The unfortunate cancellation of the VEAO A-4 and questions about licensing.

[Zilch]

Hi,

 

I had been looking forward to flying the A-4 within DCS. After reading through the VEAO thread about the project, it seems that McDonnel Douglas had wanted to charge a a large sum to allow VEAO to publish their product, which resulted in the developer suspending the A-4 indefinitely.

 

Bad news aside, how does this work?

 

Boeing has gobbled up a few aviation companies, including McDonnel Douglas and therefore Hughes, as well as North American as it was part of Rockwell.

 

How is it that the rights to use McDonnel Douglas' A-4 were cost prohibitive, while North American's P-51 and F-86, all currently owned by Boeing, apparently proceeded without such a problem?

 

The same question could be asked about the F-18 projects currently in the works. This is a legacy McDonnel Douglas plane that is very much in active service. How is it that ED and Coretex are developing their respective Hornet models without such a problem from the company that owns the design?

 

Is this because North American Aviation and McDonnel Douglas are separate entities within Boeing, and have different ways of dealing with projects like DCS? This wouldn't account for the F-18's status as an active project.

 

Is it because the P-51 and F-86 are no longer in military service, while the A-4 is? Again, the F-18 projects seem to indicate otherwise.

 

Or, was the license for the A-4 just too much for VEAO, and ED and Coretex can maybe foot a larger bill? I would think their budgets are similar, so this is unlikely.

 

Is the F-18 less true to life, and therefore more in the realm of "artistic interpretation?" I'm thinking this is unlikely, too, given the apparent accuracy of the P-51 and F-86 models in DCS.

 

Does anyone know how this stuff works?

 

I'd like to note that I don't want to re-ignite the debate that terminated the A-4 thread in the VEAO section of the forum...I'm just wondering how the different aircraft IP's from what is now the same company get treated differently for something like DCS.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Zilch

[NeilWillis]

You'll find this whole subject is outside the remit of this forum, and cannot be discussed.

 

VEAO tried, but they were unsuccessful in gaining permission to recreate the A-4, and that is as much as they will say on the matter.

 

Boeing obviously have their reasons, and those reasons are a confidential matter.

[Flagrum]

That is something only these companies could answer. It is entirely up to them which criteria they use to determine the prices they charge for what and for whom.

 

Maybe they don't care and just draw a standard contract out of the drawer - that might or might not really apply to the situation. Maybe they have their own plans or other contracts that prevent furhter discussions. Maybe they just don't like the other's guy nose.

[Zilch]

You'll find this whole subject is outside the remit of this forum, and cannot be discussed.

 

VEAO tried, but they were unsuccessful in gaining permission to recreate the A-4, and that is as much as they will say on the matter.

 

Boeing obviously have their reasons, and those reasons are a confidential matter.

 

I was afraid of that...If that's what it is, that's what it is. I'm used to it at this point.

 

Again, I'm not trying to stir up the pot. Just a curious kind of guy.

[NeilWillis]

Understandable under the circumstances. It does seem a little precious of Boeing not to allow at least some kind of release. You can understand their need to retain intellectual rights, but the A-4 is just a little past it's sell by date surely!

[Buzzles]

You'll find this whole subject is outside the remit of this forum, and cannot be discussed.

 

VEAO tried, but they were unsuccessful in gaining permission to recreate the A-4, and that is as much as they will say on the matter.

 

Boeing obviously have their reasons, and those reasons are a confidential matter.

 

 

Understandable under the circumstances. It does seem a little precious of Boeing not to allow at least some kind of release. You can understand their need to retain intellectual rights, but the A-4 is just a little past it's sell by date surely!

 

Bolded incorrect statements. Boeing/McDonnell Douglas were fine with it, they just wanted a lot of money for the licence, as unfortunately as such it was financially unviable for VEAO.

 

Pman's official post on it here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214751&postcount=223

 

Back to the OP, I don't think you'll ever get an answer to your question as to why certain licences have gone ahead and others haven't, as it's going to be confidential business information between both parties involved in the licence.

[xaoslaad]

My understanding is that anyone can make an A-4 Skyhawk sim or model. But if you wanted to call it a Douglas A-4 you'd need to license the Douglas name.

 

I guess because of the other work VEAO does they feel that that is important. Or maybe my understanding is wrong.

[Pman]

Hi Guys,

 

As has been posted above, all of the agreements that we have with aircraft manufactuerers are strictly confidential and even those we may not agree to proceed with will not be discussed in any detail.

 

As per my original post about the termination of the Skyhawk project, we were offered terms by McDonnell Douglas (Despite being part of Boeing now they have dedicated lawyers who look after some assets from historical periods, A-4 being one of them, this should without being specific answer some of your questions about F-18, P-51 etc etc ) however in the scheme of the project along with other costs associated with development of the A-4 the project simply was no longer economically viable for us to continue with it.

 

We could go ahead and make an A-4 without using any of their IP data for systems modelling, but that is against what VEAO stands for.

 

Military spec or go home, in this case sadly we had to go home.

 

Pman

[Pman]

My understanding is that anyone can make an A-4 Skyhawk sim or model. But if you wanted to call it a Douglas A-4 you'd need to license the Douglas name.

 

I guess because of the other work VEAO does they feel that that is important. Or maybe my understanding is wrong.

 

Incorrect,

 

You can make a model of a Skyhawk and its fine, that is an artistic impression

 

If you want to use the systems accurately in a sim of DCS level then you need IP rights as someone was paid to make the designs for the fuel system, electronics etc etc and therefore those designs are patented (as well they should be) and as such you need agreement to use them

 

If your not going to use the original designs and specs then you are just making stuff up as you go along or "simulating" the result as opposed to programming the systems accurately and working the data out "live"

 

Pman

Edited January 3, 2015 by Pman