F-4 Phantom Module Development Appeal

[Suevi]

Not sure if this is the right forum or the way to go about it, but I'd like to appeal to ED for the development of a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II module. That platform is an international legend of the cold war era. Fun to fly and a worthy addition to the DCS collection. I can't find any digital sims out there that gives this amazing aircraft its proper due. Comments?

[rogonaut]

was already wondering that myself, seems to be an obvious module. i would love to see it and fight the mig-21 for example.

[joey45]

There are a number of reasons why there isn't a DCS module...

[Suevi]

There are a number of reasons why there isn't a DCS module...

The primary one being? ...

[Tirak]

The primary one being? ...

 

Licensing.

[J7G]

There are a number of reasons why there isn't a DCS module...

 

I do hope you're not going to pull the "secrecy" card. That only applied to the British version that VEAO reckoned they were looking at. And even then it's a tenuous reason.

Edited May 4, 2016 by J7G

[Suevi]

Licensing.

That seems like an assumption. Any solid reasons?

[King_Hrothgar]

There is one reason we don't have it and one reason only, none of the DCS development teams wanted to make it more than the other things they made or are making. It is absolutely doable from both technical and legal standpoints. I consider the F-4 to be a critically important flyable aircraft for DCS (some others being the Mirage F.1E, F-5/14/16/18, MiG-23/25, Su-17, AH-1J/W, UH-60A and Mi-24V/P). That said, I probably wouldn't buy it because it's a two seat fighter. I'd love to fight a human one in MP though or fly as escort while they bomb stuff.

[Pman]

legal standpoints

 

Untrue

 

Pman

[Backy 51]

If only MilViz would develop for DCS ...

[joey45]

I do hope you're not going to pull the "secrecy" card. That only applied to the British version that VEAO reckoned they were looking at. And even then it's a tenuous reason.

 

No.

[Pman]

I do hope you're not going to pull the "secrecy" card. That only applied to the British version that VEAO reckoned they were looking at. And even then it's a tenuous reason.

 

Incorrect.

 

Please do not make assumptions about things you are not informed about :)

 

Pman

[J7G]

Why don't you guys make a substantive post then? Stop alluding to things or just saying "no" (looking at you, joey45). I'm happy to be corrected but those kinds of posts are completely unhelpful.

 

Though, that supposed secrecy was a stated reason some time back pman.

[Pman]

Why don't you guys make a substantive post then? Stop alluding to things or just saying "no" (looking at you, joey45). I'm happy to be corrected but those kinds of posts are completely unhelpful.

 

Though, that supposed secrecy was a stated reason some time back pman.

 

We are bound by requests by parties external to us to abide by their requests. As such I will not get into the ins and outs on the F-4 Phantom

 

But just because someone doenst explain themselves to you doesnt mean there isn't a good reason for things, suggesting something is tenuous is sheer guesswork on your part

 

Somethings you will just have to live with not knowing :smartass:

 

Pman

[J7G]

That smilie makes you look smug you know.

 

Thanks for the reply, I suppose. At least you took the time.

[Pman]

That smilie makes you look smug you know.

 

Thanks for the reply, I suppose. At least you took the time.

 

Sometimes for very good reasons we can't go into details as much as we would like to, and yes it does make us come across as smartass' however there is no way around that.

 

We will be honest, would we like to do one? Of course, but for a couple of extremely good reasons we can't

 

And in this game we are not always at liberty to discuss why we have to do something.

 

Pman

[Chief1942]

Who would have ever believed that providing representative old aircraft models for flight sims would read like a Sherlock Holmes mystery. How did we get here? Does it ALL come down to pure greed on the part of the intellectual property owners?

[King_Hrothgar]

Untrue

 

Pman

 

Maybe for the oddball UK version you wanted to do, but not for the F-4 in general. It's also entirely possible that restriction only applied to your particular company. I do not know the details, but I do know that there have been numerous F-4's made for high fidelity flight sims over the years and some very recently. Clearly it is possible. I will not take your word on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

Edit: I don't mean any disrespect. I'm glad you're developing for DCS and appreciate you being willing to talk about this, even if cryptically. But I don't accept your answer in this case.

Edited May 5, 2016 by King_Hrothgar

[hollywoodvillain]

Im curious as to whether 3rd party developers are aware of all "unannounced" modules being developed by all other 3rd party devs? Basically I'm asking if its a certain fact that F-4 is not being developed or planned to be, the cryptic language leads me to believe it indeed is

[xaoslaad]

Who would have ever believed that providing representative old aircraft models for flight sims would read like a Sherlock Holmes mystery. How did we get here? Does it ALL come down to pure greed on the part of the intellectual property owners?

