Devil 505 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I know this topic has already been brought up time and time again, however this is more a question to all third party developers and ED who have run into problems with developing the Phantom. I have read on any forums its a license issue and complexity issue with the aircraft and this is why it is not in production. I would like to know details about exactly why? I did some work spraying thermal protection on the F-35 for Boeing when they were competing with Lockheed for the project. I might still know some people with Boeing that could be of assistance in getting a license to produce the aircraft. There are also several airworthy Phantoms as well as static ones where I here in the states. I would be more than willing to help assist any third party developer in gathering the information, taking photos and talking to Boeing if there is a serious developer out there that wants to take on the project. This was my favorite aircraft growing up and a fighter I long to see in DCS. I think DCS goes beyond being just a simulator. It is my job and that of other to maintain the old aircraft for airshows and try to keep them in the air, and on static display, but ED carries the same weight of keeping these old aircraft alive in the eyes of younger generations. I do not see DCS as just a sim, but also a virtual museum of sorts. Let me know what you guys think, and if any third party devs need help with any other aircraft, I would be glad to lend a hand in any way. Kind Regards Robert
Revan Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 So, why does any developer even need a license from Boeing to build a phantom? Did they not stop producing the Phantom like 40 years ago? and retire it like 20 years ago? And I also agree that ED needs to make an F-4 as it is one of my top 3 favorite planes (next to the F-14 and the SR-71). DCS: F-4E really needs to be a thing!!!!!! Aircraft: A-10C, Ka-50, UH-1H, MiG-21, F-15C, Su-27, MiG-29, A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, TF-51
outlawal2 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Because they still own the rights to the name, namesake, likeness etc. for the plane and they can decide what can and cannot be done using it.. Everyone seems to have issue with this, but I can guarantee you that if you personally came up with an airplane (Or anything else for that matter) and spent years of time and stacks of cash, you would defend that copyright as well.. Also, copyright law being how it is, you are REQUIRED to defend your copyright becasue if you don't, after a certain amount of uncontested time goes by you FORFEIT those rights.. That is why you see so many large companies squashing any kind of infringements at all.. And while I love these modules as well as the next guy I can guarantee you that if I had a product such as the Phantom, I would not stand idly by and let a software company make money on my hard work, money etc. At least not without some kind of royalty put in place.. Now how much that would be I don't know, but no one should expect to ride someone else's train for free... Edited November 5, 2014 by outlawal2 "Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence." RAMBO
Devil 505 Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Outlawal2, I agree 100%, but is this the reason they are not pursuing the F-4? Is it because of royalties on the name of the aircraft or are there other underlying issues? I would think a company would like to preserve the name and image of their aircraft by allowing ED to represent it in the most professional way possible to the community. ED and its third party DEVS have hands down , beat the competition in the flight sim community. No other sim comes close to representing the aircraft like ED does. I know the roots grow deeper than what is visible on the surface when it comes to developing a Phantom module, however I am not one that believes in impossible problems, just problems that have not found a solution. ED and the third parties have the support of the community, and I personally would love to make an attempt to speak to Boeing about developing a module with their strict consent and blessing on the F-4. However, me talking to Boeing and gathering information does not get us any closer if there is not a developer willing to make the attempt to create the module. I think we all want the same thing, but communication and having a persuading tounge and contacts gets us further down the road. Regards Robert
outlawal2 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Copyright deals must be made with the parent company so I can guarantee that this is a factor... Devs have also commented that due to the multiple cockpits that ED has not yet provided code for, is also an issue.. Personally, I think the multi cockpit issue will be resolved as many modules are planned that require it, the copyright issue will probably be wht sticking point... As for a company wanting or not wanting to allow a module to be created, keep in mind that these companies are in the business of building planes and have ZERO interest in what you or I want on our computers... They are not in the business of entertainment software and many are notorious for completely blowing off any and all offers.. As for you talking to Boeing (or anyone else) If I was as serious as you are about this possibility I would ping up one of the devs directly and talk to them about the issues they perceive and whether they think you could be of assistance.. I believe it was VEAO that had the Phantom on their list a while back and then removed it.. (I believe it was them) Ping up ELLS or PMAN... "Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence." RAMBO
ED Team NineLine Posted November 5, 2014 ED Team Posted November 5, 2014 As someone announced they had troubles developing this aircraft? As anyone announced their intent to try and develop it? Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
outlawal2 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 As stated I thought it was on Veao's future roadmap and then removed but I may be wrong... "Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence." RAMBO
ED Team NineLine Posted November 5, 2014 ED Team Posted November 5, 2014 Ah, ok... dont remember seeing it, but that doesnt mean anything... its a long list. If it was on there, it could have been removed for any number of reasons, licensing is only one possibility. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Agg Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 As stated I thought it was on Veao's future roadmap and then removed but I may be wrong... Was'nt that the A-4, or maybe they had the same problem with the F-4 seeing as Boeing probably owns the rights to both aircraft.
