exhausted

To be clear, I posted what my response would be in the situation you presented lol I've never targeted anybody and I've become quite comfortable resisting being called out. This is nothing but a consumer viewpoint in a market and it's nothing personal to me. I have consistently been for my viewpoint while not being against anybody else's. As a consumer in the market, I am able to present my point of view and that should not bother anybody else. Prove it's a myth.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Nothing about your opinion threatens my enthusiasm. I hope you find enjoyment in other aspects, such as mastering effective MiG-21 tactics to give you an advantage against what will surely be droves of F-4 noobs.

road or runway; never mentioned my intent to fly it off the side of a road, aka dirt

Yes, it matters. Nothing starts at the base of the ramp; some length of road or runway is needed to build up enough speed to take off, even for the Su-25.

Please don't make this about me. I'm only talking about the airplane and commenting on the variants I would like to see.

I would be excited with the F-4E if it featured the upgrades making it a deadly resource in the skies of the 1990s and mid-2000s, such as the Greek and German variants. The Japanese actually have a very fascinating relationship with their Phantoms, and would be right at home on the Marianas map. The Turkish Terminator is a really awesome aircraft as well, and we already have 2 maps with Turkey in them. Alas, no we aren't getting those... just a couple of bland F-4Es and maybe if there's still interest we will see DCS Phantom return to carrier decks.

OK, but only if you promise to fly like a fighter pilot and not like the product of TAC trying to save its budget from SAC by cutting training costs In all seriousness, if we were only ever going to get a version of the Phantom that can't land on carriers, then I was really hoping for an F-4D for its sexy shape and capabilities.

*Mirage F1 has entered the chat.

That must be very exciting. I wonder how many Iranian F-4E pilots and mechs are ecstatic about DCS: F-4E ... I am, by the way, grinning at how that must come off, but I truly don't mean to dampen your excitement lol Just give me cat gear and a tailhook so I can put Marine Air online, please

Campaign building. Experimenting with short segments of roads near forests and towns.

No doubt others crave the landlubber's model. I can only hope the beast gets cat gear some day.

Why do you think I was talking about you? You're entitled to your opinion, and so is anyone else who is anticipating a carrierborne Phantom. Wouldn't mind if we stayed on topic please.

Yes, it has everything to do with the point made that, because Heatblur does not have ALL the information on something, they won't model it. That is far from the truth, as we have entire modules with no public information being developed. And, we're only talking about a minor feature that people care about.

ED isn't developing the F-4, Heatblur is. Heatblur is also developing the Eurofighter which has much less publicly available info. Heatblur can certainly model the VTAS.

You are making the points against your original position, whether you intended to. You're entire point was that VTAS should not be added because it would turn the F-4 into a quasi-4th gen glass cockpit automaton. Apples to apples, you said: "I'm Dogfight purist. The end of Dogfight beginned in 1916 ends by III gen. full aspect Fox-2. After that It's just aerial warfare. A clash of technologies. Not man against a man, but machine against machine." Now, you're admitting VTAS in its usage isn't any of those things you are trying to avoid. You have proven that even "dogfight purists" have nothing to fear from adding the VTAS system.

I don't think he misunderstood your post at all. It's clear part of his message it that the -J which we all seem to want was not frozen in its development in 1973, when the US ended its combat mission in Vietnam. The -Js flew on for a nice bit longer, often with the HMS. It's not that complicated - if you don't want a historical feature, then simply disable its use.

Not sure what that means, but that's cool. Personally I see human challenges exist in any format, with little regard for technology.

It's true: Phantom maniacs have waited too long for their carrierborn baby. Though I don't know how you reasoned a little stamped metal ring on a helmet is equal to a "full glass and high-tech" aircraft. I'm trying to stay in the confines of reason here

If you are going to do the Phantom right, it has to be carrier capable and it needs to be accurate. VTAS is going to be welcomed if added and if you don't want to use it, then don't.

Same issue exists with both ramps.

absolutely 100% Not to be sour but we are getting a Eurofighter Typhoon and we have another guesswork module in the JF-17. There is probably enough for the Z. Whiskey would be awesome too though.

The KC-135A is already becoming necessary with the period direction of some of the modules.

@Eagle Dynamics Please fix this. It's a module breaker and keeps people from flying the L-39.

Can you provide more info? I'm getting hyped up over what this would look like, especially the NAVFLIR option!

Period callouts as well? Yes, this is necessary for what ED is trying to do with earlier eras.