I'm just wondering why someone wouldn't make a nice Gulfstream payware. Before you say its not legal, I know. But that's using Gulfstream. I think all liability would be deferred if you changed the name and model. The windows could be a little more rounded, flight yoke just slightly different. I would pay around $50 for a good G650, and probably another 40 for a good G550.

I'd rather a Bombardier Global 6000/7000/8000

 

with as much detail as Majestic Software did on their other Bombardier project (Q400). as in Full correctly-functioning not-eye candy avionics. Anything less is just a toy model you can't touch.

 

HUD too. With full synthetic vision presentation of EGPWS terrain database.

 

Much better idea than a poorly made fake plane without fully realised custom avionics that the real world manufacturer wants to sue you for.

But the avionics systems, panels, Etc are made by Honeywell, and they have been used in several aircraft. Don't get me wrong a global 6000 would be nice. That and a CL605 with a realistic cockpit.

Yes, the avionics suite on the G-450, G-550 and G-650 is a version of the Honeywell Primus Epic system. Gulfstream calls their particular implementation of Epic "Planeview" - just as Dassault calls their version of Epic the "Ez" cockpit on newer Falcon 900s.

 

There are aircraft-specific differences between different Epic installations - especially on the displays relations to aircraft systems, but the basic look and feel is the same.

 

Honeywell itself has never seemed averse to having its systems emulated in FSX. The older Primus 1000/2000 system is very precisely emulated in aircraft like the Eaglesoft Citation 750 and the FeelThere Embraer 135, 145 and Legacy. Both ES and FT include an implementation of the Honeywell NZ-2000 FMS which is about 95% true-to-life in terms of functionality.

 

The FeelThere EMB 175/195 product has a very accurate emulation of the newer Primus Epic system - obviously the Embraer-specific version.

 

I don't know if these developers had to obtain a license from Honeywell to produce these add-ons, but the point is that Honeywell has NEVER, so far as I know, had any issues with their products being emulated in FSX or other sims.

 

Likewise, new products under development at Eaglesoft will include (for the first time in FS) a very accurate emulation of the Rockwell-Collins Proline-21 avionics suite. I think Ron from ES mentioned that this is officially licensed by Rockwell-Collins, and they may have had to pay a license fee - but the point is that both Honeywell and Rockwell-Collins have never shown any hostility to their avionics products being emulated in the entertainment flight sim world.

 

I am an avionics tech and mechanic certified on multiple Gulfstream models, and have had direct dealings with Gulfstream for many years. In fact, I just returned from a 4-week G-550 maintenance training class at FlightSafety in Savannah. While there I spent some time at the Gulfstream factory and the Service Center. I asked several GAC employees, including one senior exec in the new-product sales department, about the issue of Gulfstream's prohibition against their products being emulated in FS. None of these individuals were aware of any such restriction. The sales exec did mention that Gulfstream is extremely protective of its trademarked name, and that might certainly be an issue - but that was all he knew.

 

I do know that there are several freeware and payware Gulfstream models available from various sources for X-Plane, and to the best of my knowledge, none if those developers has ever been the target of any legal action by the manufacturer. On the other hand, none if those XP aircraft are very accurate - all include very generic cockpits, using mainly default XP gauges.

I think Ron from ES mentioned that this is officially licensed by Rockwell-Collins, and they may have had to pay a license fee - but the point is that both Honeywell and Rockwell-Collins have never shown any hostility to their avionics products being emulated in the entertainment flight sim world.

Sorry but that is misinformed.

What we said is Textron/Cessna is the license grantor to Eaglesoft for their product line as they will be to any others who wish to produce Cessna products for FS. B)  Note that Carenado does NOT use Cessna name...

Sorry but that is misinformed.

What we said is Textron/Cessna is the license grantor to Eaglesoft for their product line as they will be to any others who wish to produce Cessna products for FS. B)

Roger that. Did you ever have to pursue direct licensing with Honeywell to create emulations of their products as part of previous ESDG aircraft, or was that included in in the manufacturer's license for the aircraft itself?

 

And, of course, Beechcraft and Hawker are now part of Textron/Cessna, so that probably simplifies licensing for that product line as well.