Flagrum Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Afaik nobody had the F-4 actually seriously considered so far but iirc it was in fact VEAO who said this was because of the issues mentioned here (mainly regarding complexity, afaik).
outlawal2 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Afaik nobody had the F-4 actually seriously considered so far but iirc it was in fact VEAO who said this was because of the issues mentioned here (mainly regarding complexity, afaik). Ahh that may be the case.. I thought Veao was talking about it, but maybe they hadn't identified it outright and I made a mistake.. Sorry.. "Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence." RAMBO
Pman Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Hey Guys The F-4 was on my prelim list some time ago but it never appeared on our roadmap. There are two reasons we can never do it, one is there are still arms restrictions on F-4 aircraft and training aides (Yes DCS comes under a training aide) And second when I attempted to talk to someone about it for licensing purposes I was told that I could do it no problem if the military signed off on it. I got a very polite thanks but no thanks so that was the end of it. That doesnt mean that ED or someone else might not do it, but thats the end of the subject for us. Pman
outlawal2 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Hey Guys The F-4 was on my prelim list some time ago but it never appeared on our roadmap. There are two reasons we can never do it, one is there are still arms restrictions on F-4 aircraft and training aides (Yes DCS comes under a training aide) And second when I attempted to talk to someone about it for licensing purposes I was told that I could do it no problem if the military signed off on it. I got a very polite thanks but no thanks so that was the end of it. That doesnt mean that ED or someone else might not do it, but thats the end of the subject for us. Pman Thanks for the clarification PMAN... (I didn't lose my mind after all!) :megalol: "Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence." RAMBO
Revan Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 I would think that ED should be able to make it, because they made an A-10C, and that is more classified and restricted than an old F-4 (at least, I would think so). DCS: F-4E really needs to be a thing!!!!!! Aircraft: A-10C, Ka-50, UH-1H, MiG-21, F-15C, Su-27, MiG-29, A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, TF-51
Buzzles Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 I would think that ED should be able to make it, because they made an A-10C, and that is more classified and restricted than an old F-4 (at least, I would think so). Don't forget the A-10C was made for the US military first and then later on we got a sanitised public version. Military contracts open a lot of doors, and without it you're fairly stuffed if the aircraft is still under lock and key. Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here!
Revan Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Don't forget the A-10C was made for the US military first and then later on we got a sanitised public version. Military contracts open a lot of doors, and without it you're fairly stuffed if the aircraft is still under lock and key. But doesn't ED still have those contracts? DCS: F-4E really needs to be a thing!!!!!! Aircraft: A-10C, Ka-50, UH-1H, MiG-21, F-15C, Su-27, MiG-29, A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, TF-51
ED Team NineLine Posted November 6, 2014 ED Team Posted November 6, 2014 But doesn't ED still have those contracts? ED doesnt discuss their military or other contracts. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Revan Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Ok, I accept that. I sort of expected that response. I figured that companies could not discuss their contracts. DCS: F-4E really needs to be a thing!!!!!! Aircraft: A-10C, Ka-50, UH-1H, MiG-21, F-15C, Su-27, MiG-29, A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, TF-51
Priller Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) Anything that Boeing owns will be extremely hard to get a license for. A-4, F-4, etc They want a company to give them royalties on sales plus that company must carry 1M dollars in insurance and the list goes on. Even for old aircraft like the A-4 it is next to impossible to get Boeing to give you permission to even make a model of it. They put a value on their IP and that is what sets the rate, which can be extremely high. EDIT: I also wanted to add that Boeing owns alot of IP(Intellectual Property) because they bought alot of companies over the years that designed those planes. Edited November 12, 2014 by Priller [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Beagle One Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) I don't see the problem. Boing now also holds the royalty rights for the F-15 Eagle and that is already a DCS module. same goes for Boing AH-64 Apache. I remeber Boing sueing Electronics Arts for using the AH-64 Apache in Battlefield(x) and a judge came to the conclusion that the designations that the US armed forced give their weapon systems are public domain. AH-64 = Public domain Boeing AH-64 Apache = Royalty to Boeing. Edited November 12, 2014 by Beagle One
Priller Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I don't see the problem. Boing now also holds the royalty rights for the F-15 Eagle and that is already a DCS module. same goes for Boing AH-64 Apache. I remeber Boing sueing Electronics Arts for using the AH-64 Apache in Battlefield(x) and a judge came to the conclusion that the designations that the US armed forced give their weapon systems are public domain. AH-64 = Public domain Boeing AH-64 Apache = Royalty to Boeing. I agree that it is very odd and yes there are Boeing planes(IP) already in DCS but they probably worked out a deal and have the ability to do so. Some of the 3rd party devs may not have this ability and that is what leads to the issue. Either way its easier to not make a plane as Boeing has plenty of money to fight in court compared to just about any other company. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Art-J Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 If I recall correctly a post somewhere here some time ago, from copyright point of view making a simplified virtual plane (or "artistic impression" if You wish) is one thing, but making one with detailed modeling of systems is something completely different. So the F-15 or AH-64 examples do not apply here. i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.
Pman Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 If I recall correctly a post somewhere here some time ago, from copyright point of view making a simplified virtual plane (or "artistic impression" if You wish) is one thing, but making one with detailed modeling of systems is something completely different. So the F-15 or AH-64 examples do not apply here. This is pretty much correct Although names like Ah64d are open to be used and that would be fine for an fc3 level aircraft it is NOT enough for an asm level aircraft. People need to understand that it's the systems you need permission for as much as the aircraft name/shape. Pman
Mode1961 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Folks have to remember that copyright is actually probably just a small part of it as well. ITARS is one of the biggest ( I would argue THE biggest) roadblock to doing in depth systems. I have seen several people post flight manuals on these very forums which in fact are a violation of ITARS laws. It has actual been quite surprising to me that ED has allowed this.
steve65 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 This is pretty much correct Although names like Ah64d are open to be used and that would be fine for an fc3 level aircraft it is NOT enough for an asm level aircraft. People need to understand that it's the systems you need permission for as much as the aircraft name/shape. Pman I would take a FC3 level F-4 granted it wouldn't be as good as an asm but it would be better than no F-4. :thumbup:
Recommended Posts