That's why the US knew all about USSR air defense technology

[probad]

ground floor

[NeilWillis]

Absolute and utter tosh. There is not a single legal hurdle for anyone to make an aircraft computer game.

 

Get a law degree or keep schtumm.

 

Just goes to show how ignorant some people can be!

 

I know of at least 2 projects that have been cancelled purely for legal reasons - in other words, they couldn't negotiate a satisfactory license agreement with the intellectual property rights holders.

 

The bottom line is that ANYONE can have their asses sued by companies that can prove they own intellectual property - ask all those suckers that thought sharing music online was easy. Any one remember the withdrawl of Tamiya Hummer plastic kits after the threat of law suits?

 

Live in cloud cuckoo land if you wish, but sorry mate, there is a real world out here that the rest of us live in. Dream on!

[Vincent90]

I just LOVE how these arguments aren't based on any real understanding of intellectual property, and you have zero first hand experience with

a) the russian court system

b) russian business culture

c) IP lawsuits

d) basic knowledge of what constitutes IP and why it is protected

 

I'm done with this forum and basement experts.

[Seaeagle]

 

You're right that I never read that statement from ED explicitly but I've seen quite lot of people posted about the restriction from Russian authority.

 

Yes and thats what I was referring to :)

 

I honestly believe ED could make DCS Su-27 without using compromised data.

 

Yes so do I.

 

Just do what RB did with M2K would be enough. Some of its system is just a guessing.

But that's not my point actually. My point is why so restricted with something that you knew it was already compromised which is nonsense according to Seaegle

 

There is a lot of publically available documentation on both the Su-27 and MiG-29 - enough to model both these aircraft to a very high degree of accuracy/fidelity. Of course there may be individual items for which the documentation falls short and thus requiring these to be somewhat "constructed" or omitted althogether, but then thats always going to be the case - the notion that you can obtain 100% documentation for anything military is an illusion.

 

So its a matter of whether you can collect enough to match your desired dept of simulation or whether you feel you have to "guesstimate" or omit too much to bother :) .

 

P.S. I like your avatar ;)

[Seaeagle]

You're knocking down a straw man.

 

E.D. have never said it would be illegal, the question is whether given the current climate, it is a sensible move to attempt to use all the available information (and make informed guesses) to create as realistic an outcome as you would want in a full fidelity DCS.Su-27SM module.

 

I think you need to read my post again. Firstly, I specifically said "baseline" Su-27 and MiG-29(for which there is a lot of open source documentation) and equally specifically said that it would be another story for upgraded versions(Su-27SM and MiG-29SMT) for which various aspects are classified.

 

Secondly, i don't believe for one second that stepping back from the initial intend(announcement) to do an Su-27SM module had anything to do with fear of the Russian authorities, but rather that sufficient documentation for the new systems of the upgrade simply isn't available for the purpose of a DCS level simulation.

 

Say for instance they get lucky and create a SIM of the Su-27SM that an active service pilot would recognise as 95% accurate to current operation.

 

No one is that lucky Weta - you would have a better chance of winning the lottery twice over :D

 

That might then put the company in a position of having to reassure - perhaps even try to prove in court to - the authorities that they came to that point only through legitimate open sources and guestimation, and were not handed information by well meaning people that shouldn't have...

 

See thats the kind of posting that I was reacting to in my initial response to Oceanadar - imaginary Tom Clancy style theories(involving dark men in trenchcoats appearing in the middle of the night) that people come up with to explain why one aircraft or another hasn't materialised(yet) in DCS world - perhaps because the most realistic and straight forward ones are just too boring. :)

 

The West (with perhaps the exception of Bell / Texron) have traditionally been fairly laissez faire about depictions of their technology in games (there were Airfix kits of the F-117 on the shelves before Congress knew they were funding it).

I don't think Russia has the same traditions.

 

The same goes for all the IP/legal mumbo jumbo. I don't think "Russia has the same traditions" either - i.e. employing independant law firms to aggressively chase down possible trade mark infringements. Anyway, ED has simulated the Su-27 in games since Flanker 1 with ever increased fidelity, so why would a DCS level simulation of the same aircraft suddenly become a problem in this regard?

 

I thought the phrase officially licensed product was a big clue.

 

You can't think of any other reason why a game developer would want to label a flight simulator with: "officially licensed product"? :)

[Kev2go]

ED have said a few times that they cannot and will not make a DCS module for any plane that they are not able to get enough information on and of course they need approval to do so as well. The Su-27 is one of those aircraft... that was the case so far anyway, never know if ED will maybe sometime in future get hold of such information and be allowed to create it :)

 

from what i recall it wasnt the basline Su27 or Mig29 module that they couldnt make it was the more modern SM variants they they decided not to do. whilst we dont have a a full fidelity versions WE already have Baseline Su27 and Mig29 ( including MIg29S) in FC3, which still would have taken technical knowledge and or documentation to create.

