Any Gulfstreams out there?

[Merlin216]

Talked to one of the lead maintenance guys for Gulfstream and he was telling us about the G650 thats about to come out. I have always loved the Citation X and never cared to check out any other jets like it, but after looking at the gulfstream website and seeing the G650 specs and pictures I am amazed.

I have never heard of a Gulfstream for FS though. That might be because I really never knew about them, but I always heard stuff about the Citation X. Does anyone know of any Gulstream jet made for FS9 or preferably X, payware or freeware?

[blazefox2]

i remember seeing some freeware a while ago, will have to search a little bit

[euroastar350]

You are going to have to fight gulfstream in order for one to come out for FS9/FSX, they don't allow anyone to re-produce their aircraft in any form, including flight simulation software.

[N2056]

The company is very much against creating virtual models of their product line. That is the main reason you can't find many of them around for FS_anything.

[Merlin216]

Thats a bummer to hear. It all makes sense now. Thats too bad, but I guess I can somewhat understand their stance.

[ColoKent]

...since I was laying in bed last night thinking of just this topic with respect to the Gulfstreams (Okay...so I'm on the road and my wife is back at home-- what ELSE was I gonna be thinking about while lying in bed???).

STOOPID corporate paranoia in my mind (and I work in the Aerospace/Defense industry, so I know how dumb some companies can be-- this takes the cake).

We need G-IIs, GV's, etc. in FS(X).

What a load of bulls**t.

K.

[expat]

STOOPID corporate paranoia in my mind (and I work in the Aerospace/Defense industry, so I know how dumb some companies can be-- this takes the cake

Tend to agree. Lawyers don't help either and I should know, as I am one. What drives this is a public company's need to maximise its value, including all its assets, tangible or intangilbe. Intangible asset, e.g. copyright, trademark and "branding" which are the domain of intellectual property lawyers. Paranoia is increased by the fear of giving any advantage whatsoever to a tough competitor. Thus, it gets into a corporate's ethos and policy to protect its brand and any unique competitive advantage at all costs, including keeping busy battalions IP lawyers who threaten developers here from time to time.

I am not an IP lawyer, but my impression is that very different approaches have been taken by aircraft manufacturers re FS licensing. Cessna it would appear are more relaxed than GS, as it has no doubt licensed payware outifts known well here at a reasonable royalty (anything more than modest would make it a no go for the devs). Other manufacturers may be even more relaxed, not even charging royalties or at least for those planes they are no longer making.

My personal view is that encouraging virtual renditions of real aircraft HELPS rather than hurts the products' image and recognition. Example: it is a fact that the most well known small airfield by the American public in the US is Meigs Field. Reason? It was included in FS over all these years.

Gulfstream - you and your lawyers are being awfully silly about this and in protest I am selling my (virtual) G550 and only flying Bombardier's Global Express until you cut us sim flyers a break! Simmers are 1) not a competitive threat and 2) admire, appreciate, and likely if anything to promote or characterize your product in only the most postive light, so chill out!

[Bjoern]

The G1 looked cool, might do one one day. "Golfstream I"...*Evil grin*

[n4gix]

The G1 looked cool, might do one one day. "Golfstream I"...*Evil grin*

Just make sure that the windows aren't similar to their patented "oval" ones...

[Bjoern]

Just make sure that the windows aren't similar to their patented "oval" ones...

To get them really oval, the vertex count would be in the billions anyways. So spending 100 vertices on a window doesn't make them oval. As doing a model with 30000 polies won't make it a virtual rendition of their products, just a virtual approximation.

And I bet their lawyers can't argue with that!

[expat]

Just make sure that the windows aren't similar to their patented "oval" ones

You mean like this?

[Railrunner130]

Henry Tomkiewicz did a bunch of Gulfstreams for AI use. http://www.htaimodels.com/index.html

[n4gix]

And I bet their lawyers can't argue with that!

Anyone who wishes to play with fire is quite welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. Having already received one C&D from them, I've no desire for another...

[Bjoern]

You mean like this?

Is that a S340 painted to resemple a G1?

Anyone who wishes to play with fire is quite welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. Having already received one C&D from them, I've no desire for another...

Was the model freeware?

Maybe they'll back off if it's free. HTAI's Gulfstreams are still available, after all.

[expat]

Is that a S340 painted to resemple a G1?

Indeed, and Mike Stone's model at that.

[n4gix]

Was the model freeware?

Maybe they'll back off if it's free. HTAI's Gulfstreams are still available, after all.

It was intended as a payware project. Barely a week after posting some WIP screenshots on one of the more obscure forums in the universe, I received a C&D from General Dynamics' legal beagles... :toilet:

[expat]

How sad, not to mention, anal is that? They have some paralegals Googling away all the time to find anyone daring to mention . .

GULFSTREAM

There. Maybe they will pick up this as well ..

[mal998]

Speaking of Gulfstream's here's the one that I'd really like to see...is Grumman's aircraft covered by the ban?
Attachment 18820

[Bjoern]

Indeed, and Mike Stone's model at that.

Ah, I was wondering...

Didn't remember the FFS looking that...well, low res...

It was intended as a payware project. Barely a week after posting some WIP screenshots on one of the more obscure forums in the universe, I received a C&D from General Dynamics' legal beagles... :toilet:

So freeware still has a chance, considering the LiderDesigns one being available for quite a long time.

[Sundog]

If you're doing it for free, as part of you're "artistic right" you can do it. Now, that doesn't mean they still won't try to sue you. If you can afford it, you would win. Or maybe you could get it thrown out before it goes to court. But as an "artist" you have every right to provide your artistic interpretation.

[pilottj]

If Gulf$tream wont play ball, then too bad for them. Work with groups that do play ball Bombardier would appear to be much more friendly in that department as MS has a few of their planes by default. Aerosoft is working on a CRJ as well so they must not have had any legal complaints from Bombardier. If a GV is not going to happen, then why not support their competitors and do a Global Express

[expat]

Speaking of Gulfstream's here's the one that I'd really like to see...is Grumman's aircraft covered by the ban?

Second that one Mitch! While it doesn't fill the modern ultra long range private aircraft gap, it fills another one that oozes pure elegance, nostalgia and class. Love turboprops and having a detailed model/VC and managing those whining Darts would be a joy.

Re the G-1, I seem to recall that Northrup-Grumman's policy on intellectual property is almost as anal as Gulfstream, at least re renditions of products it currently makes, which would explain why we have a payware Hellcat, Albatross, etc. The hitch would be if when Grumman spun out what became Gulfstream Aerospace Corp, GAC acquired IP rights to all past/present products called "Gulfstream."

If anyone who has contact details want to PM me, I have no hesitation to raise it with them ( I won't tell them I am a Lockheed shareholder . .).

(rarely seen "amphib version" included)

[Bjoern]

If a GV is not going to happen, then why not support their competitors and do a Global Express

Been done before, by Rich and Bill L. It's even freeware.