Why don't you guys just release DCS: Flaming Cliffs?

[element1108]

Lockon/F.C has never been cheaper and you can buy it anywhere online if you can't find it in stores. Frankly PC games in stores are becoming a rare find, let alone anything that's over a year old as console games slowly take over.

 

F.C 2.0 what I gather from Matt's launch post is the FINAL update to the product, a product that many have been playing since day one and have been waiting a LONG time for the next patch (Check out thread patch 1.13).

 

This is the end of the line for the LOMAC series and it's then moving forward with the DCS series. I'm sure in the development process DCS team learned some new things they can later apply to other DCS modules with regards to compatibility etc with F.C 2 and Black Shark among other things.

 

ED is taking all the risk here, they've researched all the possbilities I would assume (money at risk if not) so they know more than anyone here why they do the stuff they do and what's beneficial to them in terms of where they can go/go with the LOMAC series.

 

I was VERY surprised to hear about F.C 2 simply because I always thought Black Shark would have to wait until A-10 possiblity before I could get fixed wing human players into the mix. To me, F.C 2 not only improves my F.C experience, but REALLY improves my Black Shark experience knowing I can call in support from strike/fighters controlled by humans.

 

That alone for me is worth the $30 price tag....but that's just me.

[Booger]

I was VERY surprised to hear about F.C 2 simply because I always thought Black Shark would have to wait until A-10 possiblity before I could get fixed wing human players into the mix. To me, F.C 2 not only improves my F.C experience, but REALLY improves my Black Shark experience knowing I can call in support from strike/fighters controlled by humans.

 

That alone for me is worth the $30 price tag....but that's just me.

 

Indeed!

 

I know there are some who favor FC (there are a few topics about it) and then there are those like myself who are completely happy flying Black Shark. Mixing the two together will be incredibly fun, not to mention the cross-over comms between each, as you suggest.

 

Then again, if it's all attack pilots, there would be a bit of encroachment, but if there is a fighter element active while we're in the mud, that would rule.

[hitman]

Well, it'll (still) be kind of an addon if (or more positively: when) it's compatible with the new FC2 -- crazy vicious circle ;)

 

its still technically an upgrade of fc. if it wasn't it wouldn't be named 2.0, but something else. if it does indeed become reality and bs & fc become compatible, kudos to ed. i still dont see it really happening, ill believe it when i see it...doesnt mean i wont buy it regardless.

[sobek]

its still technically an upgrade of fc. if it wasn't it wouldn't be named 2.0, but something else. if it does indeed become reality and bs & fc become compatible, kudos to ed. i still dont see it really happening, ill believe it when i see it...doesnt mean i wont buy it regardless.

 

fc 2.0 already runs on the dcs engine, why wouldn't they be compatible?

[hitman]

fc 2.0 already runs on the dcs engine, why wouldn't they be compatible?

 

legal issues? that is what this thread is about...i KNOW they all run on tfcse engine...

[sobek]

legal issues? that is what this thread is about...i KNOW they all run on tfcse engine...

 

Well ED would be quite shortsighted to publish a feature that hangs by a 'legal thread'.

 

So far ED have been everything but shortsighted. You don't think they took Ubi into the picture?

[hitman]

Well ED would be quite shortsighted to publish a feature that hangs by a 'legal thread'.

 

So far ED have been everything but shortsighted. You don't think they took Ubi into the picture?

 

not at all. but just remember that bs was originally an upgrade for fc. you make them compatible you have a small conflict of interest. ubi will want a piece of the pie from bs should it become an addon. hence the concern.

[EtherealN]

Hitman,

I have not heard of any legal issue with making FC2 online-compatible with DCS:BS.

 

If, as you say, the technical problem is minor once the porting is done, don't you think ED and TFC would have straightened out any possible legal issues before announcing it? Or at least before going into testing of Release Candidate versions. As you know, RC's are feature-complete versions undergoing a final testing crunch to make sure there's no bug cropping up.

 

So:

Feature complete version.

Feature still advertised.

 

Likely that the feature exists, then, no?

Especially since DCS:BS is, from what I understand, slated to get the new sound engine developed for FC2 through the FC2 compatibility patch for DCS:BS.

 

Why is ED making that patch if they're not really making them compatible? Stop being contrary for a moment and think.

[EtherealN]

ubi will want a piece of the pie from bs should it become an addon. hence the concern.

 

DCS is not now and will not through this become an "addon".

 

Multiplayer-compatible != addon/expansion/integration

[hitman]

DCS is not now and will not through this become an "addon".

 

Multiplayer-compatible != addon/expansion/integration

 

i am thinking and i also know its an upgraded version of an ubisoft product. i understand they plan this out accordingly. what i am saying (and what everyone is ignoring) is that we have had this happen before! and like i stated is that ill believe it when i see it. it wont prevent me from buying it regardless. compatibility or not, the name and series, flaming cliffs is intellectually owned by ubisoft. is it not?

