Bjoern
worst developer ever
Regardless of the price of the FS rendition?
I wanted to email Dornier (at least what's left of them) and ask for some infos on the 328...let's hope they won't go Lancair or Gulfstream on me.
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Thanks Cessna for killing further FSX development
- Thread starter ryanbatc
- Start date
Regardless of the price of the FS rendition?
I wanted to email Dornier (at least what's left of them) and ask for some infos on the 328...let's hope they won't go Lancair or Gulfstream on me.
That doesn't smell right. EMI handles the licensing for Textron/Cessna, not some one horse outfit in New Zealand...
Here's a link to the (ongoing) litigation between Textron and Electronic Arts:
http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/4:2006cv00841/162693/
I don't want to crash your party guys, but has anyone considered that payware developers offering Cessnas are basically making money with Cessna's products and brand name, even if "only" in digital form?
Doing freeware models could still be interpreted as enthusiasts bringing their favourite aircraft into their favourite sim and some kind of good advertisement, but payware is, badly put, copying their product and selling it without consent.
It is understandable that Cessna wants to charge "licensing fees" for this. After all you're not giving your product away for copying for free in the real world either, do you?
What would be cool to see though is kind of a teaming up between payware developers and aircraft manufacturers. E.g. the aircraft manufacturer helps the dev out with information and photos, drawings, etc... and offers some kind of "quality" control while it gets a share in the money made from the sales.
This way, you could have "Approved by Cessna" products which are of the maximum quality possible within simulator limits.
This seal could also turn out to be kind of a sales booster, since hey, you're having (almost) the real deal in the sim!
Oh OH.....with your thinking....if someone paints in oils or acrylics anything that shows that has a brand will want royalties!!!!!.......I agree on paying royalties if someone makes a plane exactly lake ****na or Cessna but it is a total exageration for plastic model makers, simmakers etc to pay those goons for it...........Greedy Greedy is the name for it.........remember Wallstreet???????........or Congress???????
SkippyBing
Charter Member
Why? The plastic models, sim aircraft etc. would have a fraction of the sales if they weren't based on something that Cessna etc. had already designed. Ask yourself how many fictional models you've bought?
The models are popular because they look like something that already exists and under the law the creator of the original product is entitled to exercise their copyright. It's that simple, the law is on their side, how they interpret it is up to them, they can be a**holes or they can be pragmatic.
I'd have to check but I don't think photography or painting are covered in law the same way, i.e. you own the copyright in your photos* as long as you have the permission of anyone in the picture that can be identified and I think even then only if it's on private property but the law varies from country to country on that.
*I actually don't own the copyright on all my photos as any I can take due to my employment are the copyright of my employer, check the terms of you own contracts, conditions may be applicable, your world may be at risk if you don't comply.
Brian_Gladden
SOH-CM-2025
On the other end of the spectrum, I have had very good support from two aircraft manufacturers. Back about eight years ago, Velocity was very happy to send me a complete set of diagrams and dimensions for the Velocity XL. They even paid for the postage.
My Air Tractor 802 started life as a request from a dealer who wanted a virtual model he could run in FS at trade shows. Particularly the Fireboss. Things fell through after a few months, but I did finish the models.
Brian
My Air Tractor 802 started life as a request from a dealer who wanted a virtual model he could run in FS at trade shows. Particularly the Fireboss. Things fell through after a few months, but I did finish the models.
Brian
ryanbatc
Charter Member
Wow those are sweet gauges, but imho the model leaves a lot to be desired
Which is likely why it's only $19.95... :gossip:
Thanks for the kind word about the gauges, I'm rather pleased with how they turned out myself... :ernae:
Laws are laws and they must be complied with......but even then "exageration" can be devastating to many.....look at the bonuses being paid today to failed executives with your taxes!!!!!....life is a rakket and those in power usually "exagerate" for their benefit.........so sad...by the way I flew for 16 years my own Piper Cherokee....Cessnas are crap anyway.........:caked:
I would think that they might look at it a free advertisement....
Harleyman is right..This is the way it has been done for the FS series from Microsoft for years..We know without a doubt MS got a license from Cessna all these years and Microsoft obviously had a deal somewhere with cessna that 3rd party developers would be the back scratchers for the FS series and in turn (All) would benifit as (advertisement) as each addon rolled out FS9/FSX would sell thousands more and a few real life Cessna planes would sell as a person wanted to go from the PC sim to a real one from the addiction of simulation. But with the economy going in the planned direction (To Hell) I guess you cannot blame them to grasp at eveything they can as they go down the tube too,,The truth hurts
Harleyman is right..This is the way it has been done for the FS series from Microsoft for years..We know without a doubt MS got a license from Cessna all these years and Microsoft obviously had a deal somewhere with cessna that 3rd party developers would be the back scratchers for the FS series and in turn (All) would benifit as (advertisement) as each addon rolled out FS9/FSX would sell thousands more and a few real life Cessna planes would sell as a person wanted to go from the PC sim to a real one from the addiction of simulation. But with the economy going in the planned direction (To Hell) I guess you cannot blame them to grasp at eveything they can as they go down the tube too,,The truth hurts
That doesn't smell right. EMI handles the licensing for Textron/Cessna, not some one horse outfit in New Zealand...
Here's a link to the (ongoing) litigation between Textron and Electronic Arts:
http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/4:2006cv00841/162693/
Hey Bill,
That is the guy. He is from NZ, I asked him. He represents EMI. We had a very long talk. Both times I had talked with him, he sounded like he had a few, um.. drinks. (It was just before noon Phoenix time). When I first contacted him, he was on vacation out of the country.
