F4 Phantom

[Banshee]

Now, this is not a flame post, I am just trying to understand how some things get made and others dont. The F4 is an iconic aircraft flown by a ton of air forces over the years but no one will make one, not for DCS not for FSX ect. I have heard rumors and hypothesis but just wondering is there a coding type reason why the Sim world has never seen one. I only say because of the recent push in the Mig line and it would be nice to get something to fly against it

[Flogger23m]

Two seat aircraft. You will have to fly with the AI which can be a pain. Especially when learning. Or jump between two different seats, which is difficult and disorienting. You can always play online but I imagine many people want to play offline and/or can not always find people to play with online when they have free time. It is rather simple.

 

And a MIG-23 or Mirage F1 would fair better against an F-4.

[Busterbvi]

With you on this one Banshee, I have been pushing for a Phantom for some time, It doesn't get anymore iconic than the F4 and would be perfect for DCS and it is the worlds best distributor of MIG parts !

 

Instead we are getting a BAE Hawk !!?? this is a training aircraft which was the replacement for the Jet Provost, it has no place in a combat sim, what are DCS thinking !? .... it really gets me !

 

But hey, at least we are getting a FW190 so we have something to fly our Mustangs against instead of other Mustangs !!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Busterbvi

[Cibit]

With you on this one Banshee, I have been pushing for a Phantom for some time, It doesn't get anymore iconic than the F4 and would be perfect for DCS and it is the worlds best distributor of MIG parts !

 

Instead we are getting a BAE Hawk !!?? this is a training aircraft which was the replacement for the Jet Provost, what are DCS thinking !? .... it really gets me !

 

But hey, at least we are getting a FW190 so we have something to fly our Mustangs against instead of other Mustangs !!

 

The Hawk is made by VEAO a 3rd party developer as a module for DCS world. And it really gets me when I see uninformed posts with a complete lack of respect for the hard work and dedication for a team of developers just because they dare to make something you dont approve of.

[SilentEagle]

With you on this one Banshee, I have been pushing for a Phantom for some time, It doesn't get anymore iconic than the F4 and would be perfect for DCS and it is the worlds best distributor of MIG parts !

 

Instead we are getting a BAE Hawk !!?? this is a training aircraft which was the replacement for the Jet Provost, it has no place in a combat sim, what are DCS thinking !? .... it really gets me !

 

But hey, at least we are getting a FW190 so we have something to fly our Mustangs against instead of other Mustangs !!

 

The Hawk is made by a third party group, not ED, who has a particular interest and expertise in that aircraft. DCS doesn't think about anything, it is just a simulator platform that you and anyone else are free to develop the F-4 on. ED does not tell what aircraft 3rd parties have to make and that is a good thing. In my opinion, a training aircraft has a place in a combat sim, but not everyone has to agree or buy it if they aren't interested, but why limit the already small pool of dedicated 3rd parties who are creating high fidelity aircraft? If you really want the aircraft, do something about it. Our team really wanted to bring the L-39 trainer to DCS for our own selfish reasons, but everyone else gets to benefit from that work. That's what capitalism is all about.

Edited March 28, 2014 by SilentEagle

[Tango]

With you on this one Banshee, I have been pushing for a Phantom for some time, It doesn't get anymore iconic than the F4 and would be perfect for DCS and it is the worlds best distributor of MIG parts !

 

Instead we are getting a BAE Hawk !!?? this is a training aircraft which was the replacement for the Jet Provost, it has no place in a combat sim, what are DCS thinking !? .... it really gets me !

 

But hey, at least we are getting a FW190 so we have something to fly our Mustangs against instead of other Mustangs !!

 

As developer of the Hawk cockpit systems, I'm rather disappointed at these comments. I can only echo what SE wrote, and that's if you don't want it, don't buy it, but don't slam it, either. It is no small task producing a simulator of this fidelity, and we are learning the base simulator as well as trying to bring highly accurate aircraft to DCS for your enjoyment.

 

You'll be interested to note that we had a Hawk QFI comment that it is so accurate, he'd sign it off for real world training immediately.

 

If you think it is easy to produce add-ons for DCS, then you're more than welcome to try and produce an F-4, but I'll tell you now - you're going to be very busy for the next 2 years. ;)

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Tango

[Vampyre]

With you on this one Banshee, I have been pushing for a Phantom for some time, It doesn't get anymore iconic than the F4 and would be perfect for DCS and it is the worlds best distributor of MIG parts !

 

Instead we are getting a BAE Hawk !!?? this is a training aircraft which was the replacement for the Jet Provost, what are DCS thinking !? .... it really gets me !

 

But hey, at least we are getting a FW190 so we have something to fly our Mustangs against instead of other Mustangs !!

