PDA

View Full Version : Truth



Lewicide
12-17-2004, 04:49 AM
Everyone, either here or on other forums has heard about what is going on. But the only question that can can be answered on this forum is " will we get the betty will we get any flyables in the next patch will there now be a next patch?" it's looking bad.

s.bush
12-17-2004, 05:09 AM
this ishttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/aminx/d1_trainstation_020034.jpg the only truth

Lewicide
12-17-2004, 05:41 AM
I'm older than most on this forum, and I think your closer to what goes on than you would like. ( i love the graphic though)

Cheers

triggerhappyfin
12-17-2004, 06:19 AM
The IL-2 series is about so much more than American planes. The PF already is biased toward the American part.
Japanese planes isnt affected by these economical claims by American companies. Wouldnt it possible to just dump development of American planes and make more IJA/IJN planes and be happy with what we got?

John_Stag
12-17-2004, 06:37 AM
Don't forget the aircraft of Britain, Australia and others. The USA did the island-hopping, but there are other fronts, like Burma and New Guinea where The Empire ruled, and I ain't talking about Hirohito's.

There were no American aircraft in the Battle of Britain...

Philipscdrw
12-17-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
Don't forget the aircraft of Britain, Australia and others. The USA did the island-hopping, but there are other fronts, like Burma and New Guinea where The Empire ruled, and I ain't talking about Hirohito's.

There were no American aircraft in the Battle of Britain... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh - would someone object with lawyers to the use of 'Eagle squadron'?

Lewicide
12-17-2004, 07:04 AM
I am an Australian
and there was a Boomerang under development these sort of things could be marketable as add-ons to fill this niche market. (third party sold a CFS2 add-on Boomer)However while this sim remains closed architecture (as it must to regain its investment) any third part add- on must be progammed and de-bugged by the team = cost
I think we collectively are going through the worst days now with the IL2 series and i've seen this sort of thing before in my 20- odd years of enjoying flight sims, I think we'll Know pretty soon whether we'll have to pack our bags.

Cheers

John_Stag
12-17-2004, 07:09 AM
Probably not. Being in the throes of a life and death conflict is no excuse for not registering a legally-binding trademark, so if Oleg wanted, he could indeed use term "Eagle Squadron."

But that would be historically incorrect; during the battle, the Americans that flew with the RAF were dispersed among the squadrons; only later were they bunged into the same basket. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Maasi
12-17-2004, 07:16 AM
s.bush, you really like to use that picture don´t ya? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Lewicide
12-17-2004, 07:17 AM
Stag

Can't help but like you guys,
give it a go, maybe try, Historical artifact and "public domain" ie it's history and not produced by a company for profit, either way morally and ethically right does not = legally right

Cheers

John_Stag
12-17-2004, 08:00 AM
???

Not sure I understand your reply; perhaps you didn't understand mine. I think if anyone had dibs on "Eagle Squadron," it would be the RAF. My point was that those men who flew under that very honourable name couldn't have given two F*cks if it were a trademark or not.

Having said that, the RAF does hold copyright/trademarks on many things which we take for granted in 1c's products and others. They've chosen not to crack the whip; for my part, awareness of the history involved in what you get from this series of sims can only do good. Apparently, some landsharks want more than an acknowledgment of their honourable place in history.

BTW, the "Eagle Squadrons" were still formed after the Battle of Britain, so go for it, Oleg! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lewicide
12-17-2004, 08:45 AM
Yes I did not understand the gravity of your reply,
i apologise for any offence my reply may have caused it was not intentinally insensitive, my post was a more general response although I used your response as a reference, and my remark was in response to the apparent spirit that there was to keeping the Sim going without a predominant American (or any other nation) center.

Cheers

John_Stag
12-17-2004, 08:48 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My admittedly sorrowful point is how could a sim AFFORD to adequately reflect America's contribution to the war, if this is the way of the future?

Your corporate a$$holes could edit your country out of history.

Edit; Okay maybe a bit OTT, but still...