Re: [Flightgear-devel] list of aircraft that don't load in fgdata
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 08:51 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote: On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 13:51 -0500, Peter Brown wrote: http://www.mediafire.com/file/zo967hk164bjkzq/OV10%2020110303.zip The files are set to private so I'm unable to retrieve them. Odd, the link from the forum does work, anyhow I'm downloading now. Erik -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Real-time shipping traffic
Ok Stuart Sounds good, Ok on the ferries, nothing around can be said to move on water at high speed. I had not seen AIShub before so I had look, I see allow you to nominate an area for data sent from their server. They provide a binary send your off air data to direct to them, and allow their windows app to view it back from a port on their server. Thus to do much with it outside of that, you are back to rolling your own code. I did play around with the AI a while ago, but my butchered code would be way behind the development now. Firstly i was trying to get the AI and MP in sync over multiple machines doing the graphics. After that figure out how to put in the AIS ships and ADS-B aircraft. For MP I had one FG machine connect to the server, then echo the received server data stream to the 3 others to prevent 4 instances appearing on the MP server. That seemed to work ok. For AI aircraft, I exported the properties for all instances in one machine to the slaves so the AI planes appeared correctly in all windows. It was very messy, but worked ok till you went to Schipol and 100 plus AI aircraft started to slow things down. However at the time I think it might have been Durk said there might be a possibility of moving the AI into a separate sub-sytem in future. I need to go back and look at the current FG AI code. Its probably all different now. I thought a special version of the MP server might be the solution. but it became very complicated, and I am no programmer either. It seemed at the time, the FG AI had the capability to interpolate and predict the movements. With aircraft its bit easier because the ADS-B updates once a second, the AIS ships can be a couple of minutes apart. Probably the cause of your issue with the fast ferries. The other option was make a torn down core version of FG, just running the AI, and seeding it with AIS and ADS-B real time data. It would also handle MP data, Thus if the AI system generated a scheduled aircraft flight, and the real one appears on ADS-B, use the real data. This would all be supported with the live off air audio from a couple of receivers. All in al a nice realtime sim environment. Which ever way, It seemed the best thing was to run it all on a separate machine and just seed the FG machines with the AI marine and airborne items in total. If I just use my local AIS and ADS-B realtime data its not to much, but if you say 7000 ships, and i guess similar numbers of real aircraft in the air there is potentially a huge amount of processing involved. Normally at any given time here in Bali there no more than about 6 ships and 15 aircraft in range of my receivers. Like the marine AIS there are sites with Aircraft ADS-B data showing live traffic. I have also seen mention of live ATC comms being available as audio streams for some areas as well. There also an ADS-B data sharing site like the AIShub one you mentioned. http://www.adsbhub.net Like the AIS hub they allow you free use with their data as long as you have a receiver feeding to them. Some of the libraries here for sharing aircraft tracking data might also be of use for marine AIS data, but I have not checked them out as yet myself. http://www.libhomeradar.org/functions/index.html Harry On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Harry Campigli wrote: Hello Stuart, Have you gone any further with your AIS scripting? I have. I've got a quite nice proxy and some very simple heuristics to make the ship movements seem realistic. Unfortunately they don't quite work with ships docking from high speed - in particular the ferries to Alcatraz end up quite out of sync. I haven't published the scripts as I've not had any response back from the people running the marinetraffic website. Their usage agreement is quite specific. I have 2 receivers, one AIS for marine and the other ADS-B for aircraft, I am planning on driving AI aircraft and ships with both Probably need some kind of proxy or relay server on them as well. Also there some processing steps required between the devices to decrypt the strings. I was thinking along the lines of a local MP server specially modified, to do a few special tasks here, but that could also feed both data streams back out to external public MP servers. For now I am still kicking around idea s on how best to tie it all together My thinking on this matches yours :). As you may be aware, AIS Hub (http://www.aishub.net/) allows people running an AIS receiver contribute, and more importantly receive, raw NMEA data. If you have an AIS receiver, you should be able to join the group, and receive worldwide data (well, where there is coverage). AFAICT there is no restriction on usage. With a feed of raw NMEA data, it should be fairly straightforward to modify the MP server to act as a proxy and push shipping information into the MP data
