Jump to content

ED F-4 Phantom

Devil 505

By Devil 505
in Chit-Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pman

Pman

Posted
Posted
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.

First rule of itars is that we don't dicuss itars ;)

 

Pman

ViFF

ViFF

Posted
Posted (edited)

whats worth IP rights when the company that's selling the product is in a country that doesn't recognize silly nomenclature IP rights?

 

If you can't be sued then its not an issue anymore.

 

There you go. solved.

 

no? ;):smartass::thumbup:

Edited by ViFF

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

outlawal2

outlawal2

Posted
Posted
whats worth IP rights when the company that's selling the product is in a country that doesn't recognize silly nomenclature IP rights?

 

If you can't be sued then its not an issue anymore.

 

There you go. solved.

 

no? ;):smartass::thumbup:

 

I hope that was a joke..

 

Right or wrong is not determined by whether or not you can be prosecuted... It is either right or wrong.. PERIOD...

 

I for one would not want to do business with a company that tried to circumvent copyright laws for their own profit and the parent company be-damned.. There are too many unscrupulous companies out there now..

 

I prefer above board top-notch companies like VEAO where guys like ELLS and PMAN hold very high standards and won't venture into a project without all of the contracts and hand shakes in place..

 

I can guarantee you that if I was aware of such shenanigans by a 3rd party dev I would not buy anything they produced no matter the quality of the module..

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

ViFF

ViFF

Posted
Posted (edited)
I hope that was a joke..

 

Right or wrong is not determined by whether or not you can be prosecuted... It is either right or wrong.. PERIOD...

 

and who pray tell me is the ultimate world authority on silly nomenclature IP rights? The greedy lawyers at Grumman & Boeing?

 

Just because they can write a threatening letter doesn't mean they are right. You ave an example up top where a US judge threw a case out of court.

 

It will be interesting to see if LN will do the F-14.

 

I still remember very well the Pacific Fighters fiasco with the letter from Grumman and ubisoft dumping the problem onto Oleg & 1C.

Edited by ViFF

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

Flagrum

Flagrum

Posted
Posted
and who pray tell me is the ultimate world authority on silly nomenclature IP rights?

As far as I understood you, it seems to be ViFF, right? You decide what is silly and what is not?

 

While I personally agree that some aspects of the concept of IP and related topics are indeed silly, I'd still prefer to play by the rules - my personal experience, generally spoken, is that you fare way better that way in the mid and long term. And if it is just that you, as 3rd party dev, perhaps plan to do futher business with said IP holders, i.e. in different markets/countries.

ViFF

ViFF

Posted
Posted

no. offcourse I am not the authority. but this is a forum and I am saying my opinion, and I don't think it is against the forum rules.

 

I'm just saying that there are already several very good "artistic impressions" modules for DCS being sold commercially and I don't think there was any licensing issue with those.

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

Pman

Pman

Posted
Posted
no. offcourse I am not the authority. but this is a forum and I am saying my opinion, and I don't think it is against the forum rules.

 

I'm just saying that there are already several very good "artistic impressions" modules for DCS being sold commercially and I don't think there was any licensing issue with those.

I'd love you to point me in the direction of an official third party where you have proof there is no licence or waiver in place....

 

Pman

  • ED Team
NineLine

NineLine

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
Honestly I can't find any Russian or Ukrainian law that requires it.

 

Its not always about laws, sometimes its about business ethics, especially if down the road you want to field a military contract for something related to that company... VEAO or another 3rd Party showing they will play by a companies rules show that they would be good business partners down the road for something else...

64Sig.png
Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

ViFF

ViFF

Posted
Posted (edited)

Definitely agree with that.

 

But what I don't understand is why F/A-18C yes, but F-4E nyet.... they are both ex McDonnal Douglas airplanes, now belong to Boeing...

 

Anyways. Rant mode off.

Edited by ViFF

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

bongodriver

bongodriver

Posted
Posted

No point screaming at developers to build modules, no matter how illogical an apparent exclusion is, they will build what they can when they can when they want to, DCS is a sandbox, build your own, gather your own data, do your own research, put your own time in and get what you want.

NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted (edited)
No point screaming at developers to build modules, no matter how illogical an apparent exclusion is, they will build what they can when they can when they want to, DCS is a sandbox, build your own, gather your own data, do your own research, put your own time in and get what you want.

 

^ exactly: we dont need "factory approvals"

Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted (edited)
If you want to release and share your module with the world you will.

 

this is how things gone in the past - in the golden age of flight sims - when there were many fine sims: f-15e, f-16, f-117, f-22, apache, comanche etc.

 

if ED needs approvals then DCSW will always go in the past: no modern aircrafts, even no 3d models of modern aircrafts (? - like in ARMA3 ?)

no half century old aircrafts such as phantom, thunderchief, skyhawk, blackbird ? ? ? - becasue of approvals ? ? ? - this is very sad

Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

  • ED Team
NineLine

NineLine

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
this is how things gone in the past - in the golden age of flight sims - when there were many fine sims: f-15e, f-16, f-117, f-22, apache, comanche etc.

 

if ED needs approvals then DCSW will always go in the past: no modern aircrafts, even no 3d models of modern aircrafts (? - like in ARMA3 ?)

no half century old aicrafts such as phantom, thunderchief, skyhawk, blackbird ? ? ? this is very sad

 

That's simply not true, for example the A-4 that VEAO had to drop because they couldnt come to terms with Boeing, that doesnt mean another team couldnt make it work, it just means VEAO didnt see it as viable (not a dig at VEAO what so ever by the way).

64Sig.png
Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

outlawal2

outlawal2

Posted
Posted

All these internet "experts"

You guys truly have no idea what you are talking about and all you care about is "You want (Fill in whatever module) and I want it now"...

 

The reality of the world is quite different, and luckily for those folks actually DOING something in this world, it is good that there are patent laws and copyright laws etc.. Just becasue you, in your infinite wisdom, thinks it is "Silly" does not make that statement the truth..

 

Threads like these really slams home just how selfish and ignorant a large portion of the world really is..

 

Pretty sad really..

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted
That's simply not true, for example the A-4 that VEAO had to drop because they couldnt come to terms with Boeing, that doesnt mean another team couldnt make it work, it just means VEAO didnt see it as viable (not a dig at VEAO what so ever by the way).

 

what i cant understand is why veao needs boeing ?

veao needs available (declassified) documents, a skyhawk pilot, maybe a skyhawk engineer and/or skyhawk ground crew

nobody wants a full-full authentic, classified military a-4 simulation, seems boeing least

sign-pic4.jpg

NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted
Pretty sad really..

 

very interesting outlaw-al

i thought you are a kind of "rebel" and not a corporate lawyer :)

 

interesting as well: in fsx there are many classified and experimental aircrafts (sr-71, x-15 too)

and i dont think those develpers needed "factory approvals"

 

i think we dont need more than what we can get in fsx (at first step fc3 level is ok for me)

same aircrafts (which are very-very nice in fsx) but in dcsw environment

http://milviz.com/fs/item.php?id=F4E

 

by the way: remember what happened with Kinney and his F-35 - very sad too :cry:

sign-pic4.jpg

 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...