1 minute ago, pstrub said:

I think the problem was all about opening up the whole FSArchive file, which would lead to severe complications with intellectual property rights of the plane manufacturers. 

In the September Q&A Jörg finally saw that the request was mostly about modding the config files, not about the 3D models etc, and he was like: Ahhh THIS should be easy, we don't mind. But still they have to discuss it with the manufacturers to be on the safe side legally, I think he mentioned something along these lines in the Q&A a couple of days ago.

I can't say I'm entirely convinced that protecting the 3D models from being modded is the core issue - why would Cessna be fine with the JPL mod changing the instruments and adding working doors and  windows to the base Cessna 152 but reach for the lawyers if someone could do the same to the Aerobat version

3 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

I can't say I'm entirely convinced that protecting the 3D models from being modded is the core issue - why would Cessna be fine with the JPL mod changing the instruments and adding working doors and  windows to the base Cessna 152 but reach for the lawyers if someone could do the same to the Aerobat version

I guess it's mostly about Boeing, Jörg made a remark about the "one" manufacturer that doesn't want to open up their aircraft, adding "you probably know which one"... Other than that I guess it's mostly about protecting the premium / deluxe content from simply copying it into the standard version. 

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by pstrub

Just now, pstrub said:

I guess it's mostly about Boeing, Jörg made a remark about the "one" manufacturer that doesn't want to open up their aircraft. Other than that I guess it's mostly about protecting the premium / deluxe content from simply copying it into the standard version. 

Given a choice between allowing people who haven't paid for the content access to it ifn they can be bothered and having it properly supported and enhanced by the community, as someone who paid for Premium Deluxe version I'm all for openning it to everyone.

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

Given a choice between allowing people who haven't paid for the content access to it ifn they can be bothered and having it properly supported and enhanced by the community, as someone who paid for Premium Deluxe version I'm all for openning it to everyone.

Me too, but we're not the ones to decide this. Still it explains their sudden change of mind. Opening up the whole package isn't possible in their book, but they don't mind giving us the config files. Which is a big step forward for modders. Although I believe they all have "unofficial" access to the config files by now. 

Edit: They discussed this at 14:14 in the latest Dev Q&A:

 

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by pstrub

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

I can't say I'm entirely convinced that protecting the 3D models from being modded is the core issue - why would Cessna be fine with the JPL mod changing the instruments and adding working doors and  windows to the base Cessna 152 but reach for the lawyers if someone could do the same to the Aerobat version

Different companies want different licensing, for example in the car racing simulation world some manufacturers want clauses that their cars receive no damage, others that their cars are protected from modding and stuff like that. Therefore it's no surprise that airplane companies want similar things in licensing for flight Sims, as above Boeing are no doubt being protective whereas Cessna might just say "do what you want!" 🙂

24 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Different companies want different licensing, for example in the car racing simulation world some manufacturers want clauses that their cars receive no damage, others that their cars are protected from modding and stuff like that. Therefore it's no surprise that airplane companies want similar things in licensing for flight Sims, as above Boeing are no doubt being protective whereas Cessna might just say "do what you want!" 🙂

I'm pretty sure I read that the reason there were suddenly no more Outrun games, and that there has been no official re-release of older ones, and also one of them being pulled from sale on Steam, is because Ferrari decided that Sega couldn't have the licence any more. Licencing, copyright, trademarks -- it's a complex world, and must be frustrating for someone trying to make what they hope to be the ultimate simulator on the market.

3 minutes ago, March Hare said:

I'm pretty sure I read that the reason there were suddenly no more Outrun games, and that there has been no official re-release of older ones, and also one of them being pulled from sale on Steam, is because Ferrari decided that Sega couldn't have the licence any more. Licencing, copyright, trademarks -- it's a complex world, and must be frustrating for someone trying to make what they hope to be the ultimate simulator on the market.

That's more than likely true, Porsche for example were locked in a single license with Electronic Arts for years. Once that was ended they suddenly licensed their cars in poetry much all the other Sims going!

There's a lot to licensing that the average gamer/simmer would ever know, from things as big as encrypting physics to making sure a Badge on a bonnet is Straight by a millimetre!

10 minutes ago, MarcG said:

That's more than likely true, Porsche for example were locked in a single license with Electronic Arts for years. Once that was ended they suddenly licensed their cars in poetry much all the other Sims going!

There's a lot to licensing that the average gamer/simmer would ever know, from things as big as encrypting physics to making sure a Badge on a bonnet is Straight by a millimetre!

Absolutely. Take the Gran Turismo series. I don't know if it changed eventually, but certainly in the beginning, they couldn't simulate car damage, or at least visual damage. Players didn't like or understand this, but the series creator explained: the manufacturers don't want their shiny vehicles to be shown as damaged -- they only want them represented in their best light. And it didn't matter if some manufacturers said, sure, go for it, show them dented and in flames; if only one or two car companies (and I think this was the case at one time) were against the notion of simulating visual or mechanical damage (even though it's what happens in real life), they couldn't do any damage model at all, because you couldn't have an inconsistent experience with some cars in a race crashing while others carried on as normal despite being effectively written off.

Thanks for bringing us all this good news to come!

If helicopters are really only coming in Q4 that's a joke. I mean if freeware developers are able to implement helos within a few months, why would Asobo take a year to do so? 

25 minutes ago, chatman said:

If helicopters are really only coming in Q4 that's a joke. I mean if freeware developers are able to implement helos within a few months, why would Asobo take a year to do so? 

They talk about exactly why in the last Q&A.  Not even close to a joke.  Watch, listen and learn before assuming ASOBO doesn't know what they're doing.

22 hours ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

• • 229 aircraft (+2) are either released or are in various stages of development.
    • 74 aircraft (+0) have been released on the platform so far in various stores.
    • 46 aircraft (+3) have been released in the in-sim marketplace.
    • 131 aircraft (+1) beyond the released aircraft have been announced.
    • 24 aircraft (+1) are not announced, but the dev let us know that an aircraft is in production.
•  

One wonders when they'll start having a good quality GA long distance aircraft like they've had in P3D and X-Plane.  I'd love to see some aircraft with some real depth.    

12 hours ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

They talk about exactly why in the last Q&A.  Not even close to a joke.  Watch, listen and learn before assuming ASOBO doesn't know what they're doing.

OK, watched the Q&A.

Yes, they talk about it and basically state they want to be it "perfect" and also improve propellers together wit rotor physics.

That's fine but still doesn't explain why they have not implemented Helos yet. Other aircrafts were also not perfect when they were released so I see no point why they could not implement Helicopters and improve them over time as thy did with planes...

45 minutes ago, chatman said:

OK, watched the Q&A.

Yes, they talk about it and basically state they want to be it "perfect" and also improve propellers together wit rotor physics.

That's fine but still doesn't explain why they have not implemented Helos yet. Other aircrafts were also not perfect when they were released so I see no point why they could not implement Helicopters and improve them over time as thy did with planes...

Probably because they had so much criticism over the airplanes, and want to avoid the same again. Why not take time? What's the real rush?

52 minutes ago, chatman said:

OK, watched the Q&A.

Yes, they talk about it and basically state they want to be it "perfect" and also improve propellers together wit rotor physics.

That's fine but still doesn't explain why they have not implemented Helos yet. Other aircrafts were also not perfect when they were released so I see no point why they could not implement Helicopters and improve them over time as thy did with planes...

They said they're talking to three potential partners to decide which one to use for Helicopters, I'd rather they take their time to make it as good as possible instead of potentially rushing out a product that's a load of rubbish.