I'll have a couple of glasses of wine, (at night). But man, it would make me look really bad to be, um... 'in that condition' during the day, talking business with 'Cessna Partnership' companies, which is what a sim group would be, a partnership to better the future of Cessna.
Bill
Thats cool to hear Brian.
Did you know that Velocity is working on a very very cool futuristic Cannard right now? If I were you, I would brush up on Gmax and see if they need one done..
Bill
SkippyBing
Charter Member
To be fair Noon Phoenix time is about five in the morning in NZ, I sound hella confused if you phone me at five in the morning.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
I'd think any train sim modeller reading this would have a wry smile on his face, its very common in that sim, even fallen flags still need licenses, in the Us about the only major Railroad that doesn't enforce licenses is BNSF, UP went first with their usually bullish high prices but climbed down after a few years, CSX followed with even more exorbitant fees and hoops to jump through, NS was the lowest and easiest and CP and CN both had a license fee in place for payware.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
In the UK Eurostar is simply not entertained, neither is Virgin, though some seem to have slipped through the net, even the old BR lion and wheel and arrows of indecision need a license or written agreement, these logos and trademarks, and all previous British Railways logos from all companies with in our shores are held by the National railway museum.<o></o>
<o></o>
If you model in payware then I can see the need for licensing, what these goons fail to comprehend is that there is a huge difference between small groups of payware modellers here and big design houses like MS or Ubisoft etc. To them software license is a software license, it doesn’t take into account volume or size of business, its pitched at the biggest earners.<o></o>
<o></o>
There oft excuse for this is that these high tariffs sort the wheat from the chaff, which is utter B*...*S as some large corporations still produce rubbish.<o></o>
<o></o>
Luckily there’s enough other subject matters to entertain people and that’s generally what developers do, move on to less thorny pastures.<o></o>
<o></o>
Regards<o></o>
<o></o>
Michael
Bill, nice cannard subject matter there !
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>In the UK Eurostar is simply not entertained, neither is Virgin, though some seem to have slipped through the net, even the old BR lion and wheel and arrows of indecision need a license or written agreement, these logos and trademarks, and all previous British Railways logos from all companies with in our shores are held by the National railway museum.<o
></o><o
></o>If you model in payware then I can see the need for licensing, what these goons fail to comprehend is that there is a huge difference between small groups of payware modellers here and big design houses like MS or Ubisoft etc. To them software license is a software license, it doesn’t take into account volume or size of business, its pitched at the biggest earners.<o
></o><o
></o>There oft excuse for this is that these high tariffs sort the wheat from the chaff, which is utter B*...*S as some large corporations still produce rubbish.<o
></o><o
></o>Luckily there’s enough other subject matters to entertain people and that’s generally what developers do, move on to less thorny pastures.<o
></o><o
></o>Regards<o
></o><o
></o>Michael
Bill, nice cannard subject matter there !
cheezyflier
Charter Member
by the futuristic look of it, i would think you'd be all over that one....once you were done with the kodiak. it's very cool looking. it would be interesting to fly i bet.
the cockpit looks interesting enough. no rudder pedals? is that right?
SkippyBing
Charter Member
Where are you supposed to rest your feet then?
I'd think any train sim modeller reading this would have a wry smile on his face, its very common in that sim, even fallen flags still need licenses, in the Us about the only major Railroad that doesn't enforce licenses is BNSF, UP went first with their usually bullish high prices but climbed down after a few years, CSX followed with even more exorbitant fees and hoops to jump through, NS was the lowest and easiest and CP and CN both had a license fee in place for payware.<o
<o
In the UK Eurostar is simply not entertained, neither is Virgin, though some seem to have slipped through the net, even the old BR lion and wheel and arrows of indecision need a license or written agreement, these logos and trademarks, and all previous British Railways logos from all companies with in our shores are held by the National railway museum.<o
<o
If you model in payware then I can see the need for licensing, what these goons fail to comprehend is that there is a huge difference between small groups of payware modellers here and big design houses like MS or Ubisoft etc. To them software license is a software license, it doesn’t take into account volume or size of business, its pitched at the biggest earners.<o
<o
There oft excuse for this is that these high tariffs sort the wheat from the chaff, which is utter B*...*S as some large corporations still produce rubbish.<o
<o
Luckily there’s enough other subject matters to entertain people and that’s generally what developers do, move on to less thorny pastures.<o
<o
Regards<o
<o
Michael
Bill, nice cannard subject matter there !
Copyright fees make sense to me if you produce a real plane based on a Cessna. Something that really uses Cessna know-how to produce a similar product - which is what copyrighting is mostly about. Following the logic of making people pay for a software rendition of a Cessna should mean that any aviator magazine showing a Cessna somewhere would have to pay royalties (they probably do in this world).
Add-on plane developers get money for the work they put in making a FS model, the work is the same if it looks like a Cessna or not - lots of work! They are not into the plane design business!
Why is Cessna not charging me for using a virtual Cessna then?
I think it should be the other way round - FS-Developers should be charging Cessna for PC advertising and marketing their products :costumes:
SkippyBing
Charter Member
At risk of repeating myself. Copyright law is on Cessna's side if you make a model based on one of their products, the laws for images are different.
Add on developers get money because people want versions of real aircraft to fly, you'll notice the scarcity of fictional aircraft for sale from payware companies. Hence the payware developers are exploiting the real aircraft manufacturers work for profit. It's the same for plastic model manufacturers, toy companies etc. etc.
Cessna is not charging you for using a virtual Cessna because they didn't make it, however they are charging the person who made the virtual Cessna a licensing fee, which is effectively the same.
Hey Skippy,
Supposedly he is in America. His phone number was in America.
:d
I would be too at 5AM, lolol...
Bill