Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ken_Salter

Vinka / Statement by Kari Virtanen

Recommended Posts

I am sorry about all the problems I have caused. I admit that I have studied Realair airfile closely at the end of Vinka-project and find some values that was helpfull to make Vinka more stable and save my time. This is the way I have always worked, reading forums, studying airfiles and testing different values. So I couldn't suspect this kind of reaction, if I have I would have made contact for Rob Young before using those. Well, I am wiser and watchful now with these things.For those who do not understand airfile-things I like to say following. Vinka's airfile is not copied airfile, the work has been long. But inside the airfile is some values same or similar than Realair's airfile, finded when I study their work.We now have finded solution that will be good for us, good for Realair, and good for simming community. Final solution and statement will be published as soon as we get them ready and approved from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

KariI am glad you have sorted this in a friendly way. The Fouga was one of my favourite aircraft and gave me a lot of pleasure so many thanks for your work.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KariI know you pretty well now through all our work together on the 'Red Arrows' and other things ... and I am confident enough to say that others should know that there is NO WAY that you would have pirated others' work intentionally. Everyone in this community learns from others, and you and Mikko yourselves are pioneers in this respect; what has changed is that there are now many more commercial pressures than there used to be. This is still a hobby, yes; but the number of payware products is growing fast on the back of a rapidly expanding industry. Thus, the payware producers, inevitably, are sensitive to every windshift.Let's hope the fun stays in our hobby at the end of the day. Well done for all your excellent work on the Vinka; I'm reassured to know that those who have challenged you on this issue are all gentlemen and thus we shall all see your aircraft in the libraries again soon.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kari, I'm glad to hear you've worked this out. The Vinka's a great plane, and I'm looking forward to flying it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the IBM PC which was heavily copyrighted with it's BIOS.What took place was actually why we have computers today without IBM receiving a dime and no laws being broken.IBM had a lock on their systems and BIOS and other companies wanted to copy them. What they did was tell groups of programmers what needs to be accomplished and what should be shown to a user.So in essence they said there should be a box on the screen at such and such a location with such and such a color etc.By doing that they can bypass the copyright since they just arrived with the same result with maybe SIMILAR values or some identical code but it is not identical.That is NOT Reverse Engineering and nothing was stolen.Here is my patented formula: 3 + 3 = 6I want you to give me the same result with your own formula! There will be TONS of methods all with the same result. That is how I see it myself.9 - 3 = 6 <--- AH HA there is a 3 in there!! :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is true, except the analogy doesn't work here. Instead of just numbers to arrive at the expected results, these air.files come out looking more as identifiable "finger prints" (actually plot points on a graph)which are quite easy to compare.But I'm glad the issues are taken care of.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kari (and Rob),Kudos to the two of you. Working this one out and keeping things on a friendly basis makes a better community for all of us.Thanks for your maturity and good grace in this affair.Best,Mike MacKuen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woops than that is definitely a different animal altogether. :-( Glad to see there is amicable talks however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kari,I am very glad that it has been sorted out in a calm and resonable manner, It is good that the package is going to be made avaliable again, it certainly is one of the best freeware packages around.Thanks to you and everyone involved in bringing this package to usDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kari -I commend the manner in which you took care of this difficulty. I think certain other people *cough*MAAM affair*cough* could learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I commend the manner in which you took care of this>difficulty. I think certain other people *cough*MAAM>affair*cough* could learn something.Very wise to bring that up again,Fred,thanks, *cough*. Bachelor's wives and maiden's childeren are well thaught.Jan VisserMAAM-SIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Very wise to bring that up again,Fred,thanks, *cough*.>Bachelor's wives and maiden's childeren are well thaught.No problemo, glad to obliege. Can't say I have heard that phrase about Bachelors wives before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good, Dan... I don't know what country Real Air calls "home", but the folks who gave us the Vinka are not subject to U.S. law. This is a matter that falls to the Berne Convention (which has plenty of substance, but little authority).But none of that matters. The important thing here is that the parties involved seem to be resolving the matter in private (such a dispute has no place in public forums, where it can only be inflamed by speculation, innuendo, and the inevitable sabre rattling). Handling such a dispute in private is the best path for the parties involved, and good for the hobby.That being said, perhaps it's best that we leave these folks to do what they will agree to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a "quote" from the message you posted:"Even if someone uses the same equation to write a program in the same language to perform the same function as Cliff did, Cliff's copyright may not have been violated. As long as the second expression is otherwise distinct from the first, a separate copyright may be established. This expression is based on the programmer's own style of coding, which represents his own unique expression of an otherwise mechanical process. Remember, the method represents an idea and cannot be copyright-protected. "In this case, the actual graphical "plotted point" representation of the specific files in question were exact, or near duplicates, whereas the default's were completely different. In other words, as in the "bold" sentence, these files were not distinct from the first. I have seen them. It wasn't just a matter of reaching the same conclusion. And BTW ----- it's only a portion of the air.files that were questioned.