Anybody Eyeballing an F-4 Phantom?

[mrmertz]

Feel free to move this post as it may be in the wrong section...sorry!

 

Brand new here. Just discovered DCS today by a fluke. Wow.

 

Just to compliment the Huey in Vietnam, how cool would it be to take my favorite jet the F-4 Phantom and turn out a equally high end product for use in DCS along with all the variants like the F-4's the Navy flew, F-4C, D, and E, or if you really want to fly by the seat of your pants the jamming F-4G Wild Weasel!

 

Just a post for feedback. Like I said, I'm brand new here so just posting to see if there was any interest in this. Perhaps someone already has this in mind?

 

Glad to see the F-18 is in the works too!

 

Definitely joining this group and looking forward to plunking down hard earned money finally on something that truly deserves it! Thanks DCS!!! I'm into simming, not gaming and this DEFINATELY fits the bill! I doubt I'll be disappointed. :)

 

Jeff

Edited November 4, 2014 by mrmertz
Free to move to more appropriate category

[Flagrum]

Welcome to DCS and the (probably wrong part of the) forums!

 

The wish for a F-4 is not exactly new, many, many people have requested this already. And as you have posted this in the VEAO forums, iirc they specifically said that due to it's complexity and also confidentiallity (is that a word?), it would be impossible to simulate the Phantom in a quality it would deserve for a DCS module. Other developers might face the same challenges here ...

 

(But I suspect, you did actually post just in the wrong forum section - nevertheless the statement above still applies. :o)

[Milli]

Welcome to your new world Jeff. I think any aircraft, if well done, will attract interest. We're all mad about planes and helicopters here. A Phantom would sure be lovely. I just want a Tornado GR4 and a JaguaR GR3. Oh and a bucaneer, a tomcat, a harrier GR9, an F-111....

 

Regards,

Milli

[Pikey]

Enjoy your stay Jeff, these forums and the product are fantastic and you've completely echoed many people's sentiments about the F-4.

 

Currently it's not been listed on any development roadmaps that I've seen, but if you manage to find resources (like someone in the Collings foundation or something along those lines http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tx_f-4dphantom_training.htm ) that was willing to get involved in software development then the chances drastically increase for seeing it in the next couple of years.

[Priller]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=132754

[Pman]

Welcome to the forums!

 

We have looked at the F-4 historically, however there are a number of reasons why VEAO will not be looking to bring the F-4 to DCS.

 

For obvious reasons I can't go into details but the issues outstanding mean that its not something we can consider.

 

Pman

[ghostdog688]

That's unfortunate, it would have been a day one purchase for me. I appreciate you can't go into details, but what was the major fly in the ointment for getting development run (it's not so obvious to me)

[Pman]

That's unfortunate, it would have been a day one purchase for me. I appreciate you can't go into details, but what was the major fly in the ointment for getting development run (it's not so obvious to me)

 

The US Government restrictions on some aspects of the aircraft and its performance information, again without going into specifics.

 

Pman

[ghostdog688]

Anybody Eyeballing an F-4 Phantom?

 

Got it. What about obtaining stats from the British ones or does it not work like that?

[Pman]

Got it. What about obtaining stats from the British ones or does it not work like that?

 

Sadly doesnt work like that, the IP holder is still McDonnell Douglas who obey the American Government.

 

We have said in the past we could do an FC3 level one but it goes against the entire VEAO mantra of Military spec or go home so its not something we will pursue

 

Pman

[ghostdog688]

Understood. Sad

[emg]

Sadly doesnt work like that, the IP holder is still McDonnell Douglas who obey the American Government.

 

We have said in the past we could do an FC3 level one but it goes against the entire VEAO mantra of Military spec or go home so its not something we will pursue

 

Pman

 

Have you thought of creating "VEAO lite" brand for FC3 aircraft? :) I can't imagine I'm the only one who'd pay for a FC3-level Phantom. Or maybe you feel that simulating the Phantom pilot + RIO cooperation dynamics will be too simplified and un-fun without advanced systems modeling?

Edited January 1, 2015 by emg

[Buzzles]

The US Government restrictions on some aspects of the aircraft and its performance information, again without going into specifics.

 

Pman

 

To be honest, I think people forget the F4 is still active in US inventories in various shapes and forms, and is still an active combat plane in other airforces around the world.

 

If people are aware of that, it's obvious why there'd be restrictions on an active product line.

[vicx]

We should make our own fighter planes for DCS and then NOT let them have them.

[ploegering]

To be honest, I think people forget the F4 is still active in US inventories in various shapes and forms, and is still an active combat plane in other airforces around the world.

 

If people are aware of that, it's obvious why there'd be restrictions on an active product line.

Same as A-10C, UH-1, Mi-8, BAE Hawk, MiG-21 or the coming Hornet. They are all in active service too.

But i can understand it - if the US Government says no, than no. Sad, but that's part of the game. I would really like the Phantom in DCS.

[Czar]

To be honest, I think people forget the F4 is still active in US inventories in various shapes and forms, and is still an active combat plane in other airforces around the world.

 

If people are aware of that, it's obvious why there'd be restrictions on an active product line.

 

What about the F/A-18 in the makings by ED? It doesn't really looks like the issue is just being in service.

