Well..... in the unlikely event that this is all a big misunderstanding, the results would be......... interesting.

That's been my interpretation all along. Nobody but MS "owns" the software. Just as when we buy a piece of software, we are licensed to use it and never truly own it. We are paying for the privilege to use that title . Full control is still held by say licensee. Of course what can and can't be done is in the EULA agreement.

 

 As far as announcements. May never be a so called "public announcement" Like a big press release. After all, ITS JUST a game! Billion dollar companies are bought and so regularly without any fanfare announcements. They, who ever that may be, may chose to announce on local interest sites?

 

It's not the same as when we buy a piece of software.

 

When you license a software engine it usually happens one of two ways. You pay a large lump sum to license the engine and what you create on it becomes your IP. You've effectively "bought the code" for your use even though the engine creator can continue to sell licenses to other people. The engine creator can't decide one day to revoke your license for no reason and void your IP. You'd have to violate the agreement and no one pays millions for an engine without knowing that won't happen for any reason. You of course can't go re-sell the engine to others for development. 

 

No future buyer of a license can turn around and sue a current user just because they are competition. I had to laugh at that assertion being made several times in this thread. 

 

The other way is you pay almost nothing upfront and pay royalties on sales once your product is complete. You retain IP rights as long as you honor the agreement to pay the engine creator a percent of sales (examples of this would be the Unreal Engine).

I think this is all a plot by Tom to drive up traffic so he can make millions off the advertising sales! 

 

Of course, how else is he going to pay for that two week cruise in the Med with no Internet connectivity... :Money Eyes:

Of course, how else is he going to pay for that two week cruise in the Med with no Internet connectivity... :Money Eyes:

 

Precisely!

 

FlightGear's development began in 1996 and it's still can't compete with FSX, not to mention P3D or X-Plane.

 

The "community" can't and won't develop it. Let me ask what Ce_Zeta  did to deveop it?

 

 

Please, read all post, not only one line. Thank you. If ypou do not understand anything please, ask. Ask is better than share an opinion based in a false premise.

 

And when you read the entire post, have in mind that when you read community i am saying stakeholders.

 

Your point is well understood but asking the community to go back to circa the year 2000 is borderline crazy to say the least, no one's gonna do it.   With options like Outerra is knocking at the door, P3D, and X-Plane we have some viable options/cards (albeit controlled by companies that can pull the plug at any time) still left to play.  That being said FS9 looks 110 times better than 'Flight Gear' and would be an option before people turn to 'Flight Gear' in it's current state.  I wish people got on board with 'Flight Gear' at it's onset but you had an outstanding product called Flight Simulator that was open enough for us to add to it and supported by the main company that helped kick start this technical reality we're living in now.  The best option that would work in your model today would be X-Plane.  I agree with you like Linux we need something open source like Falcon 4.0 where everyone has access to the source code.  How we get there I don't know but at this time our options don't warrant the effort or support to get 'Flight Gear' up to speed (brought into the 21st century).  This may come back to bight us in the tail one day but when that day comes 'Flight Gear' will be there and in better condition than it is today meaning it could be a future option by default.  

I  agree with you.

Come back to the year 2000 is absurd. My proposal is fly to the future, not to the past.

 

Starting with the FlightGear 3.2 or above we can develop with more resources than one company in less time.

 

The freedom to develop is huge. We can develop in order to be more simmilar to FSX in several parameters to reduce development cost of addons.

 

You want to use Outerra?...With this model of business, Outerra can develop and sell an Outerra  module  which works in this future simulator.

 

An open development should not be bad when Wikipedia is the most powerful and complete encyclopedia in the history. And Linux is used in millions of devices.

 

We only need an alliance between the major players of FS community. Starting with users, Addons developers, webs and later, we can catch the attention of the big players.

 

Now I think is very useful the following document from The Free Software foundation about Kernel development. Who writes Linux (pdf). The key for a succesful development are the big players....About this, in the document you can read:

 

 

WHY COMPANIES SUPPORT LINUX KERNEL DEVELOPMENT

The list of companies participating in Linux kernel development includes many of the most

successful technology firms in existence. None of these companies are supporting Linux

development as an act of charity; in each case, these companies find that improving the kernel helps them to be more competitive in their markets.

