Falcon BMS Discussion

They only have Ownership of the “Falcon” name,

The source code is not part of their IP Purchase, as it was released from escrow agency over a decade ago after it bounced around to 3 different companies, who put out new versions of Falcon 4 instead of finishing and patching the original.

Whether it leaked or not is besides the point, the Source Code was not under escrow agency prior to the new Microprose being formed.

One of their only sources of revenue is the $7-10 someone pays for Falcon 4 just to be able to run BMS.

2 Likes

Your posts are both a very good write-up of the history of F4/MP. I didn’t realize the code was ever legitimately ‘released’ by the IP holder (escrow agency). I knew about the leak(s), but didn’t realize MP in their current form didn’t inherit the rights to the IP, only the name.

I’m happy with BMS, and I’m happy with (the new) MP, and glad they appear to be getting along. I was worried about what the new MP and especially the F5.0 announcement would mean for BMS in the future, and am glad to see that issue put to rest in a constructive manner. I don’t see any arrogance on the part of BMS or the new MP, and see great potential for all parties moving forward.

5 Likes

Falcon 5.0 is literally like 5+ years away… if it ever gets that far,
“Planning Stages”, Actual development hasn’t even started,
it’s a work flow chart on a physical or digital white board under a project code name in a office somewhere.

With the scope that they want, at today’s standards, it will take extensive funding for the 3d Art Assets alone, let alone licensing costs for all those aircraft and weapons.

Then to build even a half-breed study / entry sim w/ Fake N Bake avionics systems and mostly accurate flight models would take a years on it’s own for the Planned F-16 Variants, let alone an F-35B.

MP Right now seems to be a New Company using the old name to cause nostalgia ripples and energy, and then amps it up by announcing returns of game titles from Long dead lines (B-17 The Mighty 8th etc), None of which are anywhere near completed,

The Screenshots of the B-17 Game look ok, until you see the engine debug lines in some of them, and you realize they are staged shots, not actual in game screens. the same shot is used in both B-17 game’s screenshot pools with different back drops inserted, they line up pixel for pixel.

So I’ll remain skeptical until products are released, until then they are getting a nice kick from Digital Sales of Titles they own Licensing rights too, w/ little to no effort, outside of modifying a few text files and logo’s in the steam and GOG Installer Images. They have literally not had to spend a dime on processing or publishing costs to release new physical copies, manuals, art, or associated Marketing Art.

The income off Falcon 4.0, is Mainly due to BMS. So to come in after 20 years and try to butt heads with a Volunteer development team that not only finished the product, but vastly improved upon it and has re-written and replaced over 80% of the original source code, when it’s likely tied to your main source of income, would be a dumb move.

That like Janes announcing the rebirth of Janes Combat Simulations, and saying their first 5 titles are going to be accurate recreations of: F-15EX, F-35A, F-16V, Su-57 and AH-64E. But all F-18/F-15 Mod teams must cease and desist. (Oh yeah, F-18 Source code was leaked a while back too, problem is no body really did anything with it.).

Although, I’d buy a entry sim similar in scope to Fighters Anthology w/ Modern day graphics.
But again the amount of time to develop the Art Assets alone would be astronomical unless they literally sub-license out 3d Artists by the dozens, and then you’ll have varying quality in each model.

Why do you think we still have LoMAC/Flanker Models in DCS, it’s not because ED loves them, it’s because time and money to develop 3D Art at today’s standard is drastically more expensive than it was 30 years ago.

9 Likes

Skatezilla, I believe every word you wrote. But as soon as it comes out, I’m buying it anyways

5 Likes

ROFLMAO, that’s one of the best damn lines I’ve ever read. Ever.

2 Likes

I will gladly eat my foot if and when it comes out.

5 Likes

Thank you for explaining how copyright is applied in reality., Frankly, I was not aware that there is a difference between source code and IP.

2 Likes

nothing is ever as transparent as it seems…

Figured that out the hard way…

2 Likes

You’re right, but unfortunately way too many people in popular media and tech don’t agree.

3 Likes

sadly 100000000000000% true

Don’t get me wrong, the MP Situation is rare.

Basically:
1998, Company Goes Bankrupt,
Closes all studios Except Almeda, CA in preparation for sale to Hasbro Games.
Habro Games had no interest in Falcon 4.0 But Allowed Former Spectrum Holobyte Team to Publish it,Unfinished.

1998, Source code Passes Assets to Escrow Agency.
Hasbro Games not impressed with Sales shuts down the last MP Almeda, CA Studio, Sends Falcon I.P to Escrow Agency. Repo Version 1.06.

2000, Source Code Leak.
A Developer leaked the source code onto a Public FTP Site. Repository v1.076 IIRC.
*Side note, not only was the leaked repo newer, it also fixed many of the unresolved issues w/ Falcon 4.0 prior to the studio being shut down.

2002, Atari Purchased M.P Assets, Among the assets was an older build of Falcon Source Code (Pre 1.07 IIRC), Atari then Gives it to Lead Pursuit, who, changes a few things, and then downloads community mods and integrates them into a new Game. Upsetting a bunch of community mod teams.

2005, Lead Pursuit Releases F4: Allied Force,
Using older Source Code repository and Community mods, again, horrible sales numbers, despite multiple patches. F4AF was used as a revenue influx to supposedly develop “Falcon 5”, having horrible numbers, both projects were shelved.

