Pacific theater

[Tektolnes]

What source do you have for this information, seems like complete BS to me because WT is using the same aircraft from their previous titles - seems like the licensing would have been worked out with those titles. If not, they would have been hit with a huge fine and that would have prevented WT being free to play. AoE, AoTP, 1942:PAW, EAW, B-17: Mighty Eighth, Air Warrior, AW II, AWIII, Confirmed Kill I, Confirmed Kill II, Aces High, Aces High II, WarBirds, Warbirds II, Warbirds III, I can go on - but they didn't license.

 

So, why couldn't WT carry over their licenses from BoS or BoP? Same planes.

 

Unfortunately your quote is sourced by zero evidence - I like mine better of games (a few still active today and making money) that don't license through Northrop Grumman (or other aircraft manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin or Boeing) that have several Grumman (and other US not owned by Northrop Grumman) aircraft modelled.

 

As requested quote link:

 

http://warthunder.com/en/game/planes/usa/

 

At the footer of that page it is explicitly states that the US planes are being used under licence from the various manufacturers. Grumman planes are described as trademarks though it's not clear if this refers to just the name or using the whole design. I can check this with the VEAO guys who are in the middle of the licencing process with Grumman for the F8F Bearcat - Pman did say that it was a straightforward process to go through though. VEAO are being delayed currently by BAE as they have to get a licence from them before the Hawk can be released. It seems that it's currently causing a bit of head scratching at BAE as nobody has tried to release a sim version of the Hawk which will have the flight model and systems fidelity that ultimately the DCS Hawk will.

 

The Lockheed planes body designs themselves are described as being used under licence so legally speaking you must need a licence from them to represent them in a sim. The same goes for Textron where the body designs are described as a trademark. The licencing requirement with Textron caused the DCS Huey release to be delayed a bit - those guys in particular are apparently quite touchy about their IP.

 

So licencing requirements to use plane designs in sims is a reality and not BS. Personally I don't think they should be able to restrict their IP use in this manner. These companies developed these planes using massive government funding paid by the US taxpayers. But their IP lawyers do look out for this stuff as if you don't protect your IP over a small group using your IP it can have ramifications later when a bigger group decides to use your IP without licence.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The dev's of those sims simply don't want to test the waters and are cowed by the lawyers. If what is stated above was true no artist, Trudgian, Taylor, et al would be able to paint and sell those paintings on the open market without first getting permission or paying royalties. It's a load of malarchy. Images and artwork of military aircraft are not copyright protected. Using a manufacture's name IS copyright protected and that is what happened in the past.

[DD_bongodriver]

VEAO at the DCS forums have let on that they are in negotiation with Grumman over future DCS modules they will produce.

[javelina]

We need Med/North Africa theater

I wouldn't be surprised that one day, some clever folks around here, come up with a Africa theatre mod... (Once the BoS is released).

[Tektolnes]

The dev's of those sims simply don't want to test the waters and are cowed by the lawyers. If what is stated above was true no artist, Trudgian, Taylor, et al would be able to paint and sell those paintings on the open market without first getting permission or paying royalties. It's a load of malarchy. Images and artwork of military aircraft are not copyright protected. Using a manufacture's name IS copyright protected and that is what happened in the past.

 

That's what EA thought until Bell Textron sued them over Battlefield 3 back in 2012. EA ultimately settled out of court after they won at district court level but then were overruled at federal court level. Paintings are different. You can read up on the case if you want to find out the full details on why EA were not able to claim fair use. So the waters have been tested and devs are not going to fancy testing them again - at least not with Bell who will strongly protect their IP. 

[Feathered_IV]

I wouldn't be surprised that one day, some clever folks around here, come up with a Africa theatre mod... (Once the BoS is released).

I wonder how popular the vast empty deserts will be with players who already find a European winter boring. I'd have thought huge expanses of nothing would have been very popular with developers by now.

[Matt]

A pacific theatre will be a too bit step from BoS imho. Even though i would be interested in carrier landings/take-offs with the current ground handling and FM.