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so complicated... I'm trying to get my head around it... If Real Air had developed some kind of software mechanism that generates a spin effect the distinction would be easy for me. But, an air file is a set of FS variable settings. You can't add new variables or fundamentally change the simulator. No set of values would induce a spin in a simulation that didn't already have the potential engineered-in. So no one, from my POV, can copyright the spin behavior.On the other hand, referring to a copyrighted air file for insight is not good practice. Clearly, customers have entered into an agreement not to re-distribute or reverse engineer intellectual property (...unless it belongs to MS FS (-: ). RealAir was justified to take steps to protect their hard work. And, credit goes to Kari for his gracious apology and amendments.Someday an independent designer will developed a spinning air file through trial, error, and discussion... And, considering it's all math, it will no doubt have a similar (but distinguishable) graph to Real Air's. That will be an interesting day. Maybe we'll need a team of experts to prove it's a genuine original. :-)I wonder if 2004 has spinning defaults?Regards,DannyCYVR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Danny,>If Real Air had developed some kind of software mechanism that generates a spin effect the distinction would be easy for me.But, an air file is a set of FS variable settings. You can't add new variables or fundamentally change the simulator. No set of values would induce a spin in a simulation that didn't already have the potential engineered-in.So no one, from my POV, can copyright the spin behavior<>On the other hand, referring to a copyrighted air file for insight is not good practice.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,What Danny writes here makes an awful lot of sense. I can tell the good people of Avsim that neither Mikko or Kari would deliberately try to benefit from other people's work. Considering also that the Vinka project is entirely freeware, it would be even more stupid. And knowing these chaps from a long enough time from FSNordic, I'm positive that such thing has NEVER happened, and will never happen either.The dilemma here seems to be that of an obscure one. Can someone copyright mathematical values in a file, format of which isn't even entirely known. This seems very very vague to me. Adding to the confusion is the fact that, even if the graphs (where are they by the way, and where's the numerical evidence ?) were close, they are not identical. Also, the AI Vinka that was done ages ago, is capable of spinning! (long before Marhcetti)This thing here has too many questions. Considering that the situation here is not even close to a copyright violation, I can't understand the fact that Kari has been made to look "bad" in public. I really can't.I love Marhcetti and the Cessna is even more to my liking, but I have to say that after this little ordeal here, my days with Realair products are over with. And I'm not the only one.Tero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TeroBut they "did" benefit from other peoples work and "knowingly so" by copying over the method which took literally hundreds of hours to work out.Had Kari started from scratch to make unspinnable MSFS aircraft spin he would have equally had taken hundreds of hours to achieve it and I doubt whether he would have "ever" achieved it.You have to remember that "NO" aircraft in more than ten years of MSFS development has ever spun so it was an almost impossible task which took a lot of blood sweat and tears on Robs part.You talk of copywrite but this is a legal not an emotional form.Robs "feelings" would be no different from someone taking something you can see like a complete aircraft changing it a bit and calling it their own with no reference to the Author.Because its "just numbers" doesnt change the amount of hours or detail put into it.Ie forget legal copywrite and think moral copywrite.Moral copywrite means writing to the author and asking whether you can take advantage of their work or learn from them. Moral copywrite means that you place reference to that fact in the notes with the aircraft.I also know that had this been a commercial outlet that had used the hundreds of hours of hard work, dedication and skill of a freeware developer to achieve what they on their own couldnt then there would be a public outrage in these forums.Because RealAir is seen as a commercial outlet then its regarded as fair game.I dropped out of RealAir some six months ago, so RealAir is now just two people, Rob Young and Sean Moloney. It is a quasi freeware/commercial unit and not some big Brother huge profit making giant.I have always admired and respected Kari s work. his Fouga has been one of my favourite aircraft for a long while and Kari is a decent, honourable person.What happened here was more that Kari didnt consider any wroung doing and maybe on the face of it there wasnt any wroung doing.For me this is more about considering the feelings of others and giving credit where credit is due ie common courtesy.I look forward to Karis brilliant future work. At the end of the day this has been resolved through amaicable talking between people which is how it should be and not talking of copywrite or numbers.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to hear your statement, Kari.You guys are handling this the right way. Good for you.We all look forward to the re-release of the Vinka.Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,While everything you say here is probably thought of "right on the money", I'd like to present a few questions though.First, Why is it that Kari's AI Vinka was capable of doing the SPIN long before the SF260 was released (if I'm mixing some dates here, someone please correct me soon enough) ?Secondly, do you really think that mr. Young would be the one and only person in the FS field, who could produce the spin ? I appreciate your point of view, but I also see some kind of tunnel-vision here. Remember, there are hundreds (if more) of FDE designers out there doing what they love and know the best. A minority of their work ends up in complete aircraft packages, and from those only a small fragment to commercial projects such as RealAir Marchetti or Wilco PIC767. Also, how do you reckon that Kari benefitted from "stealing RealAir digits" ? Did he get any money from that ? Did their sales boost up due to that ? Is he fishing for publicity for his future commercial endeavours ? You can answer all the questions with a simple NO. Well, I can't really tell what lies beneath the surface here, but I know that this copyright "scandal" has gotten ridiculous proportions in view of what has been done. But I'd like some explanations on the fact that AI-Vinka's airfile is dated March 2002, Marchetti didn't exist then, now did it ?regardsTero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>First, Why is it that Kari's AI Vinka was capable of doing the>SPIN long before the SF260 was released (if I'm mixing some>dates here, someone please correct me soon enough) ?In the first place, even the "new" Vinka doesn't spin as well as the SF260. It's not AS consistant after the "break" when attempting to enter the spin. If the real Vinka is nearly "spin resistant" and requires coaxing to enter one, then that would be fine............ but then I wouldn't pick the Vinka for a spinnable aircraft.Even the Vought Corsair brought over from Microsoft's CFS2 to FS2002 is "sometimes" capable of a "spin", but again, it is not consistant and will sometimes perform weird gyrations first. The SF260 IS consistant after the break when stalled. You can count on it. The Vinka doesn't (as well)because a few critical parameters wern't set correctly along with the contested air.files.If you can't appreciate the work of Mr. Young that went into something being "unique" for MSFS, then you obviously won't appreciate the work of others that add considerable realism to the base simulation. The "tunnel vision" that I see.......... is yours.edit....Why my interest in spins? Approx. 10 years ago, I took an aerobatic course in a Pitt's S2B over a two year period. Everytime we flew, we went through spin training, including inverted spins. I also attended a "spin" seminar taught by a well know aerobatic pilot. I have numerous "spin" tapes, as well as a habit of viewing spin testing by various aircraft manufactures. The RealAir Marcheti SF260 ------- is without doubt, the first spinnable aircraft for FS2002 that is consistant in what it does. I can spin in the desired direction, recover, and then spin the opposite direction. I know that Rob, set to work on the "perfect" spin over two years ago, when we use to "banter" back & forth about the spin qualities of the FLY series that he was involved in then. He set out to get MSFS aircraft to spin with predicatable results & the SF260 is the result. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TeroI have long been a fan of Tero s work having had and enjoyed the Fouga as well as having tried his origal Vinka.The fact is many have claimed spins which werent. They were either spiral dives or eileron induced impressions.Kari himself has said that he did take the 260 apart and lift sections on the spin to save himself time which if he had already cracked it wouldnt have been needed.Had the original Vinka simulated a true spin the aircraft would have stood out in glory as being the first true spinner for MSFS.No one is putting Rob on a Pedestal. having been part of RealAir Simulations during the SF260 creation I was aware of the day to day determination Rob placed into that airfile hour apon hour day apon day trying to crack the elusive true spin simulation.A few times and after 100 s of hours work Rob nearly gave up thinking it was impossible within the confines of MSFS.You imply that many top flight dynamic people could have achieved the spin.I am not argueing against you on that as neither of us know.Maybe with equal input and a big dose of luck someone else could have cracked it but in the history of MSFS no one had.Kari s reputation isnt in question or his work for freeware. I admire Kari as do many and never felt there was a hint of anything dishonourable.For me this is more highlighting the fact that number crunching is as equal to creating a complete GMAX aircraft if not as visible and in any free sharing of ideas in the flight sim world consideration for the authors input and feelings should always be paramount.Anyway im sure this topic has run its course and that both Kari and Rob are sick to death of it :-)all the bestPeter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, everybody's an expert in copyright law, heh? The only entity that has a copyright on an airfile in this flightsim is Microsoft. This entire discussion is totally bonkers! So, someone looked at a modified Microsoft airfile to see what modifications were made. And then incorporated some of those modifications into a new airfile for their own aircraft design. Big deal. And he who looked at that Microsoft airfile and modified it first and then resells it; now claims the entire modified file as his own and claims he can bar anyone else from looking at the airfile and making the same or similar modifications. Get real. I'm sure Microsoft would have something to say about that. If you want to claim a copyright on an airfile, design the entire airfile yourself like Microsoft did. If you want to argue copyright law intelligently, you should go to school and learn a little something about the subject. Microsoft may have given their implied consent for customers to modify their flightsim. They can also revoke that consent at any time and pursue legal remedies against anyone who profited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What you say is true, except the analogy doesn't work here.>Instead of just numbers to arrive at the expected results,>these air.files come out looking more as identifiable "finger>prints" (actually plot points on a graph)which are quite easy>to compare.So this spirit sort of means, that nobody should learn from the experiences of the Wright brothers, to create flying machines..? :)The whole western science is based on the principle of sharing knowledge so that others can take that and "stand on the shoulders" of the previous guys who have studied the matters before, often for centuries.This idea is *entirely different* from just taking someone's work, and claiming is your own. This is not what happened here. *Everyone* is basing their work on others' - as an artist I'd be a blatant liar if I claimed to take inspiration from nobody. Yet I dont just steal someone's complete work of art and stamp my own name on it. Those are two different things.I'm glad Kari and RealAir seem to have a friendly agreement here though, that's very good, and in the right spirit.Tuomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this