 

DCS thinking goes something like this: 11001001001101001001001111001010010100101001000111010110101010011

 

DCS is the software. I'll stop being facetious now. Eagle Dynamics, is thinking the best way forward is to have third parties come in and develop modules for DCS as a way to expand the content of DCS at an exponential rate. The more third parties that are developing modules, the more content we will have in a shorter amount of time. It looks to be a very smart business move on ED's part because there is no way they can develop very many modules while simultaneously updating the base game. ED is not developing the Hawk. That is VEAO Simulations, a third party.

 

As for the Phantom, The version I most desire is the F-4G Wild Weasel V with the F-4E Phantom upgraded with the ARN-101 coming in as a close second. There is nothing being said about this aircraft at the moment. Is it being developed? Maybe or maybe not. If I were developing a module (especially an iconic aircraft such as the Phantom) for DCS I would not want anyone to know about it until release day. That is because I would not want to deal with the distractions of being hounded for information by enthusiasts. If the Phantom were released right now it is guaranteed to produce a large amount of sales just because it is a Phantom. Will it be developed? I believe yes, in time. Patience is a virtue.

 

I'm actually looking forward to the Hawk as well! Cheers Tango! You guys are doing a great job from everything I've seen.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Vampyre

[Jimbolya]

Two seat aircraft.

 

I don't remember this being an issue in the old F15E sim. it was a two seater and you could bounce between the two if you wanted. however, if memory serves me correctly you could not do multiplayer two seat. same with janes long bow and the apache/havoc i believe both had 2 seat implemented. it also looks like you can bounce between seats in the huey for DCS as well so i'm not so sure that 2 seats is the issue.

[Lizzard]

I don't remember this being an issue in the old F15E sim.

 

never played that, but come on this was surely nowhere near the detail of todays DCS Level Aircrafts..so if everybody screams for 100% realism..a 2 seater is not very handy (maybe at FC3 Level but not DCS)...o.k. all this MP thing...but be sure..I guess 70% of all people playin DCS are not interested in MP.. o.k. we have the Huey and the Mi-8 with up to 4 positions to take over..but these positions are mostly just for shooting or pushin buttons..just my 2C:)

Edited March 28, 2014 by Lizzard

[Exorcet]

never played that, but come on this was surely nowhere near the detail of todays DCS Level Aircrafts..so if everybody screams for 100% realism..a 2 seater is not very handy (maybe at FC3 Level but not DCS)...o.k. all this MP thing...but be sure..I guess 70% of all people playin DCS are not interested in MP.. o.k. we have the Huey and the Mi-8 with up to 4 positions to take over..but these positions are mostly just for shooting or pushin buttons..just my 2C:)

 

Having thought about it for a while, I think it's actually less of a problem then it's made out to be. A DCS level 2 seater should have full functionality in both seats, and that's a technical challenge, but the single player experience can be solved by giving the option from simplified controls. By that I don't mean become FC3, I mean the player gets full control over their seat and then simplified control over the seat they're not occupying.

 

So for the F-15E for example, if you fly from the pilot's seat, but you're going for a bomb run you could press a button for a popup target window. Click the target to select it, then when you're in release parameters, drop the weapon or have it drop automatically.

 

At first some may say it's less realistic that way, but it's actually better than having to control both seats completely in some ways. For one thing two seat aircraft are two seat usually because they would overwhelm one operator. Secondly, if you were really flying you'd obviously be in one seat the whole time. It's a case of technical realism vs effective realism. I think the latter wins in this case, because in single player having the one pilot control the entire plane simply breaks the whole point. The AI may not be good enough to control the rear seat by itself, so the best option may be to give the player just enough control to make up for the AI's shortcomings.

 

Even then, we must remember that coding this is extra work for the devs too.

 

 

EDIT

 

Also, this is just my own preference, while the F-4 is nice I'd rather take the F-5 or F-8.

[Busterbvi]

I fully support ED bringing in third party devs, a smart move for sure and I fully appreciate the time, effort and talent that goes into making these high fidelity add ons. What gets me is the choice of aircraft being developed, I stand by my comment that a Hawk has no place in a combat sim. Lets be honest, the bottom line here is sales revenue, if you think the Hawk is going to be a great seller for the DCS platform, I can tell you now, you are going to be disappointed. I think its a shame that all the talent and time is wasted on inappropriate add ons when it could be invested in something like the F4 or other iconic combat aircraft which would be appropriate for the DCS portfolio and create a far better return in sales revenues. The flight sim world is crying out for a Phantom for FSX, P3D and DCS and no one is listening. If two seaters are an issue, why not do it without back seat functionality, its a combat sim, you don't dog fight or ground attack from the back seat ! Incidentally, the last time I checked, the Hawk is a two seater ! Im no Phantom expert but my guess considering its era would be that the rear pit was basically a nav station ?