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Chris On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. Yes B. No C. It doesn't matter because we should be able to ignore either of them and include well-known logos on aircraft liveries if we want. A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. In turns out that Trademark protection is really quite limited. For example, the Cessna trademark (word and logo) is registered only in Class 12. We would be able to use Cessna in Class 9. Just like Polo (a sweet) and Polo (a car). Copyright of the logo - different question. Well known or not doesn't change the equation. Interestingly, Red Bull was once refused an injunction in the US against a fizzy drinks company marketing a drink called Bullshit. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/ Red Bull Trade Mark is Bullshit.htm Which made me smile (yes, I'm easily amused) and perhaps sums up Red Bull's corporate behavior pretty well IMO. 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to assume: a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might see it as free advertising Or b. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna above) If we are in exactly the same business or class as Company B and we are sure that the use is in fact unlicensed, it is also reasonable to assume that we will get the same treatment. 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I can do this. Which of the following statements is true? A. It's only wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone if you hit something or run over somebody. B. Because I didn't ask permission (and so I couldn't be told I couldn't do it) and because no police are around, it is now okay to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. C. No matter what, it's wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling flightgear liveries and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project B. That would work So we would have to ask our users to add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft? If they are classed as FlightGear Liveries, and we take no steps to object to other websites use of our name/logo, could we not also be guilty of a infringement of the law by association? I don't know, I haven't researched it, but shoveling a problem around is not solving it. It would certainly lead to fragmentation of the project, but I think that's already happening to a certain extent. Not really a good idea. Personally, I don't care if I never see another airliner in FG, but there are others who do. Hmm, all thought provoking, and stimulated more research, Thanks, Chris Vivian -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I suspect that msfs and xplane have licensing agreements with trademark holders. It would of course be good to know this! Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote: Chris On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. Yes B. No C. It doesn't matter because we should be able to ignore either of them and include well-known logos on aircraft liveries if we want. A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. In turns out that Trademark protection is really quite limited. For example, the Cessna trademark (word and logo) is registered only in Class 12. We would be able to use Cessna in Class 9. Just like Polo (a sweet) and Polo (a car). Copyright of the logo - different question. Well known or not doesn't change the equation. Interestingly, Red Bull was once refused an injunction in the US against a fizzy drinks company marketing a drink called Bullshit. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/ Red Bull Trade Mark is Bullshit.htm Which made me smile (yes, I'm easily amused) and perhaps sums up Red Bull's corporate behavior pretty well IMO. 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to assume: a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might see it as free advertising Or b. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna above) If we are in exactly the same business or class as Company B and we are sure that the use is in fact unlicensed, it is also reasonable to assume that we will get the same treatment. 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I can do this. Which of the following statements is true? A. It's only wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone if you hit something or run over somebody. B. Because I didn't ask permission (and so I couldn't be told I couldn't do it) and because no police are around, it is now okay to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. C. No matter what, it's wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling flightgear liveries and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project B. That would work So we would have to ask our users to add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft? If they are classed as FlightGear Liveries, and we take no steps to object to other websites use of our name/logo, could we not also be guilty of a infringement of the law by association? I don't know, I haven't researched it, but shoveling a problem around is not solving it. It would certainly lead to fragmentation of the project, but I think that's already happening to a certain extent. Not really a good idea. Personally, I don't care if I never see another airliner in FG, but there are others who do. Hmm, all thought provoking, and stimulated more research, Thanks, Chris Vivian -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:21:11 -, Vivian wrote in message CAF41F9FE93C43068EA84DE676CC87C8@MAIN: Chris On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. Yes B. No C. It doesn't matter because we should be able to ignore either of them and include well-known logos on aircraft liveries if we want. A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. In turns out that Trademark protection is really quite limited. For example, the Cessna trademark (word and logo) is registered only in Class 12. We would be able to use Cessna in Class 9. Just like Polo (a sweet) and Polo (a car). Copyright of the logo - different question. Well known or not doesn't change the equation. ..depends on your jurisdiction. ;o) Interestingly, Red Bull was once refused an injunction in the US against a fizzy drinks company marketing a drink called Bullshit. