Call911 Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) don't fret, Leatherneck simulations is hinting at an F-14! Dude wow, there was somthing on FB hinting about some news coming in near future..wander what it could be? :D only time will tell. "Goodness Gracious Great Balls of Fire...yeehaw". https://www.facebook.com/pages/VEAO-Simulations/130582376992838# Edit just re-read it an muaaaahh "cat out of bag :D" Edited January 9, 2015 by Call911
streakeagle Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) So the ultimate answer is that VEAO has a different standard than others. As their problem with doing the F-4 should apply equally to anyone doing an F-14. I had already read the posts about the A-4... but the A-4 is obsolete and the F/A-18 is operational... how could a modern aircraft with classified systems be cheaper/easier to license than an obsolete one? And I am sure the answer is again VEAO standards versus other parties. Edited January 9, 2015 by streakeagle [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Ells228 Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Nothing to do with our "standards". The terms the aircraft manufacturer sets also warrants whether it is viable to make and sell the module. Most are between 5 and 8%, some way way higher than that which makes it un-viable to sell. And some also want additional terms which we simply can't agree to selling to the consumer, military yes, consumer no. We've nothing more to say on the matter on the A-4 or F-4. We simply are not doing them for various reasons as said many times before. Thanks, Chris.
rajdary Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 So the ultimate answer is that VEAO has a different standard than others. As their problem with doing the F-4 should apply equally to anyone doing an F-14. I had already read the posts about the A-4... but the A-4 is obsolete and the F/A-18 is operational... how could a modern aircraft with classified systems be cheaper/easier to license than an obsolete one? And I am sure the answer is again VEAO standards versus other parties. I dont think its a matter of standards, maybe its just simply a question of : in service modern jet like Eurofighter or F18C can be sold to Military and also to consumers but out of service jets like F4 and F14 cannot be sold to Military but only to consumers, therfore not a good enough economic case if the IP owner wants alot of money for its license. Phanteks Enthoo Evolv Tempered Glass, Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero, Intel i7 7700K @ 4.8, Corsair HX 1000i, Nzxt Kraken 62, 32gb DDR4 3000Mhz Corsair Dominator Platinum, Nvme SSD Samsung 960 Evo 1Tb, Asus Strix OC 1080ti, Philips 43" 4K Monitor + 2 x Dell 24" U2414H, Warthog HOTAS, Track IR 5, Obutto R3volution, Buttkicker Gamer 2, MFG Crosswind pedals, Occulus Rift CV1, Windows 10 Pro.
streakeagle Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Read my first post: I never expected you or any other company to say anything more about your business decisions and it is pointless for me to speculate because it really doesn't matter. But this is not speculation and is the source of confusion for me (and probably many others): The F-4, A-4, and F/A-18C are all under Boeing. The F/A-18C is still in front line service and newer by 2 decades or more. ED is doing the F/A-18C to "full DCS standards". The A-4 license agreement is too expensive. The F-4 is too classified. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Aginor Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Read my first post: I never expected you or any other company to say anything more about your business decisions and it is pointless for me to speculate because it really doesn't matter. But this is not speculation and is the source of confusion for me (and probably many others): The F-4, A-4, and F/A-18C are all under Boeing. The F/A-18C is still in front line service and newer by 2 decades or more. ED is doing the F/A-18C to "full DCS standards". The A-4 license agreement is too expensive. The F-4 is too classified. ED has contracts with the US armed forces, others don't. I think that's the missing piece of your puzzle. DCSW weapons cheat sheet speed cheat sheet
emg Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 F-4 is still in frontline service, by the way. One RF-4 got shot down during a cold war in 2012.
KL0083 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 The A-4 license agreement is too expensive. The F-4 is too classified. True,too classified,as of the F-15C and Cy-27 which already featured the fromer LOMAC series. WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Ells228 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 It' all about what you can deliver in DCS guys. VEAO mantra from day one is that if we can't model it to military specification level then walk away. We will not make a "guess" product. Sure some things are redacted like on the Typhoon and we will develop what we can within the restrictions placed upon us. Maybe other developers have had similar deals done on their future aircraft, we have no idea, ok some, but we can't discuss it ;) LOMAC is not fully clickable integrated systems modelling and they're still not in DCS. If we model an aircraft to schematic level of details for electrical, fuel, hydraulics, etc etc. then we are more in breach of IPR infringement. If we just model an "artistic representation" of the exterior model and cockpit then we can "get away with it" but as I said we at VEAO are not in the business of making modules for DCS unless they're right and accurate, with redactions.
ChoSeungWan Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Could you get the info from Iran, call it the 'Fantum' and claim system modeling and flight model similarities were a fluke? I know this is legally done with emulations of vintage audio brands in software don't know how it translates with military stuff.
outlawal2 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Could you get the info from Iran, call it the 'Fantum' and claim system modeling and flight model similarities were a fluke? I know this is legally done with emulations of vintage audio brands in software don't know how it translates with military stuff. A 3rd party developer MAY get away with that kind of approach, but remember that they want to provide airframes and such for a LONG TIME moving forward.. Ticking off the folks that hold the rights for different airframes is exactly what you DO NOT want to do. Besides, it really isn't an ethical way to run a business.. Legal? Maybe.. But however you look at it, folks within the business that you would want to work with in the future would look at that kind of dealing as shady and it would make further projects much more difficult to get their buy-in.. Taking the "Easy" route seldom makes sense in the long term... "Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence." RAMBO
Pman Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Could you get the info from Iran, call it the 'Fantum' and claim system modeling and flight model similarities were a fluke? I know this is legally done with emulations of vintage audio brands in software don't know how it translates with military stuff. 100% something we are not interested in doing Pman
Tomhatter Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 The F/A-18C and A-10C are still front line fighter/attack airplanes as well.
Recommended Posts