TBF Avenger and other planes

[nic727]

Hi,

I have a question about why we can't have cockpit view for TBF Avenger. You said one time that it was because we didn't have the right to do that and other stuffs like that, but Warthunder has TBF Avenger as playable plane. I don't see why they can and not us. What's wrong with copyright stuffs from Grumman?

What about B-17, B-29, etc.?

I know that you are not a lot in the team to make all those aircrafts, but I want to know why it can't be done.

Thank you

[Woke Up Dead]

B-17 and B-29 aren't flyable probably because of the huge effort it takes create multi-engined planes with many gunner positions.

As far as the Avenger goes, I believe that 1C came to some sort of legal agreement wit Grumman that they wouldn't use their planes in-game. Perhaps Grumman has a different agreement with the developers of Warthunder, perhaps Warthunder is paying royalties to Grumman.

[IceFire]

We don't know the full details except that lawyers that represented N-G corporation very likely sued and won some sort of settlement with Ubisoft/Maddox Studios which allowed them to keep the current N-G content but anything new was strictly forbidden under the agreement. Everything was hush hush and out of the public eye but enough details have made their way out. This was even loosely confirmed by Oleg Maddox but he explained that they couldn't say any more than that.

The problem stemmed from the advertising on the back of the Pacific Fighters box. This is what we theorized. It was also a time when lawyers were suing plastic and die cast model makers trying to get money from them. I believe there is now some legal precedent set as a result of the EA/Battlefield 4 lawsuit involving the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter but I'm not sure.

Regardless, a legal agreement is in place and any additional work on N-G aircraft is pretty much out of the question for the IL-2 1946 series.

New games and new series are separate. War Thunder can do whatever they want and I suspect in the near future those types of lawsuits have been largely quashed. Not to say that it won't come up again. Stupid stuff like that does tend to.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

B-17 and B-29 aren't flyable probably because of the huge effort it takes create multi-engined planes with many gunner positions.

Due to work being done on the B-24, and past work for the B-25, it would be "relatively easy" to get a flyable B-17E, due to common equipment being used for the different planes. Perhaps 5 existing crew stations could be partially reworked (bombardier, nose, dorsal, waist and tail guns). The ball turret wouldn't need to be reworked at all, other than possibly tweaking animation. It might also be possible to port over some of the cockpit gauges for the pilot/co-pilot stations.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I believe there is now some legal precedent set as a result of the EA/Battlefield 4 lawsuit involving the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter but I'm not sure.

Not surprisingly, the case was settled out of court and the terms of the settlement are undisclosed. No defense contractor wants an unfavorable legal precedent on the books, since it would gut their ability to launch future lawsuits against video game manufacturers.

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes...licopter-maker

But, in the years after the NG Consent Decree, the U.S. Supreme Court has made some rulings that could be taken to be favorable to game manufacturer's rights to "free speech."

In particular, they have the right to use the unnamed images of real people without paying royalties:

http://kotaku.com/5838921/ea-has-a-f...rs-judge-rules


Of course, that changes NOTHING with regards to IL2, for the reasons that Icefire mentioned.

There's also the possibility that the Warthunder programmers quietly paid royalties to NG and other defense contractors, precisely to prevent a lawsuit. Different game, different companies, different legal environment.

[Janosch]

War Thunder can do whatever they want, because it's not a game, but a screensaver.

btw, I'm glad that Ilyushin or Messerschmitt never sued.

[ElAurens]

It took two very talented and devoted guys years to make the B 24 we will have in 46. That's right, I said years.

Making the B17 or B29 flyable is a LOT more than just pasting in a few of the common bits from the B24 model. For starters you have to model the interior of every manned station, and the 17 and 29 look nothing like each other, or the 24.

Also the 29 would present other issues as it is really almost from another era of design. The remotely controlled turrets alone would be quite a programming feat I would think.

And none of this gets into building credible flight and damage models for these large, complex airframes.

Just something to think about.

Oh, and about the whole NG thing, you must remember that War Thunder is not an air combat game, it is a very sophisticated money making machine, that preys on it's players desires to buy their way to success, so they have LOTS of money to spend on royalty payments to the large aircraft manufacturing corporations.

[IceFire]

I still don't think they have paid any money to license the aircraft. It's just a matter of there have been resistance and precedent set in a few instances now so the lawyers are out looking for money elsewhere these days.

[gaunt1]

Why dont forget those damned NG planes? There are tons of far more interesting aircrafts in WW2 that would also deserve to be included as flyable: Do-217, Me-410, Spitfire XIV, Typhoon, Tu-2, Su-2, B6N, D4Y to name a few...

[ElAurens]

Because the US and the Fleet Air Arm operated the TBF/TBM, and the US has no viable torpedo bomber that is player flyable. These aircraft were widely deployed in the Pacific, and the Atlantic, and really are necessary for any kind of campaign that involves carrier operations.

Having the TBF/TBM and the Curtiss Helldiver BTW, would flesh out the compliment for the USN.

And true, we need more Japanese attack aircraft as flyable as well.