Hornet Avionics???
-
That sort of makes sense, given that your surface rotational velocity would be maxed at the equator…and also indicates that you could not free-align if you were at the North or South pole!
Had a jet on my line once that turned up with a severely bent INU, but it was only discovered after the GPS side broke - GPS had been hiding the problem for months, from what we could tell.
-
Guys, lol, even it is constructive discussion, think this thread needs realignment to op. - Bug’s (bunnny) avionics.
-
INS (Inertial Navigation System, = only gyroscopes) is not affected by GPS jamming, in case of system failure drifting will happen, among other things.
EGI (Embedded GPS/INS = two different systems acting + self-verifying each other readings) is a system that could be affected by a GPS ground or air jammer platform, IF the “I” (INS -part) fails.
Anyway, I was mainly referring to what happens to radar, mfds etc. when the bird sensors recognize an active jamming condition.
Moreover, think of the possibilities of e.g. a new 3d model/truck acting as an ground jammer (gps or/and radar jam), and put this near ground SAM’s…
You misunderstood me.
There is no point to model GPS jamming while you do not have well modeled other NAV system… -
How much level of effort would that be? It would be a great addition for sure but I’m worried it might take away from the main improvement of the Viper simulation
-
Nobody mentioned anything about licenses and other legal issues …
Do you think ED is trading with manufacturers just for the pleasure? -
Nobody mentioned anything about licenses and other legal issues …
Do you think ED is trading with manufacturers just for the pleasure?How so, the Hornet has been flyable in BMS for years ?
-
How so, the Hornet has been flyable in BMS for years ?
Come on. You are referring to an F-18 3D model using F-16 avionics.
We are speaking about accurate F-18 avionic here. -
To a large extent also at least visually a Hornet cockpit. Although what the displays show is currently borrowed from the F-16 and there are probably more F-16 specific items.
Out of curiosity, do BMS or the license owner of the F4.0 product have an agreement/license from Lockheed for the F-16 ?
-
To a large extent also at least visually a Hornet cockpit. Although what the displays show is currently borrowed from the F-16 and there are probably more F-16 specific items.
… you are far from the issues that could be caused by reproducing specific avionics and systems coming from FOUO or even confidential documents.
Out of curiosity, do BMS or the license owner of the F4.0 product have an agreement/license from Lockheed for the F-16 ?
The same as in 1998 as it is the same license. But question is not about F-16. We know that F-16 is not an issue for 23 year … What about F-18? That is the question here.
And no need to chit chat with me, I am not the one to deal the negotiation about it. -
Nobody mentioned anything about licenses and other legal issues …
Do you think ED is trading with manufacturers just for the pleasure?I thought copy right, licensing, ect. only applies to making money off of something? BMS is free, its not sold.
-
I thought copy right, licensing, ect. only applies to making money off of something? BMS is free, its not sold.
Well try to make your own shoes, call they NIKE and give them away…
See how long it will take before their legal department contact you
-
I thought copy right, licensing, ect. only applies to making money off of something? BMS is free, its not sold.
afraid not. copyright applies to the distribution of something. If you aren’t making money though, and you aren’t affecting the copyright holders business, you aren’t likely to get sued. On top of that, copyright isn’t the issue for depictions of a physical design. You’d infringe copyright if you shared someone else’s depiction of a fighter jet without their permission, but your own artwork, 3d model, etc is your work.
Still, point remains - being free is no defence against a claim of copyright infringement.
-
Another option (no one has brought up) is to purchase a touchscreen monitor and use Wheelchock’s F-18 Helios profile: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?41730-Helios-Profile-for-the-F-18-Hornet&p=574415#post574415
It’s like you’re in an actual F-18! :uham: :mrgreen:
-
afraid not. copyright applies to the distribution of something. If you aren’t making money though, and you aren’t affecting the copyright holders business, you aren’t likely to get sued. On top of that, copyright isn’t the issue for depictions of a physical design. You’d infringe copyright if you shared someone else’s depiction of a fighter jet without their permission, but your own artwork, 3d model, etc is your work.
Still, point remains - being free is no defence against a claim of copyright infringement.
The law varies from case to case and country to country, in most cases I know of items developed with public funds are exempt (at least to some extent) from such - there is such a thing as a “Design Patent”, but that isn’t the same thing as a Copyright. Use of open source materials also factor in a lot of what applies to military modeling and simulation and what actually gets copyrighted is the Developers code and not the actual design - which is how/why depictions of cockpits that all look the same because they are all representing the same cockpit are able to be done, forex.
This was at least the case until Sikorsky and a few other aerospace manufacturers started suing model companies and demanding licensing and such for use of product image, name, artwork, etc. after considering it “free advertising” for decades previous. I’ve heard that one of the most expensive models to produce these days is a Formula 1 race car for this reason…every sponsor that has a sticker on the car wants a cut of the decal sheet as well as the engine maker and racing Team.
-
The law varies from case to case and country to country, in most cases I know of items developed with public funds are exempt (at least to some extent) from such
At least in the case of the US, government work is exempt from copyright protection. Fighter jets are not produced by the government however, and the private companies that produce them do claim copyright over their works, such as, for example, the manuals, blueprints, and the like.
