homepage

VEAO A-4C SkyHawk

Posted By: Silver_Dragon

VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 07/09/14 11:05 AM

Update VEAO A-C SkyHawk
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2112931&postcount=169
Quote:
Thought I'd add a couple of more renders for you all

Jim, Tony and the team have been working tirelessly on the A-4C

Hope you all like them

Pman




Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 07/09/14 10:50 PM

Nice!

So much potential here.


I was just reading about Brazils forthcoming update to their Skyhawks (actually second hand Kuwati 'hawks):
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/theres-a-magical-place-where-a-4-skyhawks-still-fly-off-1594183306

I Would love to see this project evolve over the next few years to modules that cover the range of the Skyhawk family. From the eraly Vietnam era, to late cold war export/ Middle eastern models, to the modern pocket strike fighter Brazil is building.

looking forward to how this develops smile
Posted By: USMC BEANS

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 07/10/14 03:52 AM

Do want!
Posted By: Silver_Dragon

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 05:49 PM

VEAO cancel A-4C and A-4M projects

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

Unfortunately I have some not so good news on this project.

As a responsible developer one of our golden rules is that we will not develop a module without an agreement or waiver from an aircraft manufacturer, its common knowledge that this was one of the main hold ups with development of the Hawk.

As such we have been in talks with McDonnell Douglas (A division of Boeing) regarding obtaining agreements for the A-4C and the A-4M Skyhawks.

Sadly the terms offered to us in exchange for the licence are not economically viable for the project to continue. Therefore we have to stop works on the Skyhawk and park the project indefinitely.

Obviously this is a disappointing development not least for the DCS community but the members from the VEAO development team who have put blood sweat and tears into the project.

I want to publically thank the members of the Skyhawk development team for their hard work and commitment to this project.

But one thing in life is for sure, as one door closes another one opens.

Obviously due to the sensitive nature of commercial discussions such as this there is only limited amount of information that we can divulge in public but true to the nature of the relationship Chris and I work hard to maintain with you all we wanted to bring you this news as soon as we were able.

On behalf of everyone at VEAO we thank you for your understanding regarding this announcement.

Pman

VEAO Consumer Products Manager.
Posted By: trindade

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Silver_Dragon
VEAO cancel A-4C and A-4M projects

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

Unfortunately I have some not so good news on this project.

As a responsible developer one of our golden rules is that we will not develop a module without an agreement or waiver from an aircraft manufacturer, its common knowledge that this was one of the main hold ups with development of the Hawk.

As such we have been in talks with McDonnell Douglas (A division of Boeing) regarding obtaining agreements for the A-4C and the A-4M Skyhawks.

Sadly the terms offered to us in exchange for the licence are not economically viable for the project to continue. Therefore we have to stop works on the Skyhawk and park the project indefinitely.

Obviously this is a disappointing development not least for the DCS community but the members from the VEAO development team who have put blood sweat and tears into the project.

I want to publically thank the members of the Skyhawk development team for their hard work and commitment to this project.

But one thing in life is for sure, as one door closes another one opens.

Obviously due to the sensitive nature of commercial discussions such as this there is only limited amount of information that we can divulge in public but true to the nature of the relationship Chris and I work hard to maintain with you all we wanted to bring you this news as soon as we were able.

On behalf of everyone at VEAO we thank you for your understanding regarding this announcement.

Pman

VEAO Consumer Products Manager.


frown
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 06:21 PM

Well, that sucks.


Surprised they (Boeing) can do that though. I thought they could control the "Skyhawk" name, but not the military designation.

I'm also pi$$ed because myself and my fellow tax paying Americans ALREADY PAID FOR THE PLANES.
Posted By: Ghost0815

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 08:17 PM

Would the Skyhawk a good opponent for the MiG-21Bis - both fly in Vietnam?!
Posted By: NavyNuke99

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 08:49 PM

Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 08:49 PM

Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
Well, that sucks.


Surprised they (Boeing) can do that though. I thought they could control the "Skyhawk" name, but not the military designation.

I'm also pi$$ed because myself and my fellow tax paying Americans ALREADY PAID FOR THE PLANES.


Can I suggest we write to Boeing or get a petition going.

Point out that while other historically significant aircraft are being immortalised in this sim the Skyhawk won't because of this company's gouging.
Posted By: Mustang60348

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 10:02 PM

So I wonder how many of the A/C in their roadmap this kills.
Posted By: SDsc0rch

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/27/14 10:11 PM

f**k boeing
Posted By: scrim

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 12:38 AM

That's a huge bummer. How is VEAO going to deal with this in the future? I mean, a lot of the planned modules they've announced so far are modern planes and helos that would demand cooperation from militaries and manufacturers alike, and before even 1 has been close to release we've seen both the Apache and now the Skyhawk be either pulled from the public release list, or both.
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 12:59 AM

I thought Boeing owned the rights to North American and therefore the P-51, but that got made by DCS?

