PDA

View Full Version : Seems Flight Sims are not the only ones Getting screwed over!!!!



FlakMagnent
01-31-2005, 09:57 AM
In this article we can see how the money grubbing aircraft makers are screwing everybody involved with a love of their planes.!!
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTMURPH.HTM

Bearcat99
01-31-2005, 10:11 AM
All the more reason for us to enjoy and appreciate what we have......

indylavi
01-31-2005, 10:18 AM
Yeah this is getting insane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
01-31-2005, 10:27 AM
Sad, very sad.

Putting together kits of the aircraft I read about and saw in movies, and all sorts of stuff was one of my most rewarding past times as a kid.

I hope my kids (when I get em at some point waaaaaay in the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) wont be deprived of being able to do the same.

Latico
01-31-2005, 10:48 AM
I don't, for a minute, believe the figures that article states. Some one had posted a link to another article from a guy that worked with Monogram-Revell, that stated that one aircraft manufacture only requested a 1.5 percent of the projected net profits of a model (probably wholesale price, not retail). That doesn't calculate anywhere near "up to $40 per kit". Unless they mean $40 for the reproduction on one particular kit, as in, 10k copies of the kit. In that case $40 to produce 10k copies really ain't squat.

Do the math people.

We really need to take what we read about this issue with a grain of salt. There are politics invloved here and I think we all know how the truth can be twisted when it comes to politics.

Wallstein
01-31-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FlakMagnent:
In this article we can see how the money grubbing aircraft makers are screwing everybody involved with a love of their planes.!!
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTMURPH.HTM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unbelieveble and... simply very, very bad. Unbelievebly bad.

Wallstein!

crazyivan1970
01-31-2005, 10:55 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Hoatee
01-31-2005, 12:58 PM
create a commodity and then claim a piece for your sel,

fish.

JadehawkII
01-31-2005, 01:05 PM
This so called article has been posted on some dedicated modeling sites and have bebunked this article as poorly researched and hardly accurate with reality. While it's true Manufactures are asking for I quote: "Copy right protection" so junior Bobby and his parents can't sue Aircraft maker Number 1 just because Bobby swallowed plastic piece from Popular plastic kit. That's the whole idea behind what you are hearing. I hate it when someone tries to confuse reality with poor research and real facts of what's going on.

Jadehawk

FlakMagnent
01-31-2005, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JadehawkII:
This so called article has been posted on some dedicated modeling sites and have bebunked this article as poorly researched and hardly accurate with reality. While it's true Manufactures are asking for I quote: "Copy right protection" so junior Bobby and his parents can't sue Aircraft maker Number 1 just because Bobby swallowed plastic piece from Popular plastic kit. That's the whole idea behind what you are hearing. I hate it when someone tries to confuse reality with poor research and real facts of what's going on.

Jadehawk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know that the figures in the article seem to be off. My point in posting the article was simply to show the community that this game isnt the only company to be brought around to paying IP copyrights. I still dont see why some of these companies see fit to bring a historical simulation like this one down because someone gets greedy even though the planes are some 60 years old and really rare to see today. I mean come on. They make billions a year in these modern times, why mess with the entertainment buisnesses.

fordfan25
01-31-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
I don't, for a minute, believe the figures that article states. Some one had posted a link to another article from a guy that worked with Monogram-Revell, that stated that one aircraft manufacture only requested a 1.5 percent of the projected net profits of a model (probably wholesale price, not retail). That doesn't calculate anywhere near "up to $40 per kit". Unless they mean $40 for the reproduction on one particular kit, as in, 10k copies of the kit. In that case $40 to produce 10k copies really ain't squat.

Do the math people.

We really need to take what we read about this issue with a grain of salt. There are politics invloved here and I think we all know how the truth can be twisted when it comes to politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YEP.

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2005, 10:16 PM
Interesting site, thanks....

Digital Cammo...several pages on from that link...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
August 26, 2004: Back in 2001, the U.S. Marines introduced a radical new camouflage pattern that used pixels (little square or round spots of color, like you will find on your computer monitor if you look very closely), instead of just splotches of different colors. Naturally, this was called digital camouflage. This new pattern proved considerably more effective at hiding troops than older methods. For example, in tests, it was found that soldiers wearing digital pattern uniforms were 50 percent more likely to escape detection by other troops, than if they were wearing standard green uniforms. What made the digital pattern work was the way the human brain processed information. The small "pixels" of color on the cloth makes the human brain see vegetation and terrain, not people. One could provide a more technical explanation, but the brain processing one pretty much says it all.

However, the Canadian army quickly chimed in that they had been developing digital camouflage since 1996. Shortly thereafter, some old timers in the U.S. Army noted that they had seen digital camouflage in the 1970s. And they had. It turns out that Lieutenant Colonel Timothy R. O'Neill, a West Point professor of engineering psychology, had first noted the digital camouflage effect. It was never adopted for use in uniforms, but was used for a camouflage pattern on armored vehicles of the U.S. Army 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Europe from 1978 to the early 1980s. Why hadn't the army adopted it for uniforms back in the 1970s? It seems that the key army people (uniformed and civilian) deciding such things in the 1970s could not grasp the concept of how digital camouflage worked on the human brain, and were not swayed by field tests. Strange, but true, and it's happened before. In 2003, the U.S. Army decided to use digital camouflage patterns for their new field uniforms. China and Finland have also decided to use digital camouflage for new field uniforms.