 

I would prefer an north-africa theatre myself and we would atleast have some planes for that already, but i also think that going from a flat winter landscape to a flat desert landscape would be a bit weird. Maybe a siege of Malta kind of theatre could work. It could also feature carriers and would be a good bit different from BoS.

[MarcoRossolini]

A pacific theatre will be a too bit step from BoS imho. Even though i would be interested in carrier landings/take-offs with the current ground handling and FM.

 

I would prefer an north-africa theatre myself and we would atleast have some planes for that already, but i also think that going from a flat winter landscape to a flat desert landscape would be a bit weird. Maybe a siege of Malta kind of theatre could work. It could also feature carriers and would be a good bit different from BoS.

 

Swordfishes!

[LLv44_Mprhead]

i also think that going from a flat winter landscape to a flat desert landscape would be a bit weird.

 

Tunisia is not flat desert  And that would be the place where you would also see 190 A-3, 109 G-2 and Stuka.

[MiGCap]

War in the Pacific? Count me in! 

 

I would buy any kind of realistic FlightSim and I am happy about BoS, but actually I like any other theater of operations more than the Eastern front ...  

[Volkoff]

War in the Pacific? Count me in! 

 

 

+1 I really like the Wildcat. it looks like a Bulldog with wings.   I would love to hunt Zeros with a Wildcat. Trying to shake a Zero with the Wildcat would be terribly exciting, too. Hmm, I really like the Eastern Front, I could see appreciating the beauty of North Africa or the Med too, but if we are changing the theatre, I would like to see the end of BF-109s, nothing but BF-109s, too. In the Med or North Africa, if we could simulate Italy and Italian planes and not have everything be about the Messers and FWs, I would be all for it. Still, adding Japan to the big show would be exciting, especially since they dId not fly BF-109s or FW-190s. 

 

MJ

Edited June 23, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Just sayin.................

[FuriousMeow]

As requested quote link:

 

http://warthunder.com/en/game/planes/usa/

 

At the footer of that page it is explicitly states that the US planes are being used under licence from the various manufacturers. Grumman planes are described as trademarks though it's not clear if this refers to just the name or using the whole design. I can check this with the VEAO guys who are in the middle of the licencing process with Grumman for the F8F Bearcat - Pman did say that it was a straightforward process to go through though. VEAO are being delayed currently by BAE as they have to get a licence from them before the Hawk can be released. It seems that it's currently causing a bit of head scratching at BAE as nobody has tried to release a sim version of the Hawk which will have the flight model and systems fidelity that ultimately the DCS Hawk will.

 

The Lockheed planes body designs themselves are described as being used under licence so legally speaking you must need a licence from them to represent them in a sim. The same goes for Textron where the body designs are described as a trademark. The licencing requirement with Textron caused the DCS Huey release to be delayed a bit - those guys in particular are apparently quite touchy about their IP.

 

So licencing requirements to use plane designs in sims is a reality and not BS. Personally I don't think they should be able to restrict their IP use in this manner. These companies developed these planes using massive government funding paid by the US taxpayers. But their IP lawyers do look out for this stuff as if you don't protect your IP over a small group using your IP it can have ramifications later when a bigger group decides to use your IP without licence.

 

So you refuted my statement by providing a link to the War Thunder aircraft listing that listed each and every aircraft with their manufacturer's name and thought that was a good idea?

 

That was the entire point why Pacific Fighters failed, because they listed the aircraft manufacturer's names on the box. There were so many US aircraft prior to PF but there wasn't a single issue because the manufacturer's name was never listed.

 

Thank you so much for proving my point, there are two online titles that don't have the manufacturer's names listed at all but have been using a likeness of their aircraft for about 20 years without licensing.

Edited June 24, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Tektolnes]

You clearly didn't read the language and your point isn't proven. For at least Lockheed and Bell Textron you cannot use their designs without licence - this is explicitly stated in the WT link. And Bell have defended their IP recently against precisely what you mistakenly believe is permissable. You can find other examples of this with sims such as DCS Huey where they had to get a licence to use the Huey design.