 

We have a very nice P51 and now a FW190 in dev, why not complement these with a Spitfire and a 109 ? And for jets, a Harrier or Tornado GR4. My point is, choose aircraft that compliment the sim and what is already there.

 

"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get Hit"

Edited March 28, 2014 by Busterbvi

[Exorcet]

I think the thing is, there really isn't anything that's not appropriate for DCS.

 

I myself have a good chance of buying it as long as it has AFM (which is the only thing making me hesitate with the Hawk, AFM will be an add on). If there was a DCS 777 out now, I'd own it. It wouldn't be all that out of place either, civilian traffic is part of military flying.

 

By the way, the Spitfire and 109 are being made.

[Backy 51]

MilViz will be releasing the F-4E for FSX/P3D sometime in 2014 ...

 

https://www.facebook.com/Milviz

 

She's a beautiful Shady J lady ... ;-)

[Lizzard]

ah..there are loads of 2-seaters that would be interesting...F-14, Tornado, AH-64, KA-52, Mi-24...etc etc.. anyway we will see what happens over time..and it will allways be a compromise..somehow at least

[Mizzy]

The F4 is my favorite aircraft, always has been.

 

Mizzy

[Lizzard]

Lets be honest, the bottom line here is sales revenue, if you think the Hawk is going to be a great seller for the DCS platform, I can tell you now, you are going to be disappointed. I think its a shame that all the talent and time is wasted on inappropriate add ons when it could be invested in something like the F4 or other iconic combat aircraft which would be appropriate for the DCS portfolio and create a far better return in sales revenues.

 

 

no offence..but wow..this must be by far the most disrespectfull thing I`ve ever read in this Forum..:music_whistling:

[NineLine]

With you on this one Banshee, I have been pushing for a Phantom for some time, It doesn't get anymore iconic than the F4 and would be perfect for DCS and it is the worlds best distributor of MIG parts !

 

Instead we are getting a BAE Hawk !!?? this is a training aircraft which was the replacement for the Jet Provost, it has no place in a combat sim, what are DCS thinking !? .... it really gets me !

 

But hey, at least we are getting a FW190 so we have something to fly our Mustangs against instead of other Mustangs !!

 

 

Wow, I think trainers are perfect for DCS World, I would love to see some WWII era trainers as well, at the end of the day you dont have to buy anything you arent interested in, but then you would be missing out on a quality 3rd Party creation.

 

This is like saying we will only be able to use Nevada for Red Flag exercises and such, screw that... Invasion Las Vegas campaign inbound ;)

[westr]

What exactly is wrong with the BAE hawk? Its a beautiful little jet, is highly manuoverable and has weapons capability.

[lmp]

@Busterbvi

Telling somebody how to run their business when they didn't ask for it is just plain rude.

[SilentEagle]

I fully support ED bringing in third party devs, a smart move for sure and I fully appreciate the time, effort and talent that goes into making these high fidelity add ons. What gets me is the choice of aircraft being developed, I stand by my comment that a Hawk has no place in a combat sim. Lets be honest, the bottom line here is sales revenue, if you think the Hawk is going to be a great seller for the DCS platform, I can tell you now, you are going to be disappointed. I think its a shame that all the talent and time is wasted on inappropriate add ons when it could be invested in something like the F4 or other iconic combat aircraft which would be appropriate for the DCS portfolio and create a far better return in sales revenues. The flight sim world is crying out for a Phantom for FSX, P3D and DCS and no one is listening. If two seaters are an issue, why not do it without back seat functionality, its a combat sim, you don't dog fight or ground attack from the back seat ! Incidentally, the last time I checked, the Hawk is a two seater ! Im no Phantom expert but my guess considering its era would be that the rear pit was basically a nav station ?

 

 

I appreciate your point of view, but please keep in mind that none of us were born with intimate knowledge of module creation on the DCS engine. Most of us are still learning the ins and outs of the engine and how to access certain data or use built-in features. In many cases, it is much easier to write our own system than it is to figure out any basic interraction with the core engine. Any third party who did not know that this would be the case when they started their project was extremely naive. Because of this, some third parties elected to start DCS development with simpler aircraft, like trainers. These types of aircraft may require less DCS engine knowledge, like how to create an MFD or HUD or require less interaction with core engine features that may not exist yet, such as advanced air or ground radar.

 

Another factor is development team size. Some of these teams only have one or two dedicated coders, meaning the workload is very high and simulating every system to DCS A-10 levels on a complex aircraft would take many years the first time around. I imagine that development cycles will shorten for third parties once they have developed a code base and a good understanding of the DCS engine and how to work with it.