But seriously, this is going to be a big hurdle as this game gathers steam.

I reckon a coordinated approach needs to be taken by all developers.

Those companies that make arseholes of themselves should have it pointed out to them that other classic aircraft are living on in the virtual world, but theirs will not.
Posted By: Chris2525

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 01:28 AM

That's so stupid. The names and likenesses of weapons and equipment used by a nation's armed force should be public domain, if not the intellectual property of the nation(s) who purchased and operated them - especially where the item was designed under contract to the public. They are a part of history. There should be fair use in depicting them in works of art. What's next, is the clothing manufacturer who produces American uniforms going to demand royalties for any depiction of a uniformed American soldier?
Posted By: NavyNuke99

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 02:01 AM

Seeing as the A-4 is still in active service with both Brazil and Argentina, (and a trainer for a few other nations) I wonder if that has something to do with it, versus the P-51D that hasn't been in active front-line service for decades.
Posted By: Sim

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 02:09 AM

Anyone want to take on a spam campaign and see if that makes a difference. We should be able to generate about 100 unique users...
Posted By: Mustang60348

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 08:46 AM

The other thing to remember is that Boeing might not have asked for tons of money but for something that VEAO simply didn't want to accept.

PURE SPECULATION TO FOLLOW

"What if Boeing wanted to see the source code for systems before issuing the license so they could confirm against real world values"

This might be unacceptable to VEAO.
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 12:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mustang60348
The other thing to remember is that Boeing might not have asked for tons of money but for something that VEAO simply didn't want to accept.

PURE SPECULATION TO FOLLOW

"What if Boeing wanted to see the source code for systems before issuing the license so they could confirm against real world values"

This might be unacceptable to VEAO.


As VEAO stated: "Sadly the terms offered to us in exchange for the licence are not economically viable for the project to continue."

I read that as "Big B wanted too much money."

That said, anyone know how this ever turned out:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/17/136090/electronic-arts-sues-to-use-weapons.html
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 01:02 PM

Actually, this is the problem:
Quote:
As a responsible developer one of our golden rules is that we will not develop a module without an agreement or waiver from an aircraft manufacturer, its common knowledge that this was one of the main hold ups with development of the Hawk.


Their definition of "responsible developer" is strangling them. DCS is small enough that Boeing would never have noticed or cared about a Skyhawk, but maybe because they have aspirations/delusions of one day working with Boeing they don't want to dare risk doing what ED itself has done multiple times without consequence.

So they want to shoot themselves in the foot, that's their business. Personally I don't care about a Hawk and never will, but I would've gone for a Skyhawk. *shrug*



The Jedi Master
Posted By: NavyNuke99

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Actually, this is the problem:
Quote:
As a responsible developer one of our golden rules is that we will not develop a module without an agreement or waiver from an aircraft manufacturer, its common knowledge that this was one of the main hold ups with development of the Hawk.


Their definition of "responsible developer" is strangling them. DCS is small enough that Boeing would never have noticed or cared about a Skyhawk, but maybe because they have aspirations/delusions of one day working with Boeing they don't want to dare risk doing what ED itself has done multiple times without consequence.

So they want to shoot themselves in the foot, that's their business. Personally I don't care about a Hawk and never will, but I would've gone for a Skyhawk. *shrug*



The Jedi Master


I don't know about all that. Wasn't there an issue a few years ago with Northrop Grumman raising a huge stink about Il-2 using likenesses of their planes and ships without getting their blessing?
Posted By: VT-51_Razor

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 02:14 PM

No, the issue was Ubisoft/1C Madox using the name, "Grumman" without their permission. If they had just left their name off of the packaging and written material, it would have been fine. The designations of the a/c, such as F6F or TBF were assigned by the government not the manufacturer. It was the use of their name that caused all the stink.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 02:22 PM

I don't think that was Oleg's decision, either. He didn't tell them to use that name, Ubi marketing was the brilliance that decided to and then they got slapped for it and told him to cut the planes out altogether rather than just comply with what was known to work already for 20 years of PC sims.

Taxpayers paid for these companies to make these designs known. If it's a company-funded prototype that the gov't never buys, a one-off proof-of-concept that goes nowhere, fine, I accept it's the company's IP. Don't dare tell me I can't have an F-22 in my game after the tons of tax dollars I contributed to its creation.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: enigma6584

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 05:17 PM

Military industrial complex gone amuck.
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/28/14 10:05 PM

Licensing is becoming a big issue in the flight sim hobby.

For those of you who don't fly civilian sims like FSX, over on that side of the hobby it's already a very real factor.

Gulfstream do not allow anybody to sell a recreation of their aircraft. Nada. Nothing. Verboten.