New ideas are often slow to catch on in the military, and digital camouflage was one of them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The first of these camouflage ideas, which was extremely bold, sought to employ a "pixellated" colouration to obscure the target. This technique was dubbed "melkopyatnistaya okraska", or 'small-spotted finish'. The idea, surprisingly, was not previously unknown. Indeed, in 1917 a type of colouration like this was seen on a Royal Navy trawler (I believe this was HMS Stalwart), one of the various examples of 'Dazzle Camouflage' which were famous from the First World War. The application of this scheme was in the form of small, sprayed 'dots'. Some of the examples in the photographic record in the RGVA seem also to have 'blotches', looking more like they had been applied with a sponge.

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Camouflage/R5/deco-r5.php
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big pics of "digitalized" R~5

~> http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Camouflage/R5/r5-side-var1.jpg
~> http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Camouflage/R5/r5-upper-var1.jpg

Badsight.
02-01-2005, 01:38 AM
you just got to see the digital camo gear next to their older camo to see just how much more effective it is

& considering the digital camo patten is all square edge , its surprising but its true , it blends better than the old splotch pattern kit

Schlagloch
02-01-2005, 02:49 AM
I have always wondered what sense it makes to paint an aircraft in camouflage paint if you put a big red star on the fuselage afterwards. Or in case of the german fighters if you paint the whole front of the aircraft bright yellow.

ElAurens
02-01-2005, 05:31 AM
Since we are going OT here..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Camos primary function on aircraft is to conceal the machine whilst it is on the ground. At least that is what I have always read. The Germans got away with the bright yellow noses only early in the war, when they had supremacy over a very unorganized and poorly trained and equipped VVS.

Later in the war you see the USAAF dispensing with camo altogether and the LW really toning down the yellow ID coloring for the same reasons.

SeminoleX
02-01-2005, 04:52 PM
When I was a kid Mad Magazine began publishing.

We thought way back then it was humorous entertainment.Little did we realize it was actually a prophecy of our future world. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.mindspring.com/~mike.wicks/AENewman.jpg

malkuth
02-01-2005, 04:59 PM
One day, all this bull**** might come and Bite these Aircraft mans in the ***.

But can someone with the knowlege please explain to me, why a Company that makes a Pill like viagra, and the patton runs out in what six year and then you get all these generic brands right.

So why is it that planes that are 60 years freaking old are making such a fuss now?

malkuth
02-01-2005, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
Do the math people.

We really need to take what we read about this issue with a grain of salt. There are politics invloved here and I think we all know how the truth can be twisted when it comes to politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok what the hell does polictics have to do with Model makers and Flight Sim players?

Are the Democrats trying to recruit another form of a minority group. LOL.

Latico
02-01-2005, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by malkuth:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
Do the math people.

We really need to take what we read about this issue with a grain of salt. There are politics invloved here and I think we all know how the truth can be twisted when it comes to politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok what the hell does polictics have to do with Model makers and Flight Sim players?

Are the Democrats trying to recruit another form of a minority group. LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not government politics. Any time people find themselves in dissagreement over a topic, they start "politicing" to gain support for their side of the issue. Which often means bending, distorting, exagerating, and down right hiding the truth.

DarkCanuck420
02-01-2005, 09:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif They think God blessed america.

SeminoleX
02-02-2005, 12:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifLive In Your Word-Come Pay in Ours!

The AC manufacturers like Grumman couldn't really give a hoot about collecting royalities and fees from the likes of model makers and PC games. Small potatoes....but it does set a precident.

The real target is the console market. As you well know this gaming sector is very profitable. You've all seen the ads on TV.... ad campaigns costing in the millions....the 2003 annual revenues for consoles exceeded 1 billion bucks.http://www.nintendohead.com/news/124/

If the manufactures can secure easy early victories from the small fry that can't really afford to fight back...then they figure they can settle with the big boys latter without costly legal battles. Their aim is to get a cut of the pie now that it's worth slicing up.

It's just a remake of the old protection racket scam. The console industry will simply consider the royalities as a business exprense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

MGBurrows
02-03-2005, 05:50 PM
Well, while I do find this signifcantly annoying on the part of aircraft and vehicle manufacturers (I also play microarmor wargames, largely WWII, and other miniature wargames covering everything from the Ancient World to the 1st Crusade Against The Slavocrats)) as it has already affected this game, I must also acknowledge they have some justification since they own the designs in question. If they own it, they have a right to get paid for its use by anyone using it.
However, what might prove useful to achieving a compromise that works in favor of all involved might be if those of us who play this game - and others - that might be threatened by such actions on the part of manufacturers e-mailed or otherwise corresponded with the manufacturers in question voicing their objections and expressing their concerns.
Now, those of you who will join me in this, please - PLEASE - no threats to anyone. Act like intelligent adults and render arguments not anger. I manage an apartment complex for a living and I can tell you from personal experience that petulance and accusatory terms are entirely counter-productive and garner only anger and resentment in reply. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Be civilized and rational.
Anyone willing?

HerrGraf
02-04-2005, 10:00 PM
Microarmour- now that brings back old fond memories.
You are absolutely correct about being polite with ones complaints. Vulgarities only turn the opposition off to any validity in your arguement.

By the way is MG for machine gun or Morris Garage?

RocketRobin__
02-05-2005, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FlakMagnent:
In this article we can see how the money grubbing aircraft makers are screwing everybody involved with a love of their planes.!!
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTMURPH.HTM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And... (hint, you'll explain how flight simms are getting screwed, in relation to middle-aged die cast toy collectors that are diametrical to Hotwheels, Corgis, or otherwise non-collectible toys).