Sometimes I wish...

[Guest musikai]

there must be a way that FuIII could go open source. Especially when I find those lines:From an Interview with with Constantine Hantzopoulos of Looking Glass Technologies (FU2):"They could render 1 meter per pixel imagery if they so choose. They didn't because they don't have the storage capacity for that. That's why they went with 4 meter data."Found here:http://www.vterrain.org/Games/index.htmlGenerally interesting site about simulating the world:http://www.vterrain.orgIsn't there anyone left of the LG-Crew who is/feels flattered about the love and work of this great FUIII community?

[Christopher Low 5,324]

Yes, it sometimes annoys me that former members of the FU3 development team don't visit here every now and again (particularly Peter James). I suppose that you can't blame them for associating FU3 with bad memories (not enough time provided to finish the game, lousy advertising by EA, losing their jobs shortly after.....), but then we are all FANS of this flight simulator. I have nothing but admiration for what those guys did at a time when software development at Looking Glass Studios was probably rather difficult. Peter James himself stated that he was constantly amazed at the results that the team provided, and in a short period of time.Chris Low.

[Guest effyouthree]

Should we drag out the old hoary chestnut again?Maybe it's about time we took the bull by the horns and approached the owners to get their opinion? Every 12 months or so, someone suggests this and we all come up with lots of negatives, then disappear for another 12 months!I, like many of you, have thought about this many times. Just to recap, here's what I thought:* EA are the owners, I believe.* If EA have no intention of re-releasing it, AND they consider their liabilities to customers to have expired (tried to get support for FU3 from EA lately?), they probably wouldn't have too much of a problem if asked to consider relinquishing their IP control.* If EA have responsibilities under their original agreement with LGS, we have to know what these are. For example, EA may have undertaken not to sell or release source material for 10 years. If this is the case, they still may be able to release it on a non-profit basis.* They could only do this if FU3 doesn't embody other aspects of IP that are protected. For example, LGS used a lot of common 'hooks'in their software. Not being a programmer type, I can't really comment here but Thief etc may use some common code.* They WOULD only do this if they saw no future commercial purpose in retaining the IP.* They would also probably only do it if SOMEONE put their hand up to take responsibility for assuring that distribution remained non-commercial. This would probably require the person undertaking this to be a registered organisation. See below.* We may need to form a non-profit organisation (with a strict charter) to even negotiate with them. This is normal and would demonstrate our intentions better than just trying to get them to give it away.* We need to put our beliefs on the line in a legally acceptable and suitably '

[Guest Pieter]

* If EA have no intention of re-releasing it, AND they consider their liabilities to customers to have expired (tried to get support for FU3 from EA lately?), they probably wouldn't have too much of a problem if asked to consider relinquishing their IP control.I doubt this very strongly. They are in the gaming business, they still make simulators, and they probably use the code in many of their games. Releasing the code to open source will probably reveal many gaming secrets. Then "we" might enhance and deliver a product, which cost them millions, in competition for whatever future still remains in releasing any future FU-like software. It

[Christopher Low 5,324]

Jon,The fact that FU3 has not been graced with a budget release seems to be because nobody really knows exactly what they have the rights to. This "legal dispute" between EA and the developer of FU3 (whether that be LGS, or a particular person within LGS) is presumably sufficiently "hazy" that neither is confident enough to do this. Yes, it's pathetic. We all know that. Make no mistake, if I knew who to write to regarding this, then I would already have sent dozens of e-mails and letters :-)I have asked Mark in the past regarding who to contact, but he doesn't seem to know either. He has always said that if he hears anything about FU3 (or even a possible FU4), then he will let me know. Perhaps I should "prod" him, just in case he has forgotten ;-) The PC Pilot crew have apparently made enquiries regarding FU3 at various flight sim shows (I wonder if this happened at the recent Blackpool event?), but little information has been forthcoming.That's why I would love to get in contact with former members of the FU3 development team. Mark actually gave me Peter James' e-mail address (after getting permission), and "the man himself" did send two brief responses to e-mails that I sent him. Unfortunately, more recent e-mails have gone unanswered, and I suspect that this e-mail address is now invalid. Read into that what you will.Chris Low.

[Guest musikai]

Noe that is a difficult situation not knowing who has the rights for Fu3 and not having a contacts person.I also believe the chances for going open source are very minimal but this is of course just a believe.The idea came up looking at the recent developments of the software "Blender" who has made its way to the public as you can read here:http://www.blender3d.com/cms/Free_Blender_...paign.70.0.htmlNow the main goal is to find a contacts person who can give further information about the legal situation of FU3.I just can't get the name Constantine Hantzopoulos out of my head. I also found an old (2002) e-mail adress @ us.infogrames.com which seems to be Atari.Well, my english is too bad to make further steps but perhaps someone could contact Atari and find a way to Constantine Hantzopoulos.Kai