 

I was looking after the F-4 too, any variant. :( Just now I got this news. Good words VEAO.

[*Rage*]

Wouldn't that also mean that a DCS level F15 or F18 are not possible?

[Aginor]

Not without a military contract I guess.

[Steel Jaw]

Phantom ?

 

Just grab a brick and throw it...

 

(Old Phantom joke.)

[Revan]

don't fret, Leatherneck simulations is hinting at an F-14!

[Ells228]

The T.1A is very much still in service but we have an agreement with BAE :)

[Tomhatter]

Pman, I saw your latest post on the F-4 Phantom and government restrictions.

 

Why is McDonnell Douglas okay giving ED rights to develop a detailed F/A-18C Hornet and all its weapon systems but the F-4 Phantom is a no go? What could the Phantom possibly have that's considered top secret or important to national security? The F/A-18C is still very much a front line fighter with the USMC. Just curious...

 

Obviously you can't get into detail but what else could it be besides weapon systems? You said it's performance related but the Hornet would fly circles around the Phantom?

[streakeagle]

I am also confused by the fact that it is possible and presumably profitable to do the F/A-18C but not the A-4 Skyhawk?

 

Not knowing anything more than what has been stated publicly on these forums and past licensing issues with other sims, I can only guess that everything depends on the specifics of the company that is choosing to do or not do a project.

 

For instance, a US company may have rights to some information on US equipment whether through contractual agreements with manufacturers or Freedom of Information Act requests that non-US companies would never be granted no matter what the fees are.

 

Likewise, a larger company with more capital could afford more overhead in a licensing agreement with a manufacturer than a smaller company could.

 

But, perhaps most importantly, one company's standards for the level of information and licensing required to make and sell a module might be different than another. Did ED talk to Boeing about the F/A-18 or are they going to gamble that they can replicate it under fair use? If they did negotiate a licensing deal, did they ask for as high a level of rights as VEAO would for an F-4 Phantom?

 

In the end, the details don't really matter to me. Pointless to speculate as none of the businesses involved will be rewarded in any way for publishing all the nitty-gritty details of their complete business plan or any related negotiations. All that matters to me is which planes are actually in progress, when will they be released, how much will they cost, and where do I click to buy them?

 

I would prefer the F-4 over any other aircraft. I am hoping that the fact that ED can get away with an F/A-18C that someone will eventually be able to do an F-4. Leatherneck's apparent intent to release an F-14 this year gives me hope that an F-4 is not off the table at all, just a matter of the right company picking up the ball at the right time and running with it.

[Pman]

Pman, I saw your latest post on the F-4 Phantom and government restrictions.

 

Why is McDonnell Douglas okay giving ED rights to develop a detailed F/A-18C Hornet and all its weapon systems but the F-4 Phantom is a no go? What could the Phantom possibly have that's considered top secret or important to national security? The F/A-18C is still very much a front line fighter with the USMC. Just curious...

 

Obviously you can't get into detail but what else could it be besides weapon systems? You said it's performance related but the Hornet would fly circles around the Phantom?

 

Think of who else operates F-4's that the Americans might not want to give a simulator that is military spec accurate too...

 

But your right I can not go into system details.

 

Pman

[Pman]

I am also confused by the fact that it is possible and presumably profitable to do the F/A-18C but not the A-4 Skyhawk?

 

Not knowing anything more than what has been stated publicly on these forums and past licensing issues with other sims, I can only guess that everything depends on the specifics of the company that is choosing to do or not do a project.

 

For instance, a US company may have rights to some information on US equipment whether through contractual agreements with manufacturers or Freedom of Information Act requests that non-US companies would never be granted no matter what the fees are.

 

Likewise, a larger company with more capital could afford more overhead in a licensing agreement with a manufacturer than a smaller company could.

 

But, perhaps most importantly, one company's standards for the level of information and licensing required to make and sell a module might be different than another. Did ED talk to Boeing about the F/A-18 or are they going to gamble that they can replicate it under fair use? If they did negotiate a licensing deal, did they ask for as high a level of rights as VEAO would for an F-4 Phantom?

 

In the end, the details don't really matter to me. Pointless to speculate as none of the businesses involved will be rewarded in any way for publishing all the nitty-gritty details of their complete business plan or any related negotiations. All that matters to me is which planes are actually in progress, when will they be released, how much will they cost, and where do I click to buy them?

 

I would prefer the F-4 over any other aircraft. I am hoping that the fact that ED can get away with an F/A-18C that someone will eventually be able to do an F-4. Leatherneck's apparent intent to release an F-14 this year gives me hope that an F-4 is not off the table at all, just a matter of the right company picking up the ball at the right time and running with it.

 

This is really two different questions, one about Skyhawk and one about Phantom

 

For Skyhawk please see these posts or I will just be repeating myself

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214751&postcount=223

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2279695&postcount=8

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2279696&postcount=9

 

That should clear that up.

 

Regarding Phantom it is a different issue, the restrictions placed upon us with the Phantom mean that we couldn't do a simulator to the level that we would require for us to release a module. Military Spec or Go home. We were not going to "fake" by simulating alot of results to get round the restrictions. We didn't even get to the stage of talking to ED about it as we made the decision a long time ago that the Phantom is not something we would be pursuing due to the results of these conversations.

 

Pman