F4 Phantom

[HansRoaming]

Just to mention for two seat in some aircraft in FSX I use FS2Crew which allows voice recognition to interface with the co pilot. Civilian pilots train to be robots and follow procedures so not how applicable this would be to DCS.

 

Some nice F-4's coming out and one in DCS would compliment the Mig-21

[Banshee]

Aaaand this is why we cant have nice things. As the originator of this post I fully support anything a third part does, I will buy the Hawk and the Mig and the Fw because I love to fly, are they my favorites, no I have my favorites it was a simple question as to why there wasn't a phantom when I have seen it on a million wishlists across a million games. If I knew how to code we would have one and an A6 and A4 and every other Marine Corps aircraft but I cant so I do my best to support those who can make awesome planes. Enough with the flame fest with my post and bring it back on topic.

So I see an issue with it being a 2 seater aircraft which is definitely something, but maybe there is a one seat workaround... I only say this because if there was it would open up a lot of these 2 seat wonders. Even if it was at the level of FC3 and not DCSW I would throw money at these. I personally uninstalled FSX because it did nothing for me and I love this platform

[steve65]

I agree with what banshee said I will support ED/ dcs modules and admire the devs who build them.yes a f-4 would be frikin awesome even in FC3 but until then I will keep playing SF2 with its f-4's.granted they are not as detailed or advanced as a DCS /FC3 f-4 would be and the sim is quite dated but it will satisfy my f-4 fix for now.

 

PS : banshee I also uninsalled FSX not because it not a good sim,it is but because it just became boring flying combat aircraft in a non combat sim granted if you have tacpac and VRS F -18 you can blow stuff up but it's just not the same as DCS.

[Madbrood]

I'm going to ignore the comments about how the Hawk doesn't belong in DCS - while I would prefer a more iconic combat aircraft (I do have a massive crush on the F-4, especially in its Wild Weasel or Royal Navy FAA flavours!) I also happen to love the Hawk - just make sure we have a Red Arrows skin! :D

[Jimbolya]

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:)

 

 

i have to say this - there is no way there is ever going to be 100% realism. does anyone realize this? it's a simulation...

 

 

simulation  

Use Simulation in a sentence

 

sim·u·la·tion [sim-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.

2. the act or process of pretending; feigning.

3. an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham.

4. Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.

5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.

 

i have blackshark - almost the same quality experience as old F15E sim.

clickable pit and simulation...mission builder...ATC... wingmen...blah blah blah -

 

the flight model is probably easier on the old f15e, but seriously after that it's just buttons...

so back to my original comment: it's been done, people enjoyed the experience of two seat aircraft, currently enjoy two seat aircraft...two seats is not the issue. why there's no f4 as a module for DCS who knows, but it's definitely not a seat issue.

 

as far as the comments for the Hawk. yea - not so interested in the Hawk myself, but as an IT professional the developers make a solid argument: if you've never worked in the environment start simple and build modular code that can be reused and added on to... that's just good IT practice; and, if you do not work in IT then you should know that re-usability of code is a common practice as well as starting small and simple first.

 

Does the Hawk have a place - well I think it would be cool if you could get the two seat thing going in MP and then have some nice training flights with more experienced flyers for the new people... as well as simulated strikes on insurgent strongholds that have low AAA threats.

[Busterbvi]

Apologies if my comments seemed rude, they were not meant to be. My post was intended as constructive feedback and I had hoped that my comments would be taken in the spirit in which they were meant. Funny how some people interpret things sometimes !

 

Thanks for the heads up on the Milviz F4 Phantom by the way, looking awesome.

[outlawal2]

Personally, I think the Hawk will be an excellent addition to the DCS world because it will allow folks that have ZERO REAL WORLD experience jump in and learn the ropes just like a real combat pilot would.. No military in the world trains their new pilots using F-35s or MIG 29's etc... They use purpose-built trainers with enough systems and abilities to properly train personnel to use the more advanced and uber-expensive combat aircraft.

 

I am really looking forward to this plane and am hoping the devs spend the time to create a really good training regimen... Maybe even so far as to create a training "Campaign" I could envision a training regimen that turns into a combat campain once the basics have been learned.. (I don't know maybe the airbase is attacked during the last week fo formal training.. Something on that order)

 

Regardless, The Hawk, along with a well thought out training scenario will be an excellent addition and perfect primer for folks to see what it is REALLY like to go thru the ranks as a fighter pilot...

[Nefron]

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.

 

This is what I like to hear. I'm hoping that the development will soon shift to more complex aircraft, and that we are going to see some multi role jets or bombers relatively soon. I just hope that the developers will not decide against diving into more complex systems because they may think it will not pay out in the end.

 

Frankly, I had no interest in buying the older and simpler aircraft like Huey or the Mi-8, but I decided to try one out. I got the other soon after, and I'm immensely enjoying them both. Sure, its not cutting edge, but the quality of the modules made me want to learn how to fly those choppers and learn their systems.

[Cornbread]

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"

 

JUST OMG. Maybe you should get a clue before you post.