What happen to Seven G ?

[Oceandar]

Their site is alive but the forum's gone and no news whatsoever...anyone know what' happen to them. It makes me worry.

[EtherealN]

http://www.seveng-f18.com/

 

The "http://www.seven-g.com/" site is, apparently, fraudulent.

(http://seveng.forum3.info/news-f3/wwwseven-gcom-is-fraud-site-t5.htm)

[Oceandar]

Oh . . .my. . .thank you sir.

[Bearitall]

Their site is alive but the forum's gone and no news whatsoever...anyone know what' happen to them. It makes me worry.

 

 

Died and gone to heaven, there was a war within the Gods over there...Zeus is very very mad...Seven-G is a dead issue don't expect it..:thumbup:

[skeemo]

Hm they are working on a new build, its not dead i assume.

[EtherealN]

Not dead, you just need to be sure to go to the correct website.

[Oceandar]

Well this is what happened when you don`t have a same vision about the project. One wants profit others don`t, its really unfortunate they could not manage some understanding between them.

 

I hope this project would continue, there`s no REAL F-18 combat sim since Jane`s`s F/A-18 and its look like ED won`t make this in the near future. So I`d say I put my hope on them ;)

[Bearitall]

Well this is what happened when you don`t have a same vision about the project. One wants profit others don`t, its really unfortunate they could not manage some understanding between them.

 

I hope this project would continue, there`s no REAL F-18 combat sim since Jane`s`s F/A-18 and its look like ED won`t make this in the near future. So I`d say I put my hope on them ;)

 

Even though there is no combat at this time have you tried VRS SuperBug F-18E you'd be surprised...I like it alot ...flew it for 6 hours on a Sunday once..still fly it alot ...:thumbup:

[Oceandar]

I`m well aware about this VRS F-18 and as long as an addon for FSX/FS2004 its not for me. I`m a combat guy and I need something to raise my adrenalin rather than flying around from base to base.

Something that I don`t understand : why they develop a combat jet for civilian sim. Its wasting time and resource.

 

I`m glad you enjoy it but its just not for me ;)

[Feuerfalke]

It was not a waste of time. It was showing what they were capable of doing, but without the necessity of producing a completely new flight-, physics-, navigational-, environmental- and graphics-engine.

 

Hopefully their knowledge will also be needed and used to build a true F/A-18 simulator.

 

At least I'd love to see a cooperation between them an ED to get a top-notch DCS: F/A-18. How realistic that idea is, may be a different question, though.

[EtherealN]

Something that I don`t understand : why they develop a combat jet for civilian sim. Its wasting time and resource.

 

Huge customer base that is easy to access without having to program a whole simulator for yourself. Civilian sims are a lot bigger than one might think (that's where most of the "non-gamer" sim folk end up, as well as off-season pilots that want to fly in spite of blizzards and so on).

[Oceandar]

They indeed have great talent no doubt about that. But this is F-18 sim we`re talking about. Can you shoot an AIM-120 ? yes you can but to who ? I see an impressive air to air radar employment but how about air to ground radar ? JDAM, LGB, carrier opt ?

 

..... Civilian sims are a lot bigger than one might think (that's where most of the "non-gamer" sim folk end up, as well as off-season pilots that want to fly in spite of blizzards and so on).

 

Well then they should consider to build a serious F-18 sim + combat

 

Quote from the very first paragraph of the manual :

 

At the time of this writing, it’s been about 15 months since our first release of the Superbug for FS2004.

The FS2004 version was a financial failure and a critical success. It received a PC Pilot Platinum award

(platinum is cooler than gold), an Avsim Gold Star (there’s only one star in a gold star), and a number of

other awards and favorable reviews. Considering it took about 5 years to develop, it would have needed

to sell about 8,000 copies before I would have considered it a success. At that level I would have grossed

about $60-$70,000 US dollars per year of work. I would have netted about $50,000 per year. Needless to

say, it didn’t sell 8,000 copies (or 4,000, or 3000). I could have worked at McDonald’s and made more

money. Being the financial wizard I am, and not willing to accept failure as an option even if it meant the

Salvation Army, I and my talented partner Alvaro pushed on towards FSX.

 

I salute for their endurance tho...and I hope this time they will success with FSX version

Edited May 5, 2010 by Oceandar
need to polish my English

[coder1024]

With all they've done with their FSX add-on, I bet they could take that and use it in a more combat oriented engine fairly easily. Sure, it wouldn't be a direct copy, they'd need to translate/convert things, but the lion's share of the work will have already been done.

 

It seems like they're pushing FSX far beyond what it was meant for, esp with their upcoming TacPack. Imagine their product in the context of a real combat flight sim engine.

[SUBS17]

Yeah it is like a fish out of water trying to make a combat addon for FSX on the plus side is the potential that a Global map has for air combat on the negative is that it simply won't sell as much as a full combat sim would like F4AF. I think if they did an addon for DCS it would most likely outsell every previous lockon or DCS as its a very popular aircraft. Hard core combat simmers are turnned off from FSX because of FSXs bugs and limitations I think ideally something like FighterOps would be more suited to such an addon but it may take a few years before FO ever reaches that level.

[000BIGMAC000]

VRS is creating a TacPack, where the fsx environment will be affected by weapons employment. You can already employ weapons with the VRS bug, but this addon pack will allow craters, smoke, downed airplanes etc.... should be sweet.

 

---oops didn't see this was already addressed! --- :) well, exciting possibilities anyway...