 

P.S. I Forgot...OK all this sounds very good, right? but First of all, we need that a  Technical commitee prepare a Feasibility study.

 

 

So... no official news yet. The only places I can find this are on are other sites referencing each other.
 
What is the point in off-the-record press releases/leaks if there isn't anything to back it up? I'm starting to think  this is really bad smoke.
 
Best regards,
Robin.

 

Almost reminds me of the news coverages following the MH370 disappearances.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have this feeling that this is not going to be as big of a deal as everyone is anticipating. I'm speaking in terms of how it relates to hardcore simmers.

I went to a Thanksgiving get together a couple of years back. One of the family members in attendance had been drinking the Linux cool aid. It was quite an deal. He was like a reformed smoker who had seen the face of God. I don't think that family has ever completely healed the wounds. LOL Their are so many people who can not get over the fact that the Internet is not what it was years ago. There is nothing going to be free ever again.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have this feeling that this is not going to be as big of a deal as everyone is anticipating. I'm speaking in terms of how it relates to hardcore simmers.

I think your "feeling" is correct. It this turns out to be anything of any real importance then it will be a much bigger shock to me than the announcement that Aces was history.

 

Edit, I must say that is has been a hoot watching all the folks getting worked up.

 

 

So... no official news yet. The only places I can find this are on are other sites referencing each other.
 
What is the point in off-the-record press releases/leaks if there isn't anything to back it up? I'm starting to think  this is really bad smoke.

 

I agree... it's probably good that Avsim doesn't rely on it's journalistic prowess to maintain its reputation. Example: the press reported on Apple's purchase of Beats a week before there was any "official" press release.

 

 

Neither would be stupid enough to enter an agreement, with millions of dollars spent to license an engine, that would allow that.

 

So commercial lawyers are not needed once a licence has been signed?

 

 

 

And when you read the entire post, have in mind that when you read community i am saying stakeholders.

 

You never mentioned stakeholders in your post. are those your  "Aerospace Agencies, Addon developers, Aircraft companies, aviation companies...In the same way that actualli FlightGear is developed." If so perhaps you can  list those who have actually contributed to FlightGear?

A lot of people talking about FSX, ESP, 64 Bit, backwards compability.

I don`t know what the knowledge of some guys here is about the MSFS (ESP) software.

I had the opportunity to talk to some members of the Flight team, those who some of them were also part of ACES team from FSX.

They all mentioned that the MS Flight! engine, formerly known as part of ESP II, is a lot more advanced than the ESP which is used for FSX and P3D. They just were not allowed to use all of it`s potential, due to economical and strategic reasons.

I can`t imagine a new licensee/customer will pay much money for the old version (FSX/ESP), but for the ESP II /Flight engine.

Anyway a new product will not be compatible with FSX/P3D 3rd party add-on`s, neither a 64 Bit versions will never work with any 32 bit product.

If the new licensee will do a FlightSim related product, i highly doubt someone can use any product he bought for FS9,X, P3D.

I don`t even think they can use MSFlight stuff.

 

Maybe they just want the new engine for a total different game/sim?

You never mentioned stakeholders in your post. are those your  "Aerospace Agencies, Addon developers, Aircraft companies, aviation companies...In the same way that actualli FlightGear is developed." If so perhaps you can  list those who have actually contributed to FlightGear?

For this reason I clarify this point. :smile:

 

 

Anyway a new product will not be compatible with FSX/P3D 3rd party add-on`s, neither a 64 Bit versions will never work with any 32 bit product.

 

Not necessarily true. So long as the format is maintained, 3D models, scenery Textures, can be made compatible, even if it was 64 bit. Any type of executable like .dll's though definitely would not be compatible. That would leave out most of the complex aircraft addons, like PMDG.  

Your re-direct has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

Those commercial lawyers would of went over any agreement prior to signing to ensure their IP rights are protected in all cases, especially by something as simple and common as another developer licensing the same engine. You act as if that's unusual.

 

Not to mention MS makes money every time they license the engine. They themselves are going to protect their right to do so and for other's to buy from them.

Your re-direct has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

Those commercial lawyers would of went over any agreement prior to signing to ensure their IP rights are protected in all cases, especially by something as simple and common as another developer licensing the same engine. You act as if that's unusual.

 

Who are you responding to?