F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll

[mattebubben]

edited comment first part said F5E.

so i guessit was a type and he just meant the f4e.

 

because now first part just says E.

 

If you quote a comment and they later edit the comment the Quote will still be unchanged.

[BlackLion213]

Addition/replacement of RWRs, ECM, and decoy dispensers varied greatly form the mid 60's to the 80's. In fact, the B changed so much, they eventually called it the N.

 

I am enjoying the beta release of the SimWorks Studios F-4B. The initial beta only covers the earliest production model -- no RWR, minimal air-to-ground capability. This would be a great place to start for DCS World. The absolute simplest variant to model. Success could easily lead to various B/N variants as well as the C.

 

But with the exception of hard core Phantom Phanatics like myself, who want all of the F-4 variants and all of it's opposing MiG-21 variants, are there enough people willing to pay for all this development?

 

Great post StreakEagle.

 

With DCS striving to be very accurate with regards to systems and the onboard systems of a service aircraft constantly evolving - it's not really possible to develop a module that is truly realistic for a broad scope of scenarios.

 

This means that a developer needs to create their module with a very specific era and use in mind. Even if someone develops an F-4E, it is likely that the particular version would only be truly accurate for one country operating over a 3-5 year span. As a reference, look at the Mirage 2000C. There are lots of operators besides France (like UAE for the SoH map), but many of these operators had different radars (most had RDM) or different ECM suites (subcontracted by a different company or a totally different country) - so the current DCS Mirage 2000C cannot accurately simulate the Mirage 2000E used by UAE. I think it's "good enough", because we still need some suspension of disbelief to enjoy this hobby. Otherwise, the user will never be happy.

 

It seems that the best way to develop DCS module is perhaps opposite of what most would expect. The developer should probably develop a compelling campaign that fits their greatest interest in the aircraft, cross checking that the theater is feasible, then create the version that matches that scenario. Otherwise, it's easy to create the version that sounds coolest or strikes an emotional chord, only to realize that it can't really be used the way they planned. Good example, a USAF Vietnam scenario would require a huge map with long transit times. The USN versions had shorter missions and developing that theater would involve less land, so less work.

 

Or you could create the Yom Kippur War with the IAF, which operated some 30 F-4Es. The map is not too huge and there was a lot of action. In any case, I think the version should match the planned scenario - for MP the exact version doesn't really matter as long as there are some reasonably contemporary peers to fight (all things are relative - no matter how it's done, people will complain - like death and taxes ;)).

 

-Nick

[MBot]

The developer should probably develop a compelling campaign that fits their greatest interest in the aircraft, cross checking that the theater is feasible, then create the version that matches that scenario.

 

Bingo :)

[Angelthunder]

With a lot these people wanting the Air Force E model only.I think it would be better if ED or another third party gave us a F- 4 Phantom II pack which could include the F-4E but also include the naval variant J model and maybe throw in the F-4G Wild Weasel and RF-4 for reconnaissance missions to complete the pack.

[streakeagle]

If it was financially feasible, I would want every F-4 and MiG-21 variant. Strike Fighters Project 1 started out with simple single letter variants: F-4B, F-4C, F-4D, F-4E, and F-4J. But each one had major problems: they didn't fit any one particular build with errors in the 3d models and the cockpits. But along comes Strike Fighters 2, suddenly, nearly every single subvariant is modeled: internal hardware changes, cockpit changes, external changes. The cockpits might not be clickable and the avionics slightly simplified, but no one has modeled F-4 Phantoms more accurately than Third Wire.

 

Case in point: The SimWorks Studios F-4B beta may have detailed systems, but from the combat side of the equation, the radar still needs plenty of work to look and function as well as Third Wire's F-4B. If the final release makes every knob function as it should, the SimWorks Studios F-4B may ultimately be better. But from what I have seen, the underlying code that determines radar functionality is actually far more "lite" than Strike Fighters. Clickable buttons does not ultimately mean more realistic, especially when trying to shoehorn combat functionality into FSX.

 

On the flip side, the SimWorks Studios F-4B feels much more realistic during startup/taxi/takeoff and despite the limitations of the FSX flight model, it actually seems to handle closer to the flight manual. Third Wire's flight model is overall superior to just about any sim I have flown except DCS, but the flight models are intentionally mild in support of its "lite" moniker. Even in their "lite" default, they were far better than LOMAC/FC, but not as good as the early beta F-4B, which SimWorks says is only going to get better.

 

I should not have to choose between decent combat modeling (SF2) and realistic procedures (startup/taxi/takeoff/landing). We need DCS F-4. If need be, start with a B/C, but bring them all!