[amalahama]

At least I'd love to see a cooperation between them an ED to get a top-notch DCS: F/A-18. How realistic that idea is, may be a different question, though.

 

ED Third party clauses look quite abusive, with ED demanding a certain percentage of the third party commercial profit. FS is different - you can do whatever you want, and sell it if you want, and then all the profit is only for you. It's unfair because good third party addons could raise DCS sales a lot, which is good enough for ED, but anyway...

 

Regards!!

[EtherealN]

ED Third party clauses look quite abusive

 

Other companies with such policy:

Microsoft

Sony

Sega

Nintendo

ID Software

Epic Games

Crytek

Paradox

Valve

 

Of course, there usually are options where you don't have to pay royalties (that's the name of "paying a percentage", it's industry standard not only in computer entertainment): usually that involves paying a one-time fee of high 7-figure dollar sums. ;)

(If memory serves the standard fee for the Quake3 engine was a couple hundred thousand dollars, and 3% of revenue, not profit. They'd get their money if if the "third party" didn't make a profit.)

 

Or did you feel that it's fair for a third party to make a profit making derivatives of ED's work without ED getting a kickback? Do you feel an artist should be paid if Microsoft wants to use his painting in an advert or product box? Same thing - royalties and/or honoraries get paid.

 

Oh, and that model worked wonders for MS Flight Simulator, didn't it? I seem to recall MS closing down that studio... ;)

Edited May 6, 2010 by EtherealN

[GGTharos]

Which clause is that?

 

ED Third party clauses look quite abusive, with ED demanding a certain percentage of the third party commercial profit. FS is different - you can do whatever you want, and sell it if you want, and then all the profit is only for you. It's unfair because good third party addons could raise DCS sales a lot, which is good enough for ED, but anyway...

 

Regards!!

[amalahama]

Which clause is that?

 

The announcement language has been slightly edited again for further clarification. We should note again that it is not yet any kind of final documentation. For now, it is a tentative statement of general intent. It is likely to change, both in general and specific terms. One of the reasons we decided to publicize it in this fashion was to gather some opinions from the community and use them in actually hammering out the details of any legal agreements these tools would necessitate. Any such agreements would be included in the plug-in software and can only then be considered final. Another reason to publicize the information now was to prepare any interested modders for the possibilities laying ahead, especially those modders interested in terrain creation, which – unlike all of the other tools, is open for development now.

 

To reiterate the information in the current announcement:

 

The PCIP cockpit plug-in will be made available after the release of Black Shark and is not intended for product modification and development. As such, it will be available to the general public.

 

All of the other plug-ins are intended for product modification and development by third-party developers. These tools will not be available to the general public, but will be distributed at the discretion of ED to those developers able to demonstrate their ability to utilize the tools effectively. ED feels this approach will be optimal, because it will help retain a high standard of quality for all third-party content and (equally important) it will allow ED to provide much better support to third-party developers by focusing on a smaller developer base.

 

It’s also worth remembering that DCS will allow considerable modification options to any user without any use of plug-ins, similarly (but to a greater degree) to Flaming Cliffs. The plug-ins in question are intended to allow third-party developers to grow and expand the DCS environment in much greater depth in cooperation with ED.

 

Use of all non-PCIP plug-ins will require the release of all content generated via the plug-ins to ED for possible unrestricted integration into DCS or other products, should ED choose to do so. However, ED will not claim ownership over such content nor limit the third-party in their ability to distribute it according to their choosing. Should the third-party choose to sell the modification as an independent add-on, a minor royalty fee will be owed to ED. In this case, ED will avoid a conflict of interest and not integrate the modification into DCS, but will still retain the right to integrate it into its other, non-entertainment software products. In all cases, the third party will be credited for their content.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=506392&postcount=126

 

Regards!

[EtherealN]

I'm still curious about what's "abusive" about that...

[GGTharos]

Same here. Further, while this is the general stance of ED, nothing stops 'third party' from entering negotiations.

Perhaps rather than this being abusive, you're having a bout of unrealistic expectations?

[Stretch]

I think the point is that since Microsoft Flight Simulator has unrestricted third-party development with no royalties due whatsoever, it's not really unrealistic.

 

I'm not going to get in a fight about whether ED is right or wrong, I just wanted to help clarify the original point.

[Feuerfalke]

You think other companies have different rules? You think that MS doesn't earn money from 3rd-Party developers making money with their product?

 

It's much more likely that MS is simply more open, more renown, has more development tools, multiple tutorials and stuff to add planes, avionics, terrain and stuff, whereas LO/DCS remains a partially closed structure in some crucial areas.

 

I also guess that sales numbers for FSX are a bit higher than that of DCS and as such a broader market is addressed with addons.

[EtherealN]

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a discontinued product. Whether "unrealistic" or not, if anything that would make me see it as a discouraging example of that business model.

[amalahama]

I'm still curious about what's "abusive" about that...

 

It's simple. The other two simulators which allow third parties (Flight simulator, X-plane) don't ask for any royalties from their 3rd party companies. Moreover, you can do a extremely detailed Afghanistan scenery and they can use it as a commercial lure for his military market (but maybe you don't want your scenery to be used for military purposes). I wonder if you can refuse to let military use your scenery. And I wonder if you will receive "royalties" if ED uses your addon in a non-commercial project.

 

Ok, probably most of the people who do addons don't mind to let ED use his creation for something that ED considers appropriate, but forcing to people to accept these kind of clauses is not the way to go in my opinion (which probably doesn't fit with yours)

 

Regards!!