2007: Atari Sold MicroProse Brand Name (w/ no IP or Licensing to Back Catalog), to I.G.G.
Only the MP Name and Logo was sold, no back catalog or assets belonging to MP in escrow.

2010: I.G.G. Sold Microprose Brand Name to Cybergun
Again, Only the MP Name and Logo.

2011, Lead Pursuit Dissolves, Falcon IP and Licenses were held in escrow, however, the source code repository for v1.0.0.13 (F4:AF) was not given to escrow Agency, and presumed lost, assuming it was mostly community mods, and they were already under investigation for that, they likely “Lost” the source repo to avoid any evidence of further IP Theft from the community.

2014, Retroism Purchased Licensing Rights to Falcon Series, Name and Logos.
Retroism Created Digital Distribution versions of Falcon Series on Steam and GoG,

2018: Cybergun sold Microprose Brand Name to David lagettie.
After Purchasing the MP Brand name, as a FAN of the old games, Lagettie began Purchasing Former MP Games Trademarks, names and Logos. Among those were B-17 and Falcon from Retroism.

Thus allowing the newly formed MP to use the Names/Logo’s to revive long dead product lines, (B-17, Falcon), and transferring digital sales revenue from Retroism to the newly formed MP.

Lagettie had Zero involvement with the old MP, and Falcon IP, so he cannot claim owner ship of it, as it was not part of the assets in the escrow agency. LeadPursuit never sent the assets over, the source code leaked was never submitted to any escrow agency, as it was a repository version that was newer than what MP had at the time of asset forfeiture to the escow agency in 1998.

As far as the “Falcon Comes Home” Marketing Campaign.
Nothing about 2018+ Microprose is the same as the original, outside of the registered Company name.

So, it’s a bunch of marketing hooplah to stir up nostalgic waves (and sales).

The source code repository version BMS has, has zilch to do with any of the I.P. that was passed around escrow, it was distributed by a former developer for Spectrum Holobyte, and was newer than the version initially in escrow.

BMS has already replaced a majority of said source code, so at this point, due to how much has been replaced and it was never even part of escrow, new MP has no leg to stand on, they can Purchase said assets from BMS if they choose, but it does not belong to MP for them to block BMS from continuing to develop.

What MP does own is the Licensing, Name and Logos for Falcon.

So if they were to slap BMS with that, all BMS would have to do is Remove the Name and Logo’s from their build. in which case we’d have BMS Viper or something.

Hypothetically, If they were to do that, and remove all remaining aspects of the unchanged source code, they would no longer require the Falcon 4.0 Legal copy, in which case, MP loses whatever digital revenue they were getting from customers purchasing F4 just to use BMS.

As Arrogant as users think BMS is,
They are not required to put the Falcon 4.0 Legal Copy Check on BMS Falcon,
They chose to do that, to make sure whomever owns falcon IP gets something.

Considering the FTP Source code leak was newer than the repo version sent to escrow, developers likely continued to work on it after their studio closed, and chose to release the repo they had because of Non-Confidence in any company that purchased the IP to fix the problems with the sim, which is pretty much what happened, when the source was given to L.P. they basically made an entirely new source code development branch, and stiffed anyone that already owned F4.

16 Likes

Best, most informative post I’ve read on Mudspike so far this year. Thanks, @SkateZilla!

4 Likes

That’s a tall order though.

And even if they manage to do it before all the devs lose interest in rewriting so much code just because some suit thinks he owns them, they’d still have to make a legal case that stands up in court. I’ve had to roll a few crypto-functions of my own in the past due to licensing issues and it’s really no fun having to circumvent known and proven implementations.

The code that’s left is probably still in there because it isn’t a complete disaster and nobody saw a need to change it.

I think the whole point behind this move is that they just want their peace and quiet from this legal BS. BMS is still a volunteer project, I doubt any of them have any inclination to get into a legal battle, even if the claims are frivolous.

2 Likes

The complexity of the Falcon 4 Source code ownership saga is actually being used to make new content laws.

The devs at one point said they all agreed in the decision to release the SC, they believed since MP was dead ownership fell to them, I have to find it again, it was buried in a long interview about 90s flight sim and Spectrum Holobytes glory days…

3 Likes

Also the fact that he told PCPilot that The B-17 remake almost didnt happen because they couldnt find the source code from 30 years ago. lol, then they found it in a box in an attic, you’d think if they owned the license they would be able to simply transfer it from the escrow agency’s facility.

why would you need 30 yr old source codes to rebuild something on todays hardware.

Falcon 4 was different it was actually Multithreaded from day 1, something often overlooked and likely the only reason its still viable.

5 Likes

I did not know that! Love learning these kind of details about F4, thanks for sharing these tidbits.

1 Like

Yup F4 was the first sim to take advantage of multi-core,

also coded by the same programmer that did the Campaign Engine.

IIRC,
-Graphics Thread
-Campaign Thread
-Physics Thread
-UI And Misc Thread.

3 Likes

Allied Force did that, but the original Falcon 4.0 was just dual core?
I mean, I have been wrong before but…

AF didnt really modify the source code extensively.

These threads were likely already in the source code, it would explain how the UI was able to be completely replaced with ease.

The major feat was the campaign engine, thats F4’s legacy. So having it have its own thread gave it more power and not bogged down by DirectX 7 API Stack was key.

The physics was always on another thread iirc.

3 Likes

But how? F4 came out in 1998 while the first dual-core Intel x86-based Pentiums were introduced to the market in 2005?