[Weta43]

Edit:

Just deleted a whole lot of O.T. text that Kuky had made redundant with his very concise summary:

ED have said a few times that they cannot and will not make a DCS module for any plane that they are not able to get enough information on and of course they need approval to do so as well. The Su-27 is one of those aircraft...

 

 

You can't think of any other reason why a game developer would want to label a flight simulator with: "officially licensed product"? :)

I can, but I don't believe them to be the reasons the label is there on that module in this case.

 

Anyway, this is well O.T. so no more from me on that subject.

 

The original piece had (if you didn't already know the story) an interesting snippet about the US having a spy in the Russian defense industry, but the conclusions were right up there with the Guardian's headlines for the today ("US intelligence report: Vladimir Putin 'ordered' operation to get Trump elected", and my personal favourite: "Russian treachery is extreme and it is everywhere").

Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43

[X_Man]

The one thing that ticks me off is when people cannot tell the difference from real news and fake news.

 

The truth is American military aviation has always been reactionary. When USSR came out with the MiG-25, it scared the USSAF and thus the F-15 was born. Just to find out The MiG-25 was capable to reach Mach 3.2 but if it was stripped and it's missile were designed to take out fast but not maneuverable bombers like B-52s and B-58s. The F-14 was designed to take combat both USSR bombers and possible fighter escort as the 1st line of defense.

 

Anyone who thinks the US needed a Soviet traitor to help masterminds like Kelly Johnson, Pierre Sprey, John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie pave the way of US military aviation and fighter aircraft theory is gravely mistaken.

 

The fact is both the US and USSR were using captured Luftwaffe wonder weapon drawings (...see the resemblance b/w the early Soviet (more so) and US fighters to the Ta-183. Look at the B-48 and Ho-229 and tell me the resemblance is coincidence.

 

More recent, the US moved on to stealth were the Soviets went with maneuverability and that is were we are today (that we know of anyway).

 

With relation to ED, I am sure they are trying to make these aircraft as close to the information they has access to. It's not a conspiracy theory for ED to keep Russian aircraft from their full potential.

Edited January 8, 2017 by X_Man

[garrya]

. When USSR came out with the MiG-25, it scared the USSAF and thus the F-15 was born

They flew at quite similar time though

Mig-25 was entered service in 1970

F-15 first flew in 1972

Anyone who thinks the US needed a Soviet traitor to help masterminds like Kelly Johnson, Pierre Sprey, John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie pave the way of US military aviation and fighter aircraft theory is gravely mistaken.

Pierre Sprey didn't design anything AFAIK

While working on the F-X, Boyd met Pierre Sprey, a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff, whose background was similar to [Alain] Enthoven’s but much less distinguished. By his own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of.

Source: Pierre Sprey, Oral History Interview by Jacob Neufeld, 12 June 1971, K.239.0152-969, AFHRA, 9, passim. , as cited in THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM, Marshall L. Michel III, 2006

[DarkFire]

This is allegedly a photo of the Su-35 / Su-30MKi cockpit trainer. Notice what software is running on that giant display...

 

[Oceandar]

Is that DCS ? So its true then.....? That is so cool

[DarkFire]

Is that DCS ? So its true then.....? That is so cool

 

It definitely looks like DCS. I'm guessing a customised version to simulate the Su-35 / -30MKi, possibly with custom theater. Maybe the monitor on the right hand side of the photo is showing some sort of F10 view.

[*Rage*]

Do you think it's licensed and/or adapted for the cockpit trainer or are they using a free download version?

[Seaeagle]

This is allegedly a photo of the Su-35 / Su-30MKi cockpit trainer. Notice what software is running on that giant display...

 

How are we supposed to notice that Darkfire? :) . All we can see on the photo are graphics that resemble those of DCS World - not what software is running them.

 

I am not saying that ED couldn't be involved in it, but there have been several cases in the past, where people jumped to the conclusion that ED was behind something due to the appearance of the graphics - only for it to be refuted later by ED.

[Bushmanni]

Doesn't look like DCS to me, apart from the Russian scenery. While DCS is pretty much the only consumer sim with Russian scenery it doesn't mean it's DCS.

[DarkFire]

Might be DCS, might not be, might be a derivative of DCS developed specifically for that cockpit simulator. To me though the grass texture, runway / taxiway texture and the anisotropy of the lines in the pavement squares remind me strongly of a vanilla DCS 1.2.26 installation.

 

If I had to put money on it I'd guess that it's a specific derivative of the old DCS 1.2.26 developed specifically for that cockpit simulator.

 

Probably not the free download version :)