[EtherealN]

No, you don't know it's an "upgraded version of an ubisoft product". It's an upgraded version of an Eagle Dynamics product that uses TFC Simulation Engine.

 

Ubisoft owns publication and distribution rights in the west. In Russia and the CIS countries said rights are owned by 1C Company. For DCS the publisher is TFC. The technology is Eagle Dynamics and The Fighter Collection property. The exact details of the old agreement are most likely a trade secret that ED cannot give details on even if it wants to, since that might be breaching a clause for the other party (Ubisoft). This is business stuff, not technology stuff. As far as I know, it's all solved a long time ago through an arrangement that leaves both parties happy.

 

International business is very strange, since the same trademark, for the same product, can be owned by different entities in different countries.

 

What "happened before" with Black Shark being switched from being an expansion to a standalone product was that TFC/ED realized just what they were capable of doing if they just set their minds to it - that is, the most detailed study simulation ever created, and a fantastic tool towards expanding in the military market (since that's the kind of detail that gets training schools smiling). So, since there were some obstacles towards doing that in an integrated product - especially financially - it had to be done as a stand-alone and so much the better for a nice start on a new, wholly-owned, franchise.

 

What happened then was not a case of Ubisoft saying "no, we don't like no helicopters, begone!"

 

What has happened now is that ED had the opportunity to make a new version of FC that uses the same, new-generation, TFCSE as was made for DCS:BS.

[hitman]

i never said ubi didnt want bs, or in fact had anything to do with bs. what i am getting at is ubi owns lomac and authorised 2 addons to lomac. fc is one, and ubi owns those rights. fc 2.0 is a continuation of lomac, which is still owned by ubisoft. the technology belongs to ed and tfc, i know and have known this, lomac and all addons are owned by ubisoft. i know ubisoft doesn't own tfcse.

 

to put an end to this thread, the very thing vvanks is asking here is this: why is ed still trying to update lomac if they dont own the rights to, and instead just release fc 2.0 as a stand alone product, and do away with any obligations to ubisoft?

[Nate--IRL--]

i never said ubi didnt want bs, or in fact had anything to do with bs. what i am getting at is ubi owns lomac and authorised 2 addons to lomac. fc is one, and ubi owns those rights. fc 2.0 is a continuation of lomac, which is still owned by ubisoft. the technology belongs to ed and tfc, i know and have known this, lomac and all addons are owned by ubisoft. i know ubisoft doesn't own tfcse.

 

to put an end to this thread, the very thing vvanks is asking here is this: why is ed still trying to update lomac if they dont own the rights to, and instead just release fc 2.0 as a stand alone product, and do away with any obligations to ubisoft?

 

UBI own LOMAC (Rights not Code), TFC/ED owns Flaming Cliffs 1&2 (Rights and Code). UBI/1C would probably have a legal claim on FC2 as a standalone product due to the similarity with LOMAC. However they have no claim on an addon to LOMAC (agreed in the original contract). Thats why it is an addon and not standalone.

 

If it were possible to do a standalone product I'm sure TFC/ED would jump at the chance.

 

Nate

[EtherealN]

Because releasing it as "DCS:Fighter Edition" would dilute the DCS brand.

And possibly because of a whole bunch of other reasons that they may not even be legally permitted to discuss. I don't know the details of their deals.

 

And if memory serves they may be able to make a standalone release - in Russia. Because there they don't deal with Ubi and Ubi therefore has nothing at all to do with any of the expansions. That's an old memory though. FC is not an owned by Ubisoft - it's an "unofficial addon". Microsoft does not "own" the addons made by third parties for FSX.

 

VVanks major gripes about it all has been already met as well, since his gripe was that it is impossible to purchase Lockon. A big list of links, including lockon.co.uk, falsified that.

[hitman]

Because releasing it as "DCS:Fighter Edition" would dilute the DCS brand.

And possibly because of a whole bunch of other reasons that they may not even be legally permitted to discuss. I don't know the details of their deals.

 

And if memory serves they may be able to make a standalone release - in Russia. Because there they don't deal with Ubi and Ubi therefore has nothing at all to do with any of the expansions. That's an old memory though. FC is not an owned by Ubisoft - it's an "unofficial addon". Microsoft does not "own" the addons made by third parties for FSX.

 

.

 

i just thought of that, but still they should do away with the need for lomac. what vvanks is looking for is not the original cd, but simplicity. he is looking for everything in one neat tidy package, and thats what it all boils down to. why need lomac if everything except the legacy models is new? hell...some of these items are from flanker 2.0!

[EtherealN]

As I said - the reason is probably in a legal document somewhere. ;)