Edited February 29, 2016 by streakeagle

[streakeagle]

One further comment based on my brief experience with the SimWorks F-4B: two seats presents very little problem for the F-4B in an air-to-air environment. Switching to the back seat in the middle of flying proved to be impractical. So, I used FSUIPC to map the radar controls to my hotas/MFDs. I can't see the knobs (unless I bring up an extra PIP view window), but I most certainly can get it powered on and searching. I was able to operate the radar stick using a hat on my Warthog stick and get a lock-on. Pretty much as easy as using the A-10C to designate targets with a cursor.

 

Of course, AI as planned for the F-14A/B would be better, especially in more complex situations, but I could live with using back seat controls from the front seat.

[Kev2go]

If it was financially feasible, I would want every F-4 and MiG-21 variant. Strike Fighters Project 1 started out with simple single letter variants: F-4B, F-4C, F-4D, F-4E, and F-4J. But each one had major problems: they didn't fit any one particular build with errors in the 3d models and the cockpits. But along comes Strike Fighters 2, suddenly, nearly every single subvariant is modeled: internal hardware changes, cockpit changes, external changes. The cockpits might not be clickable and the avionics slightly simplified, but no one has modeled F-4 Phantoms more accurately than Third Wire.

 

Case in point: The SimWorks Studios F-4B beta may have detailed systems, but from the combat side of the equation, the radar still needs plenty of work to look and function as well as Third Wire's F-4B. If the final release makes every knob function as it should, the SimWorks Studios F-4B may ultimately be better. But from what I have seen, the underlying code that determines radar functionality is actually far more "lite" than Strike Fighters. Clickable buttons does not ultimately mean more realistic, especially when trying to shoehorn combat functionality into FSX.

 

On the flip side, the SimWorks Studios F-4B feels much more realistic during startup/taxi/takeoff and despite the limitations of the FSX flight model, it actually seems to handle closer to the flight manual. Third Wire's flight model is overall superior to just about any sim I have flown except DCS, but the flight models are intentionally mild in support of its "lite" moniker. Even in their "lite" default, they were far better than LOMAC/FC, but not as good as the early beta F-4B, which SimWorks says is only going to get better.

 

I should not have to choose between decent combat modeling (SF2) and realistic procedures (startup/taxi/takeoff/landing). We need DCS F-4. If need be, start with a B/C, but bring them all!

 

 

Yeah I own strike fighters 2 plus all expansions. Excellent game for its time especially considering it was not a aaa budget studio.

 

I get nostalgia amd play it from time to time particular with early cold war aircraft like the f100, f8 crusaders, f105, and f4 phantoms s being my most desired aircraft to fly.

[mkellytx]

Sure but as the only aircraft currently in the work that took part in the Vietnam war is the F-5E i think a Vietnam scenario is a bit far off =P.

 

Yes, well aware. Wrote mid thought without fully explaining. Recently completed reading Marshall Michael's book "Clashes" which is all about the air to air engagements during the Vietnam War (I read his other book, "The 11 Days of Christmas" sitting in the gunners seat of a B-52H while we flew from Edwards to the Eglin ranges to shoot a missile). When I read F-4 vs. Mig-21 my mind just went there...

 

As a practical matter plenty of F-4E's (or their upgrades) are still in service with allied countries, so the earlier, out of service make some sense to do first (less classification problems). The E model would be great, but personally I'd appreciate it better after flying the more limited Phantoms first.

[OneBlueSky]

So many things I'd like to see ahead of it (F-14 :thumbup: ), but ABSOLUTELY we need the F-4 in game. The 21 needs it's rival. Can imagine the fun throwing these two against each other.

[probad]

i am excited just to watch all the takeoff and landing accidents that will happen when we start getting more people in these more complex modules! :megalol:

[mattebubben]

i am excited just to watch all the takeoff and landing accidents that will happen when we start getting more people in these more complex modules! :megalol:

 

cant possibly be more difficult then the mig-21 when it comes to landing.

[Northstar98]

If it was financially feasible, I would want every F-4 and MiG-21 variant. Strike Fighters Project 1 started out with simple single letter variants: F-4B, F-4C, F-4D, F-4E, and F-4J. But each one had major problems: they didn't fit any one particular build with errors in the 3d models and the cockpits. But along comes Strike Fighters 2, suddenly, nearly every single subvariant is modeled...

 

YES Totally agree with you, exactly what I was just about to suggest - as a SF2 fan, having the variants is great and like with most of the other aircraft we have it would be great if we had more variants - if you think of it all would share the same kind of stuff in terms of flight dynamics and modelling, only additions and modifications for each variant. The key Phantom variants I'm most interested in is the F-4K, F-4M, F-4J, F-4E and F-4F.

[probad]

cant possibly be more difficult then the mig-21 when it comes to landing.

 

and yet accidents in the easy eagle happen online on a regular basis hahaha

Edited March 4, 2016 by probad

[mattebubben]

and yet accidents in the easy eagle happen online on a regular basis hahaha

 

 

Well the landing is the most difficult part of any flight.

 

But the Mig-21 is pretty difficult due to the long nose (limiting visibility of the runway) but its low speed handling also aint the best.