 

My main point is that the big manufacturers of avionics systems like Collins and Honeywell have never been averse to their products being emulated in FS. I would include Bendix-King in that too, though they are actually part of Honeywell in any case.

 

 

I think all liability would be deferred if you changed the name and model. The windows could be a little more rounded, flight yoke just slightly different.

 

II'm sure you could get a Gulfstream if you agreed to  indemnify Gulfstream against all its legal fees yourself

II'm sure you could get a Gulfstream if you agreed to indemnify Gulfstream against all its legal fees yourself

When it comes to FSX emulation of a real-world aircraft, it's not so much a matter of "liability" as it is a matter of trademark and/or intellectual property infringement - similar to the issues that cropped up several years ago in the use of r/w airline logos and paint schemes in FS repaints. I think it was eventually determined that the inclusion of such logos generally fell under the "fair use" provisions of copyright and trademark laws - especially in the case of freeware repaints.

 

Using the trademarked name or digital image of a specific manufacturer's product in an add-on is another matter... Especially one for which a fee is charged. Companies like Boeing and Cessna are willing to license their name and the "look and feel" of their products to FS add-on developers.

 

Gulfstream, evidently, is not willing to do so.

 

Even in the case where a license IS granted, manufacturers sometimes limit certain data. Boeing has a close working relationship with PMDG, but placed restrictions on the fuel burn and engine performance data for the MD-11. PMDG may have been given access to that information solely for the internal coding of their MD-11 simulation but were not permitted to publish it in the included manual.

Roger that. Did you ever have to pursue direct licensing with Honeywell to create emulations of their products as part of previous ESDG aircraft, or was that included in in the manufacturer's license for the aircraft itself?

Textron contacts/licenses those who do Cessna Products, I'm not aware of Avionics Manufactures going to those same lengths.

The OP speaks of 50.00 then 40.00 as if that would interest developers.

That's simply not the case these days for high end products. Too much work for too little ROI. B)

Gulfstream, evidently, is not willing to do so.

 

As Gulfstream isn't willing then it will let loose its lawyers -  who will expect to be paid.

We talked to gulfstream about this (vp of marketing and strategic dev) and we were told specifically do not attempt to make a simulation of our prodcuts(s) or you risk litigation and demands of damages.

 

There you have it.

We had a similar "inside track" 6 years ago but alas no fruition. Especially no" gulfriver" B)

We talked to gulfstream about this (vp of marketing and strategic dev) and we were told specifically do not attempt to make a simulation of our prodcuts(s) or you risk litigation and demands of damages.

 

There you have it.

I dont know why they are being such sticklers having a plane in FS isnt going to hurt them... its not like Joe billionaire is gonna be like "I was gonna buy a G650 but now that there is one for FSX I won't bother"

I dont know why they are being such sticklers having a plane in FS isnt going to hurt them... its not like Joe billionaire is gonna be like "I was gonna buy a G650 but now that there is one for FSX I won't bother"

Gulfstream is extremely protective of their "brand". It's not that they don't market it - they definitely do. Inside of every major Gulfstream maintenance service center in the US (Savannah, Long Beach and Appleton, WI) is the "Gulfstream Store" - a retail outlet selling all manner of official Gulfstream logo merchandise. Hats, coats, shirts, travel bags, coffee mugs, beer mugs, golf balls, pens, purses... You name it, they have it. They even sell models of all the Gulfstream aircraft. Not "build it yourself" plastic models - but high-end desktop presentation models that cost upwards of $200 each.

 

But - I'm sure if any retailer outside of the company tried selling ANYTHING with the Gulfstream logo, they would probably get sued into the middle of next month.

 

The same undoubtedly holds true of FS emulations of Gulfstream products. Not that Gulfstream themselves would ever get into the business of marketing add-ons.

Yeah it's kind of weird that Gulstream doesn't like the idea of anyone modeling their aircraft...

 

If you are desperate you could try hire a developer from some country where the government doesn't care that much about this kind of legal nonsense. I would love to see Gulfstream trying to sue someone who lives in middle of Siberia or perhaps Iranian countryside.  :lol:

 

While Gulfstream's have great performance I personally find them rather boring looking, wouldn't bother developing one even if they allowed it.