 

I'm not arguing about what has happened in the past but telling you the current state of play. If you don't get a licence to use Lockheed and Bell designs you are running the risk of their lawyers sending you a cease and desist letter. After the EA case developers aren't ready to go against this and are getting licences for these planes. Developers thought they could use these designs as they were for entertainment purposes and covered under fair use similar to how artists are allowed to sell paintings of the planes but the courts in the US ultimately disagreed with this argument. What's needed is a proper challenge to this and the argument to be fully settled in court. Maybe then we'd get a ruling that would allow game makers to use this sort of IP without a licence as these companies shouldn't be allowed to restrict their IP in this manner in my opinion. But I don't see this happening if companies with deep pockets such as EA weren't interested in going all the way. 

 

Not all US companies are as draconian as Bell and Lockheed. Boeing apparently are fine with you using their designs without a licence so long as you leave their name off the product. Grumman I'm not fully clear on what their licence requirements are. That's US law that applies to them. In other countries such as the UK the design of a plane would be covered by the patent and can't be used in a sim without a licence - hence why VEAO are getting one for the Hawk from BAE. Of course you can always try to just go ahead without a licence but currently you'd be leaving yourself open to being shut down or going through a long fight in court which no small developer will fancy. 

[Finkeren]

I wonder how popular the vast empty deserts will be with players who already find a European winter boring. I'd have thought huge expanses of nothing would have been very popular with developers by now.

The coastal regions of North Africa provide very varied and interesting landscapes, and that's where most of the flying would take place. There was fairly little action going on in and over the Sahara itself.

[Tektolnes]

I'll also add that the willingness of these companies to go after people has affected other groups as well. Hobby kits are also having to licence these planes for using their likeness for a fee of 2-8%.These guys don't exactly operate on hefty margins so if it was possible to circumvent by just removing the manufacturer name from the packaging wouldn't they do just that?

 

This all started after car companies realised they could make a buck charging for licences back in the 90s. Defence companies then just followed suit afterwards. It's free money until the courts say otherwise. It's quite possible that older games got away without a licence but these days using a likeness of at least some of these companies planes requires a licence. Personally I don't think it's a valid use of copyright protection but there's no case law to protect developers at the moment so they take no chances anymore. 

[Reflected]

Flyable planes (copyringht-proof):

 

Nitsunishi Zeno

Gourman F6F Hellokitty

F4U Crosshair

 

[Tektolnes]

If it meant avoiding paying licence fees it would be possible to use the models and give them fake names. 

It wouldn't be difficult for any of us to recognise planes such as the Corsair no matter what it was called in the game though it would certainly grate seeing the wrong name all the time. 

 

Games, model companies, etc. didn't have to worry about this for quite a while though as they appeared to be able to use names and designs freely. However certain US companies began to try and enforce their IP and for some of them at least this definitely stretches to the cover both names and designs. Game makers and hobby companies are now forced to get a licence to use these designs. Until somebody is willing to go the distance with these companies and get a definitive ruling that this is not a valid use of copyright or trademark law in the US it's what we're stuck with. If BOS are going to expand into the Pacific theatre at some point it's the reality they'll have to deal with. For a small developer it's easier to just get a licence to use the designs and names as VEAO are doing for the Bearcat in DCS. 

[Finkeren]

Flyable planes (copyringht-proof):

 

Nitsunishi Zeno

Gourman F6F Hellokitty

F4U Crosshair

 

 

 

That's it, the F6F is now officially named the "Hellokitty" in my book.

 

Now I can't wait to fly over the Libyan desert in my RAF P-40 "Pityfuck"

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

RAF P-40 "Pityfuck"

 

I sense potential for a thread dedicated to alternate names for aircraft, this one is brilliant!

[Feathered_IV]

Like Messyshitz - One of mine?

[DD_bongodriver]

Good clean childish fun!

[Finkeren]

I tried to come up with a pun on the name "Focke Wulf" but I just couldn't think of a single one....