 

I have to think the F-4 must be easier.

 

Especially seing as its a carrier aircraft so being able to see the carrier untill touchdown is very important.

(to follow the instructions from the LSO aswell as seeing the OLS)

[Muppetlord]

Especially seing as its a carrier aircraft so being able to see the carrier untill touchdown is very important.

(to follow the instructions from the LSO aswell as seeing the OLS)

 

Don't forget that carrier aircraft doesn't usually flare before landing which helps them see where they're going.

 

I don't think the visibility on the F-4 is that much better actually. If you did a flare I bet you wouldn't see very much of the runway.

[BlackLion213]

Well the landing is the most difficult part of any flight.

 

But the Mig-21 is pretty difficult due to the long nose (limiting visibility of the runway) but its low speed handling also aint the best.

 

I have to think the F-4 must be easier.

 

The F-4 did have a reputation for staying nice and steady in the groove during approaches (contrasting sharply with the F-14 that wandered constantly and tended to float - needing endless corrections). However, the MiG-21 is also quite steady on approach, you just need to monitor it's speed diligently (like you would in the F-4). The only part of the MiG-21's landing that is a bit challenging is touchdown, since the landing gear won't tolerate much descent rate on contact. The F-4 would be much more forgiving at touchdown because their landing gear is much more robust (the USAF and USN Phantoms had the same landing gear structure, though the tire dimensions diverged after the F-4B and F-4C).

 

With an easier touchdown, I think the F-4 would be easier, but the general experience of flying the approach would probably be quite similar in my estimation. The F-4 didn't have a great reputation for low-speed handling either.

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

I nice little period video on the F-4E's flying behavior:

[BlackLion213]

I nice little period video on the F-4E's flying behavior:

 

Dang it Hummingbird - now I want this thing bad! :D

 

Great video though, thank you for sharing! I love these period videos.

 

-Nick

[mattebubben]

You Too can have a Slat wing F-4 Phantom!!!

 

Hurry up over to Cal Worthingtons Used F-4s and pick one up today!

 

Get them fast while they last!

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[Caleb230CH]

F-4 is needed with incoming Vietnam era aircraft!

 

Multiple Vietnam era aircraft are being developed and the F-4 in general just needs to be developed because you can't think of Nam without the F-4. I would pay for it multiple times over just to support the people who made such an iconic aircraft. I don't care which model.(preferably the C, D, or E, or even the G that was used in the 90's) We need more 3rd party devs so our banks aren't full of cash waiting on the next aircraft!:music_whistling:

[Lion13]

Yes

[jetkid]

YES yes yes.

 

E variant...

[MegOhm_SD]

This poll is over two years old...has any devs stepped up yet...if they had we would be close one would think. Very sad.

[streakeagle]

There will only be one dev capable of doing the F-4 over the "short term"... Leatherneck... and only after successfully completing the F-14A. The key being the development of reasonably good/realistic/immersive AI for a RIO/WSO in the back seat, preferably with the option to support a 2nd player as the guy in back.

 

Alternatively, the buttons/switches available to the RIO/WSO that are unavailable to the pilot would have to be operated by the pilot via mapped keys/joystick buttons. I have the Simworks Studios F-4B for FSX and can reasonably operate the radar without having to switch to a backseat view to the point of searching, tracking, and killing a target with an AIM-7 Sparrow.

 

Given the existence of the MiG-21bis, it makes so much sense to provide an F-4E to create another historically important dueling pair, much like the MiG-15/F-86, Fw190/P-51, and Su-27/F-15.

[Caleb230CH]

There will only be one dev capable of doing the F-4 over the "short term"... Leatherneck... and only after successfully completing the F-14A. The key being the development of reasonably good/realistic/immersive AI for a RIO/WSO in the back seat, preferably with the option to support a 2nd player as the guy in back.

 

Alternatively, the buttons/switches available to the RIO/WSO that are unavailable to the pilot would have to be operated by the pilot via mapped keys/joystick buttons. I have the Simworks Studios F-4B for FSX and can reasonably operate the radar without having to switch to a backseat view to the point of searching, tracking, and killing a target with an AIM-7 Sparrow.

 

Given the existence of the MiG-21bis, it makes so much sense to provide an F-4E to create another historically important dueling pair, much like the MiG-15/F-86, Fw190/P-51, and Su-27/F-15.

 

I believe the F-4E would be nice because of the gun and upgraded systems. However the F-4G would be nice for SEAD since previously said it was used until the 90's for the USAF. The F-16 has since taken over that role. I am thinking of perhaps a dev making a base model F-4. Then making expansions to that model. Say you want to make a F-4C and then a D and an E and later the G. Maybe even the F-4B and then J and S. Since they're the same aircraft it might be easy to develop expansions. Maybe that's just the way I have seen it but it would be a major money maker for devs and a huge enjoyment for the consumer.