero chance of this being addressed on a open Community forum don't you? The granting of any licence is a pursuant to contractual negotiations between parties and is more often than not unique. In any event, that's besides the point: Fact remains that we as community members have absolutely no right to information regarding TFC/ED business practices. It's poor form to even ask in a public environment I would have thought.