A web of legal BS. I'd've loved this case to go all the way: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/intellectual-property/b/copyright-trademark-law-blog/archive/2012/01/25/ea-s-video-game-quot-battlefield-3-quot-turning-into-quot-battlefield-trademark-quot-as-video-game-manufacturer-sues-to-adjudicate-non-infringement-of-military-helicopters.aspx?Redirected=true

 

I personally think it's nothing but corporate greed from the lot of them. They make literal trillion dollar contracts with government and they force developers of a niche game to pay what I can only imagine is less than peanuts to them, but exorbitant to the devs all in the name of "protecting their trademark". You can paint it however you want, but it still smells foul.

[King_Hrothgar]

Has nothing to do with that. Below are a list of McDonnell Douglas aircraft either in DCS or currently being developed for it:

 

1) F-15C (ED)

2) F-15E (RAZBAM)

3) F/A-18C (ED)

4) AV-8B (RAZBAM)

5) F-4E (AI)

6) C-17 (AI)

 

The F-4 has been licensed to multiple third parties for the MSFS series, P3D and possibly X-Plane too (I haven't paid much attention to them).

Edited May 5, 2016 by King_Hrothgar

[Charly_Owl]

Strangely enough, the only aircraft in your list operated by Iran is the F-4E. Coincidence?

 

Food for thought...

[Tirak]

Not to disagree with your list, but a point of order considering the AI aircraft on it. If I'm not mistaken, this comes from Polychop and from VEAO's A-4 fiasco, but the level of simulation affects the type of agreement you have to reach with the company. Detailed systems modeling leads into certain awkward areas when it comes to protecting company trademarks, and so an AI aircraft could easily be implemented due to a lack of detailed systems modeling, but a full DCS level module could not because the level of simulation goes above and beyond the normal agreements they make for licensing out the image or name.

 

Now this could all be (edited), but that's what we were led to believe based on VEAO's A-4 fiasco, and from Polychop's BO-105 negotiations, if I'm recalling correctly.

Edited May 5, 2016 by BIGNEWY
1.1 profanity

[VincentLaw]

Strangely enough, the only aircraft in your list operated by Iran is the F-4E. Coincidence?

 

Food for thought...

Iran also has the F-14A and F-5E, and those are both in mid to late development for DCS. Not sure how similar it is to Iran's Mirage F1EQ, but Aviodev is also working on a Mirage F1. I don't think this is the issue.

[King_Hrothgar]

Not to disagree with your list, but a point of order considering the AI aircraft on it. If I'm not mistaken, this comes from Polychop and from VEAO's A-4 fiasco, but the level of simulation affects the type of agreement you have to reach with the company. Detailed systems modeling leads into certain awkward areas when it comes to protecting company trademarks, and so an AI aircraft could easily be implemented due to a lack of detailed systems modeling, but a full DCS level module could not because the level of simulation goes above and beyond the normal agreements they make for licensing out the image or name.

 

Now this could all be (edited), but that's what we were led to believe based on VEAO's A-4 fiasco, and from Polychop's BO-105 negotiations, if I'm recalling correctly.

 

There are different levels. Last time this came up (comes up a lot doesn't it?) I actually checked the Boeing website for licensing information. They list multiple tiers for painters/photographers/film makers as well as toy and video game makers. It came off as all very standardized, though they didn't give prices or terms on the non-free licenses (painting/filming is free). VEAO seems to have issues with anything post 1950, so I think what maybe going on is they specifically are asking for a license far above what DCS requires (I think this was actually mentioned by them at one point) or they are asking for information far beyond the scope of a flight sim (ie how to build a specific circuit board). It's also entirely possible VEAO is blacklisted by Boeing for something we don't know about. That happened with 1C:Maddox with IL2: Pacific Fighters and Northrop Grumman. I'm sure many of us are familiar with that little fiasco.

 

Honestly, I think we will see the F-4 in DCS at some point. It's just too popular of an aircraft to be skipped and Boeing is reasonably flight sim friendly (just look at FSX/P3D/XPlane and DCS itself). It's clear VEAO won't be making it, but I wouldn't discount LNS, RAZBAM or some other yet to be created third party.

Edited May 5, 2016 by BIGNEWY
quoted 1.1 profanity