However, you cant specifically copyright an idea, nor a design (although you can patent a design). You can copyright a specific image or work which shows the idea, or design. If someone else uses that idea or design to produce a new work, they have not infringed on your copyright. If they copy your work, rather than your idea, they have infringed on your copyright.
Distributing a mcdonnell douglas manual detailing avionics operation may infringe copyright (as well as portions of the 1982 arms export control act). Distributing software which emulates or simulates that avionics operation would not be a copyright infringement (although it may infringe other areas of law, such as software patents).
As you say, it does vary from country to country. However, US copyright law needs to be kept in mind, considering the lengths to which the US government has gone to conduct extralegal operations outside their territory to enforce their copyright law. The most prominent example is probably the FBI arrest of Kim Dotcom back in 2012.
-
In my humble opinion, this is about Joe trying to assess how the community sees his project of improving what passionates him, which is the Hornet. I’m not sure opposing Hornet and Viper will change very much to his ideas. He is confronting comfort of using Viper’s systems versus realism (and ramifications) of using Hornet ones, in both cases for the Hornet. The question for him will persist, if I understand his question, exactly as it is, even with “better” F16 avionics.
To take another example, I would fly your Viper when I have more manual control on a package in flight, but that’s beside the point if you are a dev and decided that you’d love to improve the Viper.
Compadre, you nailed it!.
CM and Raptor, I’m not talking, or asking ,about “prioritizing” the Hornet over the Viper. I am speaking/asking from the Mafia’s perspective of helping the Other Jets in BMS. In this case specifically the Hornet, for the previously stated reasons.
Are some voting OP 3 because they thought I meant that ??? If so- sorry! I thought the situation was widely understood.
Here’s the Reality Check-The BMS Dev’s are going to do whatever their Thing is with the Viper. We have no control over, or influence in, that matter. That’s the way they want things . I accept that, and I’m still “Pro-Dev”. Just for the record, we’d love to work with them.
The purpose of this poll is very simple… I’ve given my personal feelings (Option 1, sometimes 2) . But I know that people I respect, like Mower and Brother Stevie , are strongly OP 3. What I’m trying to get a feel for is what The Group would want.
Keeping in mind, of course, if this is even possible. Or doable without code access. -
To all devs behind Hornet, just do it, you’ll make happy hundred people, we fly hornet even with viper avionics because we love the F-18, thanks for your hard work until now
-
Another option (no one has brought up) is to purchase a touchscreen monitor and use Wheelchock’s F-18 Helios profile: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?41730-Helios-Profile-for-the-F-18-Hornet&p=574415#post574415
It’s like you’re in an actual F-18! :uham: :mrgreen:
Jolly, I emphatically concur, though I’m still trying to find time to get mine working.
-
At least in the case of the US, government work is exempt from copyright protection. Fighter jets are not produced by the government however, and the private companies that produce them do claim copyright over their works, such as, for example, the manuals, blueprints, and the like.
However, you cant specifically copyright an idea, nor a design (although you can patent a design). You can copyright a specific image or work which shows the idea, or design. If someone else uses that idea or design to produce a new work, they have not infringed on your copyright. If they copy your work, rather than your idea, they have infringed on your copyright.
Distributing a mcdonnell douglas manual detailing avionics operation may infringe copyright (as well as portions of the 1982 arms export control act). Distributing software which emulates or simulates that avionics operation would not be a copyright infringement (although it may infringe other areas of law, such as software patents).
As you say, it does vary from country to country. However, US copyright law needs to be kept in mind, considering the lengths to which the US government has gone to conduct extralegal operations outside their territory to enforce their copyright law. The most prominent example is probably the FBI arrest of Kim Dotcom back in 2012.
Partly true - in the USA, the Government Contracts that produce these airplanes are funded by tax dollars - that’s public money, and as such puts some exemptions on the end product. The most rampant examples of such cases I can think of are guns - the 1911 automatic pistol, AR-15, M1A, etc. are all allowed to be freely produced by any maker because they were designed and produced with public funding. None of those were ever produced directly by the government either - they were (and are) produced by private companies under contract to the government OR for direct sale to the general public. And given that the Patents are public information, once the restrictions expire anyone can produce and even market the design.
As for technical pubs, most of these are also Contract Deliverables to the government…and as such are not and/or may not be specifically copyrighted, but are usually considered Proprietary or falling under the heading of Trade Secret. But as formal Deliverables, the government gets to apply a Distribution Statement limiting whom and where such documents may be distributed and/or by whom possessed. And/or - when.
A lot of times in this case it’s probably not a copyright that’s the hard issue but a Distribution Statement or combination of the two. In the case of military information/law there are the FAR, ITAR, Export Controls, Releasability constraints, applicable International Treaties (which incidentally, also affect the allowable use of F/A-xyz vs F-xyz in fighter designations), etc. and to name a few, which are not trivial…and all this can apply to more than just weapons and weapon systems when dealing Internationally. Plus in such instances the laws at each end of the transaction apply.
And you can thank Bill Gates for ideas becoming property - “intellectual property” - which also may or may not carry a copyright depending on how/when/if they are documented.