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/ Red Bull Trade Mark is Bullshit.htm Which made me smile (yes, I'm easily amused) and perhaps sums up Red Bull's corporate behavior pretty well IMO. ..depends, here I'd suspect RB's litigation team would be fired for proving the satire, _truthful_. ;oD ..RB's gold fish bowl law team managed to charge themselves onto defendants alleged satirical word plays like salad bits onto barbeque pins, _totally_ blowing their own case out of the water and beyond all galactic orbits. ;o): http://www.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/bullshit/000777847 http://www.cobaltlaw.com/news/ttab-calls-red-bull-appeal-bullshit http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/2aissues/2006/75788830.pdf ..now, RB law sharks also does _proper_ trademark enforcement: ;o) http://ipwatchdog.com/2008/05/02/red-bull-wins-trademark-lawsuit/id=169/ http://www.ameinfo.com/25260.html 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to assume: a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might see it as free advertising Orb. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna above) If we are in exactly the same business or class as Company B and we are sure that the use is in fact unlicensed, it is also reasonable to assume that we will get the same treatment. ..depends, even red Bullshit logos _might_ fly in court. ;o) D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. ..sissy, IME (Norway), 20%, and VNE every time you manage to deny the cops a starting point for their video etc evidence. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Jon, MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know. As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law. When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. Vivian -Original Message- From: S. Berndt [mailto:jonsber...@comcast.net] Sent: 04 March 2011 12:29 To: vivian.mea...@lineone.net; FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing I suspect that msfs and xplane have licensing agreements with trademark holders. It would of course be good to know this! Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote: Chris On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. Yes B. No C. It doesn't matter because we should be able to ignore either of them and include well-known logos on aircraft liveries if we want. A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. In turns out that Trademark protection is really quite limited. For example, the Cessna trademark (word and logo) is registered only in Class 12. We would be able to use Cessna in Class 9. Just like Polo (a sweet) and Polo (a car). Copyright of the logo - different question. Well known or not doesn't change the equation. Interestingly, Red Bull was once refused an injunction in the US against a fizzy drinks company marketing a drink called Bullshit. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articl es/ Red Bull Trade Mark is Bullshit.htm Which made me smile (yes, I'm easily amused) and perhaps sums up Red Bull's corporate behavior pretty well IMO. 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to assume: a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might see it as free advertising Or b. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna above) If we are in exactly the same business or class as Company B and we are sure that the use is in fact unlicensed, it is also reasonable to assume that we will get the same treatment. 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I can do this. Which of the following statements is true? A. It's only wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone if you hit something or run over somebody. B. Because I didn't ask permission (and so I couldn't be told I couldn't do it) and because no police are around, it is now okay to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. C. No matter what, it's wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling flightgear liveries and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project B. That would work
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -, Vivian wrote in message 2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN: Jon, MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know. As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law. When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. ..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed. For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to a RB v FG trademark on Red Bulls computer game trademark, square bracket comment [samples] are mine: Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs installed; Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising purposes; ... [..product placement?] Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video tape film production. Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of expertise; computer programming; ... ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. ..yes, but more uniformly so, so they are easier to live with and to enforce on e.g. GPL violations. That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. Vivian ..neither is Microsoft ;o) ... except by tSCOG etc proxies... -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Arnt On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -, Vivian wrote in message 2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN: Jon, MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know. As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law. When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. ..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed. Not at all - that is commonplace. So what? For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to a RB v FG trademark on Red Bulls computer game trademark, square bracket comment [samples] are mine: Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs installed; We would come under Class 09 - Computer Software - which is not listed as a trading activity by Red Bull. Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] We are not a Game or Plaything, certainly NOT an electronic game Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising purposes; ... [..product placement?] What has this got to do with us? Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video tape film production. We don't do education do we? Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of expertise; computer programming; ... Class 42: Services - which you omitted to say - we don't offer any services. ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. Do we need any such defense? There is no sensible overlap between our business activities and those registered by Red Bull. But I chose that only as an example. This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. ..yes, but more uniformly so, so they are easier to live with and to enforce on e.g. GPL violations. That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. ..neither is Microsoft ;o) ... except by tSCOG etc proxies... Well, that's good to know Vivian -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Night Vision Shader
Hey all, For background, I'm an experienced programmer with a great deal of experience in game engines and only a decent understanding of basic rendering techniques, however I'm also fairly new to working in FlightGear. My intent is to implement night vision into FlightGear. It doesn't have to be perfect AT ALL, but certainly be close enough to be recognizable as an approximation of night vision. I'm having some difficulty compiling FlightGear and trying to navigate the Effects and Shaders interface from FlightGear, but all of these issues I can either eventually resolve on my own, or will ask separate unrelated questions in the future. I have a forum post at http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=47t=11237; which goes into further detail, but that's also for another time and another place. The critical question I have is: How would I have a shader affect everything? I've tried to edit every fragment shader that FlightGear offered, but there are still some objects which were unaffected. The skybox primarily, as well as lights, particles, and some models. I have an example of my currently working shaders, but obviously this will all become moot if I cannot affect these missing rendered objects: http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/170/nightvisionmissing1resi.png http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3083/nightvisionmissing2resi.png In the first image, the landing platform directly behind the helicopter is an example of one of the models which haven't been affected. In both images, it's very apparent that the skybox is still completely dark from night and not affected by the shader (which boosts the luminance of lights and textures). No particles are present from this example, but they also do not have any affect from the shaders. This is all slightly expected, as not every object would normally need to be sent through a fragment shader. However, is there a method to force everything through? -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Night Vision Shader
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:46:45 -0500, Tom wrote in message 4d714fb5.2020...@fidelityflight.com: Hey all, For background, I'm an experienced programmer with a great deal of experience in game engines and only a decent understanding of basic rendering techniques, however I'm also fairly new to working in FlightGear. My intent is to implement night vision into FlightGear. It doesn't have to be perfect AT ALL, but certainly be close enough to be recognizable as an approximation of night vision. ..define night vision, what it looks like you're trying to do, is the passive military green IR thing, another kind is how some FPV guys yank the IR filter to fly at night, which makes nearly all light white, except LED tail lights, some old narrow band orange street lamps etc, the IR portion drowns out the red band in glow lamps in red tail lights, that we humans see bare eyed. ..maybe one shader for each type of night vision? Disclaimer: _Some_ of my WAG, actually works. ;o) I'm having some difficulty compiling FlightGear and trying to navigate the Effects and Shaders interface from FlightGear, but all of these issues I can either eventually resolve on my own, or will ask separate unrelated questions in the future. I have a forum post at http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=47t=11237; which goes into further detail, but that's also for another time and another place. The critical question I have is: How would I have a shader affect everything? I've tried to edit every fragment shader that FlightGear offered, but there are still some objects which were unaffected. The skybox primarily, as well as lights, particles, and some models. I have an example of my currently working shaders, but obviously this will all become moot if I cannot affect these missing rendered objects: http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/170/nightvisionmissing1resi.png http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3083/nightvisionmissing2resi.png In the first image, the landing platform directly behind the helicopter is an example of one of the models which haven't been affected. In both images, it's very apparent that the skybox is still completely dark from night and not affected by the shader (which boosts the luminance of lights and textures). No particles are present from this example, but they also do not have any affect from the shaders. This is all slightly expected, as not every object would normally need to be sent through a fragment shader. However, is there a method to force everything through? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:07:03 -, Vivian wrote in message 16373ABF59E34F43A8017B95E50766E4@MAIN: Arnt On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -, Vivian wrote in message 2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN: Jon, MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know. As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law. When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. ..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed. Not at all - that is commonplace. So what? For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to a RB v FG trademark on Red Bulls computer game trademark, square bracket comment [samples] are mine: Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs installed; We would come under Class 09 - Computer Software - which is not listed as a trading activity by Red Bull. Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] We are not a Game or Plaything, certainly NOT an electronic game ..depends on your jurisdiction. ;o) ..in bad jurisdictions, on the plaintiffs choice of venue. In reasonable jurisdictions, you're able to have your lawyer succeed in having the case either thrown out or moved closer to your home jurisdiction. Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising purposes; ... [..product placement?] What has this got to do with us? ..some movie makers and game makers get paid for logos on game rendered billboards, FG livery logos are an fairly obviously possible next step. Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video tape film production. We don't do education do we? ..training is part of many kinds of education, and I believe a few here has taken part in online FG airshows. Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of expertise; computer programming; ... Class 42: Services - which you omitted to say - we don't offer any services. ..no, my understanding is FG.org does not offer a service other than supporting, developing, offering etc FG itself, in this trademark context. ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. Do we need any such defense? ..do we need safety belts? Not IME. ;oD Do I dare drive without them? ;o) Am I stupid enough to push my stupid luck? ;oD There is no sensible overlap between our business activities and those registered by Red Bull. But I chose that only as an example. ..no sensible overlap, nor any sense at all is needed in frivolous lawsuits. The only problem with frivolous lawsuits, is you need to put some money into defending yourself against them, and, you need to do so until the judge get's it, or you will lose. ..once the judge get's it, you'll get your money back. Satire and humor helps speed up that process, also because media likes to do funny news stories in prime time news shows. ..and I believe we fairly soon,
[Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
After being one party myself in one lawsuit based on business law, lasting over 15 years now, and having already 3 contradicting verdicts by 3 different High Courts (OLG's in Germany) (and of course hundreds of suggestions by lawyers!) - I am sure there is no lawyer anywhere on world who is able to predict the outcome of any lawsuit in any country, about: Are we allowed to -- and if we are - in which country are we ... and what do other companies do ... and how does a private guy think about it and how a lawyer and how a freak and how -- I could not care less: That will not reduce the risk for FlightGear at all. And I personally do not really see the reason for FlightGear to take any risk in that matter. Yes: Also I would like to see different Logos on the models - but I really do not care if that now is the realistic original actual Logo of a company -- or if it is a look alike -- or even a completely new invented one -- with some imagination it should be even possible to invent FlighGear-Logos where someone can claim his rights in order to get some money from third parties (of course outside FGFS). And even promotes FlightGear by that!!! We should have some designers with some fantasy!! But definitely: The designer should take the risk for it - and if too young: The parents should support it - that is standard in any legal business matter for youngsters! So I strongly vote to continue the discussion of how to support those designers with home-pages or special distributions or whatever -- without FlightGear taking the risk! I thought there was already started a very nice thinking in that direction! How about directing the attention of our lawyers, designers, old guys, young guys, etc. etc. etc. into that direction -- instead of what one lawyer says about one unique country in some world in some universe -- that will not really help at all!! Judges seem to reside in a world not known to anyone like us! Sorry that I am not that deep in that technicalities to offer a complete solution! But count on me if I can help in that direction! joe -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
But definitely: The designer should take the risk for it - and if too young: The parents should support it - that is standard in any legal business matter for youngsters! I agree here ... being mainly a 'content creator' , I think I'm responsible for content I create , and dumping problems in the fg communities lap is not my intention.I've also noticed that most aircraft designer's already have their own webpages to distribute what is in the git repository already.Cleaning up the Aircraft directory could be a major task though , and I don't feel too concerned about the whole issue , but if it comes to it , I hope those with write access wont hesitate to remove any of my work. Just my 2 cents. Syd -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