A year or two ago a guy made a payware Rafale and attracted the attention of Dassault who forced him to remove it from sale.

Various developers have alluded to licensing and the associated costs being something they have to take into account nowadays. If you want to recreate an aircraft in a flight sim and charge money for it you have to get approval from the manufacturer, lest you risk attracting the attention of their legal department.

It's not just names or designations, it's the likeness. In fact the whole thing is a complete minefield. I'm sad enough to read EULAs and I've noticed a few from one developer, who claim the copyright to the likeness of their creation, even though that was in turn created from the likeness of the real aircraft which is obviously owned by the manufacturer.

Any of you guys into MSFS and the like might have noticed you can't get an American Airlines livery in a payware package. That's because AA don't allow anybody to include it in a paid for product. You can only get AA liveries as freeware or as a free download from the payware developer's website.

That came about about 15 years ago when some guy (actually a notorious, nay infamous flight sim "entrepreneur") negotiated a deal with AA to buy the franchise to the AA logo in flight simulation. He then demanded royalties from everybody who wanted to distribute an AA repaint for MSFS. He sent letters to all the big flight sim websites demanding they remove all AA liveried aircraft from their file servers and only reinstate them with his permission - i.e. after the author paid him a royalty. This guy thought he was going to make a fortune, he was even trying to negotiate a deal with British Airways. The only problem was his deal didn't cover freeware, only payware. When AA got wind of what he was trying to do they cancelled the contract and slapped a blanket ban on anybody selling a product with their logo.


Not only flight sims...

Fire up Ace Combat and check out how many corporate logos of aircraft manufacturers are on the splash screen.

Even model aircraft kits now..... I've got a 1/48 Douglas A-20 kit that has a nice little logo on it..... "Boeing Officially Licensed Product".... which is also exactly the same logo that's on my PMDG 737 and 777 for FSX.

Speaking of PMDG.... part of their success is down to the level of access and technical assistance they get from Boeing. Which in turn depends on their relationship with Boeing. Which in turn is dictated by their licensing agreements with Boeing. Imagine for a second the potential #%&*$# storm that would ensue if it were revealed that the pilot who crashed the Asiana 777 at SFO had been practicing in FSX with the PMDG 777? Remember the #%&*$# storm over the 9-11 hijackers apparently using MSFS to practice?

Basically the whole thing is because of lawyers and everybody ready to sue everybody else at the drop of a hat.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/29/14 01:08 PM

It's news like that which reinforces my belief that we'll never see a resurgence like we had in the 90s. Unless you make all hypothetical aircraft (and we saw the ruckus raised in the Arma 3 forums for that), the costs are going to be too high to make business sense or they'll just be denied flat out.

It will only get worse, never better.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Alicatt

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 10/30/14 10:16 PM

There was a bit of delay in the release of the UH-1H Huey by Belsimtek as they had to get a licence for it too before they could release it.

VEAO had a bit of a delay as well with the Hawk
Posted By: Skoop

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/01/14 11:23 PM

This sucks, why not make the sim and call it a fictional name. We all know it's a skyhawk, just a way to get around greedy Boeing. There has to be a better way for the future.
Posted By: Charlie_SB

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/02/14 08:33 AM

I'd buy a Böeing Skylark any day.

-C-
Posted By: komemiute

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/02/14 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Charlie_SB
I'd buy a Böeing Skylark any day.

-C-


That makes two of us.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/02/14 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Skoop
This sucks, why not make the sim and call it a fictional name. We all know it's a skyhawk, just a way to get around greedy Boeing. There has to be a better way for the future.


Because if it looks like a Skyhawk, and acts like a Skyhawk, then it won't matter what you call it because you will still get sued.
Posted By: Skoop

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/02/14 05:58 PM

Come on is Boeing really going to sue veao for making a skylark ? I mean that's like cutting off your nose to save your face. How does ea get around having f18s and apaches in battlefield ? Is ea really paying Boeing for a license ? I say make the sim and tell Boeing to pound sand. Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, veao could have just made the sim and Boeing would have never noticed because it's such a small potatoes operation.

I still say make the sim and call it a skylark, this it what they do in the music industry. How do you think vanilla ice got around using David bowie's song ?
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/02/14 06:28 PM

EA just made something that looks a bit like it and works nothing like it. There is a big difference when you are modeling, or nearly so, the complete avionics systems.
Posted By: Skoop

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/02/14 07:02 PM

I'm sure even in a high fidelity sim you could leave enough variation to argue in court that this is different than the real world. I still can't believe this killed the project, I mean how did BST get around Bell for the huey ? I'm sure Bell could have demanded some outrageous sum, but they put it out and it's been pretty successful.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
EA just made something that looks a bit like it and works nothing like it. There is a big difference when you are modeling, or nearly so, the complete avionics systems.


Uh, no. That is NOT what Boeing cares about.

By that logic, the F-22 game Novalogic made in the 90s that had LM's logo and "seal of approval" on must have been totally accurate in systems modeling?

They care about their name being used #1, above all else. That is theirs and courts back them up 100% on that. After that, sometimes the name like Apache or Eagle can be owned by the company. Hence many sims use nothing but AH-64 or F-15C because those are DoD designations and are not owned by the company, as opposed to a company designation that they own like a 787.

Make a Blackhawk and call it a UH-60L, that's one thing. Call it an S-70A Blackhawk and that's another.

The final thorn is appearance, what it looks like. That is the gray area that is less easily avoided compared to using names and numbers. Some try to argue that they made the shape so it's their IP, while others say taxpayers funded it so it's not really theirs. No idea where the courts have come down on that one.





The Jedi Master
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 06:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Pman;2220355
We have made the decision that the legal position regarding modelling of systems and advanced avionics means that we require a licence for us to be willing to develop it. It is VEAO policy that we will not develop an aircraft without a waiver, licence or sufficient proof that an aircraft is out of IP protection.

Regardless of the legal interpretation of the law from varying countries, this is the official position of VEAO Simulations.

In the case of the Skyhawk it was not just the name that was protected but alot of the systems data for an accurate ASM to be made that would have required it, meaning that only an FC3 level aircraft could have been made.

...

Pman
Posted By: enigma6584

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 07:18 PM

Amazing...The aeronautical industry killing flight sims.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 07:41 PM

Well... an A4, even FC3 level, for maybe 7 euro... that would have been quite a deal. A realistic enough plane without 600 pages of pdf to be learnt.

Some planes are ok FC3 level. The Skyhawk would have been one of those.
Just my opinion of course.
Posted By: Vitesse

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 07:45 PM

Quote:
not just the name that was protected but alot of the systems data for an accurate ASM to be made that would have required it,


So who owns the laws of physics?
Posted By: SC/JG_Oesau

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
Well... an A4, even FC3 level, for maybe 7 euro... that would have been quite a deal. A realistic enough plane without 600 pages of pdf to be learnt.

Some planes are ok FC3 level. The Skyhawk would have been one of those.
Just my opinion of course.


It all depends on what you like really - I personally was really looking forward to the Scooter as it's the aircraft of my childhood (New Zealand's last fighter aircraft) so was looking forward to learning it, even though it's a simple a/c in relative terms, but hey, we have the F-86F Sabre and that's pretty straight forward.
Posted By: scrim

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Vitesse
Quote:
not just the name that was protected but alot of the systems data for an accurate ASM to be made that would have required it,


So who owns the laws of physics?


I'm guessing it has more to do with needing their cooperation on how the plane handles and such to create a proper FM, in addition to info on the avionics. Either way, screw Boeing!
Posted By: Skoop

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/03/14 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
Well... an A4, even FC3 level, for maybe 7 euro... that would have been quite a deal. A realistic enough plane without 600 pages of pdf to be learnt.

Some planes are ok FC3 level. The Skyhawk would have been one of those.
Just my opinion of course.


That's what I say, an FC3 skyhawk with a clickable cockpit is plenty good in my book. I'd buy for sure. We just need platforms ASAP at this point. The mig 21 needs something to fly against, surprised a phantom hasn't been announced.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/04/14 08:06 AM

A clickable cockpit would make it no longer an FC3 level aircraft.
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/04/14 08:38 AM

When EA make FIFA they have to get the license to use the names and logos of the real world teams and real world players.

It's exactly the same with flight sims nowadays.

Like I wrote above, a couple of years ago some guy made a really nice Rafale for FSX but didn't bother asking Dassault if he could sell it. It lasted a matter of weeks on sale before he got an email from Dassault's legal department and he had to remove it from sale.

We now live in a world where companies are very sensitive about where and how their name gets used, and they guard it jealously. It's very easy to say "Ah f it, just make a Skyhawk and tell Boeing to get stuffed!" but remember you won't be the guy who Boeing takes to court and you won't be the one who sees no return on the many months of work you've put into the project because you can't sell it.

Like it or not this is now the reality of the world we live in. If you want to blame somebody or something then I suggest you look at the litigation culture that has led to companies being so sensitive about how and where their name and products are used.
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/04/14 09:35 AM

Taken in the context of all of the above, this is a pretty good example right here of how incredibly stupid things are getting right now:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rudy-gi...2488/?preview=1
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: VEAO A-4C SkyHawk - 11/04/14 01:00 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
A clickable cockpit would make it no longer an FC3 level aircraft.


Having a clickable cockpit does not automatically make everything more accurate.




The Jedi Master
© 2024 SimHQ Forums