Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ken_Salter

Vinka / Statement by Kari Virtanen

Recommended Posts

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


PPL(A)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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
Guest KenG

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


PPL(A)

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
Guest

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
Guest Bigshot

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

I do not think anything useful is coming out of this discussion. Kari has made his refreshingly honest statement and we accept it.I do not believe the other aircraft that has been refered to in this discussion is capable of true spinning, and even if it was, we would have all heard about it long before this issue arose.If Kari had developed the Vinka entirely independantly then he would not have needed to use our work, and clearly he has honestly admitted doing that. By contrast, I have never ever seen his data before a few days ago and have never used or examined any spin-specific data of anyone else's either.I am sad to see the post from the person saying he will no longer consider our products because even despite the above we are going to allow Kari to re-upload the Vinka with all the parameters in tact, but this time with the courtesy of an acknowledgement for the work we developed. We are not obliged to do this and have agreed to it for the sake of peace. Thank You,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BigShotThats great:-) Now all I have to do is download someones GMAX created aircraft, change the colour and put it out as my own COOL ;-)I could do the same with scenery too.Cos you cant see the numbers or hours of work in airfiles doesnt make them less important.I go with you on legal copywrite but not Moral copywrite which means a polite "please may I" and in the notes "many thanks to Joe Bloggs for helping me or allowing me to use some of his work in my creation"Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Had the original Vinka simulated a true spin the aircraft>would have stood out in glory as being the first true spinner>for MSFS.The original Vinka was AFAIK designed just to be an AI aircraft, thus it was not really touted as a plane you'd fly yourself.Anyhoo.. off I go.Tuomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigshot

Pete; I see my post was immediately deleted because it spoke the truth of the subject matter here and nobody wants to here about the truth or the legalities. Yes, Politeness and Courtesy are the all important factors here. No one should take or borrow without asking permission and giving credit where credit is due.

Share this post


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

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...