[NineLine]

We have a very nice P51 and now a FW190 in dev, why not complement these with a Spitfire and a 109 ?

 

Ummm, you do know what RRG is developing right?

[KesMonkey]

I fully support ED bringing in third party devs, a smart move for sure and I fully appreciate the time, effort and talent that goes into making these high fidelity add ons. What gets me is the choice of aircraft being developed, I stand by my comment that a Hawk has no place in a combat sim. Lets be honest, the bottom line here is sales revenue, if you think the Hawk is going to be a great seller for the DCS platform, I can tell you now, you are going to be disappointed. I think its a shame that all the talent and time is wasted on inappropriate add ons when it could be invested in something like the F4 or other iconic combat aircraft which would be appropriate for the DCS portfolio and create a far better return in sales revenues. The flight sim world is crying out for a Phantom for FSX, P3D and DCS and no one is listening. If two seaters are an issue, why not do it without back seat functionality, its a combat sim, you don't dog fight or ground attack from the back seat ! Incidentally, the last time I checked, the Hawk is a two seater ! Im no Phantom expert but my guess considering its era would be that the rear pit was basically a nav station ?

 

We have a very nice P51 and now a FW190 in dev, why not complement these with a Spitfire and a 109 ? And for jets, a Harrier or Tornado GR4. My point is, choose aircraft that compliment the sim and what is already there.

 

"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get Hit"

 

I don't comment often, but felt compelled to address this comment.

 

Of the four aircraft you mention at the end of your post (Spit, 109, Harrier, GR4) three are already in development.

 

Do it without back-seat functionality? No. DCS World is not about half-assing things.

 

How can earth can you say that an advanced jet trainer with combat capabilities has no place in a combat flight simulator? That's just crazy.

 

Telling someone how to run their business? Really?

 

Please address your ignorance and your disrespectful attitude. Neither will go down well here.

[SkateZilla]

Lets be honest, the bottom line here is sales revenue, if you think the Hawk is going to be a great seller for the DCS platform, I can tell you now, you are going to be disappointed. I think its a shame that all the talent and time is wasted on inappropriate add ons when it could be invested in something like the F4 or other iconic combat aircraft which would be appropriate for the DCS portfolio and create a far better return in sales revenues. The flight sim world is crying out for a Phantom for FSX, P3D and DCS and no one is listening. If two seaters are an issue, why not do it without back seat functionality, its a combat sim, you don't dog fight or ground attack from the back seat ! Incidentally, the last time I checked, the Hawk is a two seater ! Im no Phantom expert but my guess considering its era would be that the rear pit was basically a nav station ?

 

A. I think it's a shame users ask the 3rd party Developers, who are learning A new Application Environment, to not make less complex Airframes and Jump Right into Extremely Complex Airframes...... Learn to Walk Before you Run, Let Alone Fly.

 

B. There are Several F-4's for P3D and FSX Being done, give it a rest.

 

Yes, 2 Seaters are an issue right now, Some Airframes are 2 Seat Co-Pilot/RIO/WSO, while some are 2 Seat Training Aircraft.

 

 

 

I appreciate your point of view, but please keep in mind that none of us were born with intimate knowledge of module creation on the DCS engine. Most of us are still learning the ins and outs of the engine and how to access certain data or use built-in features. In many cases, it is much easier to write our own system than it is to figure out any basic interraction with the core engine. Any third party who did not know that this would be the case when they started their project was extremely naive. Because of this, some third parties elected to start DCS development with simpler aircraft, like trainers. These types of aircraft may require less DCS engine knowledge, like how to create an MFD or HUD or require less interaction with core engine features that may not exist yet, such as advanced air or ground radar.

 

Another factor is development team size. Some of these teams only have one or two dedicated coders, meaning the workload is very high and simulating every system to DCS A-10 levels on a complex aircraft would take many years the first time around. I imagine that development cycles will shorten for third parties once they have developed a code base and a good understanding of the DCS engine and how to work with it.

 

^THIS

Edited March 28, 2014 by SkateZilla

[marluk]

Wow how protective community we are. Those complaint posts are just trolling or children do not know what they are talking about ... let's ignore them.

 

Anyhow, two seat airplanes will probably be implemented similarly as Huey and Mi-8. In the same way overwhelming pilot issue could be compensated with autopilot.

 

Maybe helpful feature would be to display both cockpits at the same time but on different monitors. So one is primary with head tracking and the other one static which just showing control panels and instruments.

[Lizzard]

I guess this is just a general missinterpretation of the DCS World..imho it is not a pure combat sim...there are guys (like me) who really love to take a break from all the shooting and killing...just jump in a pit and fly around:joystick: