It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Buildings don't fly and so they don't crash.Michael J.

>It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Buildings>don't fly and so they don't crash.>>Michael J.That is quite harsh. I didn't know either, and now I know. Not sure what your problem is, but whatever it is this poor fellow certainly didn't deserve that kind of response :-roll

"It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Buildings don't fly and so they don't crash."Well so much for my IQ. I haven't a clue what this answer means. :-hmmm Could it be that those buildings exist with those logos in real life, therefore it would be false to change them - it would be like changing the names and appearance of the Hotels in the Las Vegas scenery. On the other hand, the planes are FS2K2 vintage; so why change them when people who care about these things use PAI or UT or MyTraffic addon planes. Chris Henry

Hi,I have no idea regarding the legalities of using real world depictions of buildings in FS. However, during the making of the CYUL Montreal Int'l by the Quebec Virtual Pilots, they were prohibited from using any depictions or likeness of the Bombardier facilities on the airport property. If it were a commercial add-on, I could understand why a company may not want to be represented, or at least be compensated. But the CYUL scenery is freeware.I wonder now then. Does/would Bombardier, or any other company, have any legal right to prevent depiction of their facilities in FS that are in plain public view? Any of you pilot/lawyers out there have an idea?CFAOA

>It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Buildings>don't fly and so they don't crash.>>Michael J.>>Hmm- very good Einstein , but history shows airplanes can crash into buildings... Anyhow- for those that aren't so much of a "genius", we are talking a copyright issue maybe? I think it's a very good question and would be curious to know what the answer really is...

I think Michael is refering to the fact that many airlines do not approve of using their logos and names on simulation aircraft not only due to the issues of trademark and implied endorsement, but also because there is a perception that all simmers do is make airplanes crash into stuff because 'It's neat!'. Airlines think making aircraft with their logos on it crash into stuff is not in their best interests...Buildings, on the other hand, are not known to be used to crash into stuff, so the use of the airline's logo on these may be OK.I suspect Michael was making a wry comment about the mentality of airline marketing personnel and not making a personal attack.-david-

>I suspect Michael was making a wry comment about the mentality>of airline marketing personnel and not making a personal>attack.>>-david-David, they need to send you to the Mideast right away, you're one heck of a diplomat :-lol :-lol

>>I suspect Michael was making a wry comment about the>mentality>>of airline marketing personnel and not making a personal>>attack.>>>>-david->>David, they need to send you to the Mideast right away, you're>one heck of a diplomat :-lol :-lol:-lol :-lol

Makes you wonder if companies like Flight1 got approval for the UT program...they sure have a lot of copywrited logos on the aircraft that they are using in that program.

One reason I personally wouldn't want a real name on a hanger is the way the airline industry is going, they may not even be around next week! You can always "imply" their existence, but it better be far enough from the real one, but close enough to be figured out. That isn't copywrite infringements. It's walking the line! ;)Don

*I think Michael is refering to the fact that many airlines do not approve of using their logos and names on simulation aircraft not only due to the issues of trademark and implied endorsement, but also because there is a perception that all simmers do is make airplanes crash into stuff because 'It's neat!'.*It is a bit stupid if they stop their use for this reason. What about other sims like Formula 1 and Rally? They use the advertisers logos and are expected to crash!

Here, Here!Mitch R.

Taking another view, in FS2000, the Concorde was graced with the British Airways livery and yet the other aircraft were not featured in real world liveries.Regards,Adam Nardone

>Any idea why in fs2004 they have buildings with current>airlines on them but the default ac are still made up? I>assumed the reason they had fake airlines was because of>copyrights, however now that buildings have real names on them>that seems to not be the case.There have been many answers to this already, so how about this:If they were to start adding real airlines to the sim, they would have to add them all. It's such a big world and there are a lot of airlines around. If they had to pick only some airlines to use around the world, would it then be cool to see something like your local wee Australian bush flight company flying in the Himalayas? ;) I would prefer the made-up companies around the world if I didn't use add-on AI.It's not realistic to expect MS to put so much effort into AI traffic as for example Flight1 has done. MS's main task is the sim itself in my opinion.

>Makes you wonder if companies like Flight1 got approval for>the UT program...they sure have a lot of copywrited logos on>the aircraft that they are using in that program.Yes but AI traffic never crashes and the AI aircraft modesl aren't (very) flyable for the end user.