[DD_bongodriver]

Yeah...that one's a toughie.......

[SakeBasil]

P 51 Mustard 

[Rjel]

I don't think it was the military designations or even the names of the planes themselves were the issue. The U.S. military provided the next available number designation for a given type of plane. I don't think you can copy write a common name like Mustang or Thunderbolt. Those were names for other things before they were aircraft. But obviously North American or Grumman are completely different.

 

I can't see the PTO being any less varied than any other area of the world. It wasn't one massive carrier battle after the next. I'd love to do a state of the art Midway and then jump to Guadalcanal and go from there. The Aleutian Islands could be interesting too. Plus the added bonus of more snow. Win/win. Mission variety could be equally diverse. Carrier attacks, ground strike, CAPs. I think it would be great. But I could live with North Africa too. As long as it wasn't just sand.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Rjel

[DD_bongodriver]

Yep, the PTO was a huge theatre ranging from Burma to Australia involving quite a few Nations including the Russians.

[Rjel]

Yep, the PTO was a huge theatre ranging from Burma to Australia involving quite a few Nations including the Russians.

Yup. I always thought it would be cool to fly as the Churchill Wing defending Darwin. I read about Clive Caldwell in Air Classics more than 30 years ago. Spitfires and Zeros. That would be great.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Yup. I always thought it would be cool to fly as the Churchill Wing defending Darwin. I read about Clive Caldwell in Air Classics more than 30 years ago. Spitfires and Zeros. That would be great.

And, why be limited to what happened in the actual war? Alternative history is awesome. Battle of 'Strayya; it's like the Battle of Britain, but in the Southern Hemisphere!

[Rjel]

And, why be limited to what happened in the actual war? Alternative history is awesome. Battle of 'Strayya; it's like the Battle of Britain, but in the Southern Hemisphere!

I'd be up for that. Of course we'd need a FMB....we don't need to go there right now. But I think flying over Australia and New Guinea with the assorted possibilities would be great.

[Feathered_IV]

Rabaul and New Britain would be my pick. Active volcanoes, challenging navigation and a long operational history. Everything from Hudsons and Beauforts to phalanxes of B-25s and US carrier types. Plus just about every Japanese to oppose them.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Feathered_IV

[Volkoff]

Just sayin.................

Oh, Hell no!   There should be Mitsubishi Zero tolerance for those machines on a Pacific War map. 

 

MJ

[Blooddawn1942]

Guadalcanal could be a good choise for an PTO .

An interesting Mid-War PTO planeset.

A big Island, surrounded by several small islands and amphibious and naval operations.

So the map would not be boring, and in terms of the timeline, future Ad Ons could cover operations which took place after the Battle of Guadalcanal.

[Finkeren]

Rabaul and New Britain would be my pick. Active volcanoes, challenging navigation and a long operational history. Everything from Hudsons and Beauforts to phalanxes of B-25s and US carrier types. Plus just about every Japanese to oppose them.

 

If there had to be a PTO-sim, this would be my pick for a map as well.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Rabaul and New Britain would be my pick. Active volcanoes, challenging navigation and a long operational history. Everything from Hudsons and Beauforts to phalanxes of B-25s and US carrier types. Plus just about every Japanese to oppose them.

 

+1

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 From Marianas to Tokyo and back, join the exclusive "Tokyo Club". Not a cake walk like movies want to tell. 

[Volkoff]

Rabaul and New Britain would be my pick. Active volcanoes, challenging navigation and a long operational history. Everything from Hudsons and Beauforts to phalanxes of B-25s and US carrier types. Plus just about every Japanese to oppose them.

 

 

Guadalcanal could be a good choise for an PTO .

An interesting Mid-War PTO planeset.

A big Island, surrounded by several small islands and amphibious and naval operations.

So the map would not be boring, and in terms of the timeline, future Ad Ons could cover operations which took place after the Battle of Guadalcanal.

 

I like where this is all heading toward... F4F Wildcats! 

 

MJ

Edited July 1, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA