F-4 Phantom Module Development Appeal

[Charly_Owl]

Well, the moment you try to acquire wiring diagrams about electrical circuits or data that is proprietary information to suppliers like motorists or companies specialized in avionics, this is where it gets tricky. Getting an authorization from Boeing means nothing if you can't get the authorization from the OEMs themselves (original equipment manufacturers). Many systems are subcontracted to smaller and more specialized companies, while the aircraft manufacturer "just" has to integrate them to the aircraft.

 

The flight manuals themselves are often not enough to model something to a level that is satisfying (mainly hydraulic, pneumatic, fuel or electrical systems). Most of the time, flight manuals from the aircraft manufacturer is not enough. OEM documentation is required to be able to guesstimate a model that is "good enough". This is where it can get tricky. Licenses of an F-4 for a movie or a video game means that you have a 3D model or something. A full study sim, on the other hand, is a completely different beast since you are basically reverse-engineering the whole aircraft. This is why most flight sim companies are armed to the teeth with legal teams.

 

This dilemma to gather information is part of my daily job (I do flight sims for a living, believe it or not) and it is indeed quite complicated at times and can involve insane amounts of money and legal stuff. It's case by case.

 

If a legal agreement prevents you from doing something, well there's not much you can do about it. This is especially true regarding military technology.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Charly_Owl

[mvsgas]

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?

 

What version? There are over 67 different blocks and this are not block like the F-16 that jump like 50/52, for example 31-33 are early block F-4E. Then there is the designations; F-4H-1 (F-4B) to the F-4S and so many special/ test versions (F-4H-1F, EF-4, NF-4, etc.) not to mention all different Country specific modifications. Then there is the weapons....pretty much any weapons from the 50's to the 90's. ALQ-71(v) to ALQ-184 (v), GBU-2 to 24, SUU-7 to 65, etc.

[carss]

If only MilViz would develop for DCS ...

 

 

 

I completely agree with you on that man! I even asked them but sadly and heart breakingly they straight up said NO!! :bomb:

[mvsgas]

[ame]http://f4phantom.com/docs/USAF1.pdf[/ame]

 

 

http://www.f4phantom.com/drupal/references

 

F-4 Phantom Pilot's Flight Operating Manual

Edited May 5, 2016 by mvsgas

[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.

Please direct me to any recent high fidelity simulator that fully simulates radar, engines and weapon systems on any variant of the F4

 

Pman

 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[WinterH]

I seem to recall LN also saying similar things for F-4 development about a couple years ago. However, same things were being said for F-14 as well sooo who knows, we may eventually get the Phantom someday.

 

Or not. We'll just have to wait and see. Taking in to consideration how long a module development takes, and seeing how all known DCS developers are fairly busy with other things, even if we eventually get one, it is not likely to be anytime soon.

[Pman]

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.

 

Please don't guess. I realise that with lack of information people are prone to it but just please.

 

Our relationship with Boeing is actually excellent and thanks to them some of our non public projects have opened up greatly.

 

We don't have issues with anything past 1950 (Typhoon and Hawk are good examples). Also the aircraft that the team behind typhoon will work on after it is complete is post 1950 as well. More on that at the time.

 

As for circuit board technology you'd be surprised how far you can simulate in dcs in the name of accuracy, it's just a case of cost vs benefit.

 

Pman

[Suevi]

What version? There are over 67 different blocks and this are not block like the F-16 that jump like 50/52, for example 31-33 are early block F-4E. Then there is the designations; F-4H-1 (F-4B) to the F-4S and so many special/ test versions (F-4H-1F, EF-4, NF-4, etc.) not to mention all different Country specific modifications. Then there is the weapons....pretty much any weapons from the 50's to the 90's. ALQ-71(v) to ALQ-184 (v), GBU-2 to 24, SUU-7 to 65, etc.

Pick one. Personally, having worked (US) Navy contracts, I prefer J. Having grown up in Germany in the 70s I'd like to see ze E for purely nostalgic reasons. Ultimately, whatever variant gives the most ordnance options would be best. at this point I'd settle for any of them.

[T_A]

Would not have mind seeing a Kurnass 2000 (IAF F-4E retrofitted with modern avionics) but i`d settle for a F-4E

 

...one day

[Oubaas]

F-4J or F-4N in VF-151 and VF-161 liveries.

 

:thumbup:

[mvsgas]

Pick one. Personally, having worked (US) Navy contracts, I prefer J. Having grown up in Germany in the 70s I'd like to see ze E for purely nostalgic reasons. Ultimately, whatever variant gives the most ordnance options would be best. at this point I'd settle for any of them.

 

Fair enough. I was asking because people tent to have different reactions to aircraft. For example; when the Mig-21 was release, I don't remember many threads related to the weapons. Some weapons being included or not, weapons behavior and so on. Maybe I did not notice. In comparison, many people had questions on the Mirage 2000C when it was release.

 

So I was wondering, if anyone chooses to make a F-4 module, will they make a specific version (i.e. USAF F-4E block 67, circa 1985) or will they combine versions and block depending on available data. Both seem fine to me, although I will admit I do not think multi crew aircraft will work in DCS, depending on the AI to use the Radar or targeting system the way you want it I will be the main problem I think, we will have to wait and see.

[King_Hrothgar]

Please don't guess. I realise that with lack of information people are prone to it but just please.

 

Our relationship with Boeing is actually excellent and thanks to them some of our non public projects have opened up greatly.

 

We don't have issues with anything past 1950 (Typhoon and Hawk are good examples). Also the aircraft that the team behind typhoon will work on after it is complete is post 1950 as well. More on that at the time.

 

 

Good to hear, as said, I was just making shots in the dark on possible reasons and tried to make it as clear as I could that that was all I was doing.

 

As for circuit board technology you'd be surprised how far you can simulate in dcs in the name of accuracy, it's just a case of cost vs benefit.

 

Pman

 

Not at all, solving logic and mathematical equations is something C++ is very good at. The point I was getting at is there comes a point where more detail doesn't actually add anything to the combat flight sim experience. That excessive detail is for anything under the hood that the player has little to no chance of ever noticing. I've gotten the impression from other posts you and other VEAO staff have made that you run into problems trying to add that level of detail. That impression could be wrong.

 

As for the OEM side of things mentioned previously, change a circular knob to an octagon, yellow/black slashed warnings to white/black slashes and other similar cosmetic changes for any problematic bits, problem solved. :D Will it be 100% accurate like that? No, but I'd rather 99.9% accurate then not getting critical aircraft at all. And I still don't see what the issue is, I just looked and a quick google search revealed 3 different paid F-4 Phantom II addons for FSX on the first page alone. Some have working weapons, or as working as a super heavily modded FSX install allows. The procedures should be accurate if not the actual missiles.

Edited May 5, 2016 by King_Hrothgar
clarification

[Buzzles]

And I still don't see what the issue is, I just looked and a quick google search revealed 3 different paid F-4 Phantom II addons for FSX on the first page alone. Some have working weapons, or as working as a super heavily modded FSX install allows. The procedures should be accurate if not the actual missiles.

 

There's a difference between making an approximation of the aircraft (ala FSX) vs using technical data to make a simulation.

 

The latter will involve contracts, NDA's and fees.

 

Also don't forget the F4 is still active service outside of the USA and probably has some really quirky contracts relating to it/DoD that might have been written during the Cold War around certain systems.

[Hummingbird]

It's a strange world we live in at times, one where sometimes you aren't allowed to simulate aircraft & systems that are 40+ years old (read: obsolete) but at the same time can simulate some that are 20-30 years younger, state of the art and far more relevant in todays world.

 

1970's F-4E Phantom = Access DENIED!:banned:

2000's EF Typhoon = Access GRANTED! :thumbsup:

 

 

:huh::suspect:

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It's a strange world we live in at times, one where sometimes you aren't allowed to simulate aircraft & systems that are 40+ years old (read: obsolete) but at the same time can simulate some that are 20-30 years younger, state of the art and far more relevant in todays world.

 

1970's F-4E Phantom = Access DENIED!:banned:

2000's EF Typhoon = Access GRANTED! :thumbsup:

 

 

:huh::suspect:

 

Obsolescence is irrelevant, it's still a fairly important aircraft in a few nations defense systems, namely Turkey and Greece. Boeing still provides some support to those air arms, I'd imagine. Still, that's not the issue.

 

The EF is also a simpler aircraft in some regards, from a development standpoint. After all, there's no RIO you have to program AI for solo play. The EF's systems are also probably way more user friendly, owing to the base of knowledge the designers had to work with.

 

And, to top it off, these aircraft are more than just products on a shelf for someone to buy. They're icons of culture to very many. Even if the aircraft is utterly outmoded in modern roles, they still hold a cultural value a lot of people. As such, the companies holding the ownership papers will want an extremely faithful reproduction of the aircraft at the very least and a possible piece of the pie when it drops for consumer purchases, more than likely.

 

The Phantom is an ubiquitous piece of Americana, a symbol of the Cold War. The Eurofighter is too young to have that sort of impact. Plus, as I understand it, VEAO is working on or assisting the RAF in developing Typhoon simulation. The Phantom probably doesn't have that privilege.

 

Also, the EF we're getting is a Tranche 1, isn't it? There might be systems that are utterly irrelevant to the EF of today. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong on this one: I'm clueless to the Eurofighter and it's development. As far as I know, there might not be that much difference between the Tranche 1, 2 and 3 upgrades.

[Hummingbird]

Obsolescence is irrelevant, it's still a fairly important aircraft in a few nations defense systems, namely Turkey and Greece. Boeing still provides some support to those air arms, I'd imagine. Still, that's not the issue.

 

The EF is also a simpler aircraft in some regards, from a development standpoint. After all, there's no RIO you have to program AI for solo play. The EF's systems are also probably way more user friendly, owing to the base of knowledge the designers had to work with.

 

And, to top it off, these aircraft are more than just products on a shelf for someone to buy. They're icons of culture to very many. Even if the aircraft is utterly outmoded in modern roles, they still hold a cultural value a lot of people. As such, the companies holding the ownership papers will want an extremely faithful reproduction of the aircraft at the very least and a possible piece of the pie when it drops for consumer purchases, more than likely.

 

The Phantom is an ubiquitous piece of Americana, a symbol of the Cold War. The Eurofighter is too young to have that sort of impact. Plus, as I understand it, VEAO is working on or assisting the RAF in developing Typhoon simulation. The Phantom probably doesn't have that privilege.

 

Also, the EF we're getting is a Tranche 1, isn't it? There might be systems that are utterly irrelevant to the EF of today. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong on this one: I'm clueless to the Eurofighter and it's development. As far as I know, there might not be that much difference between the Tranche 1, 2 and 3 upgrades.

 

Of course and I don't disagree, it's just the sadness of the fact that we're prohibited an aircraft due to financial politics rather than for security reasons.

 

I mean it's pretty ironic that we're flying around in simulated mid 1990's versions of military aircraft atm (F-15C, Su27, M2000 etc), yet we aren't allowed a simulated F-4 Phantom from the 1970's :P Heck even one that's from the same firm that made the F-15 :P

 

As for the two seater argument, well ironically we're soon to be getting a far more advanced & capable two seat fighter in the F-14 Tomcat, an immensely capable aircraft that even many experts believe was prematurely retired from the USN, and also an aircraft that is currently still operated by Iran. Also in terms of cultural value I'd argue that the F-14 ranks very highly, at least I'm sure more people recognize it rather than the F-4.

 

I really struggle to find any reason other than corperate greed to explain why we don't have an F-4 in the works already. Same goes for the F-16 really, esp. since I don't buy the Falcon 4.0 excuse :P

[tombeckett2285]

I'd just like to point out that the comparison to the FC3 F-15 and Su-27 is pretty much invalid as the specific system simulation level on those aircraft probably stretches to systems where the information is virtually public domain.

 

The realism level demanded of most 3rd party addons would render many military aircraft off limits, not just from a legal point of view but a cost one as well.

 

Of course, if there was a big enough market for an F-4 with a reasonably accurate flight model and FC3 level systems I don't see why somebody wouldn't go for it at some point. However, you'll always get the obsessive types who demand very switch, circuit breaker and rivet is modelled precisely or there is no point. Different strokes for different folks of course, but you get the picture.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hummingbird]

I could make due with a F-15/Su-27 level EFM F-4 Phantom for a while...

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Of course and I don't disagree, it's just the sadness of the fact that we're prohibited an aircraft due to financial politics rather than for security reasons.

It's sad, but true. A Phantom, specifically the Echo model, would be a real winner for whoever made it.

 

I mean it's pretty ironic that we're flying around in simulated mid 1990's versions of military aircraft atm (F-15C, Su27, M2000 etc), yet we aren't allowed a simulated F-4 Phantom from the 1970's :P Heck even one that's from the same firm that made the F-15 :P

And, in the '90s, there were even more F-4 users, on top of that. I know the Luftwaffe, IAF, EAF, SKAF, and JASDF had them at the time. Even now, the TAF and JASDF still fly them.

 

 

As for the two seater argument, well ironically we're soon to be getting a far more advanced & capable two seat fighter in the F-14 Tomcat, an immensely capable aircraft that even many experts believe was prematurely retired from the USN, and also an aircraft that is currently still operated by Iran. Also in terms of cultural value I'd argue that the F-14 ranks very highly, at least I'm sure more people recognize it rather than the F-4.

Well, my point was we don't know how complex the RIO AI will need to be. We don't know how difficult it will be to program it and make it usable for the player.

 

F-14 should provide an idea.

 

I really struggle to find any reason other than corperate greed to explain why we don't have an F-4 in the works already. Same goes for the F-16 really, esp. since I don't buy the Falcon 4.0 excuse :P

I doubt it's greed. There's line between protecting a brand and outright greed. I think if you approached the current holder, Boeing in this case, with a body of work to prove that you could do it then they'd probably sign off on it. They may even regard it as PR work and provide all the essential information you'd need.

 

It's just that'd require, like I said, a body of work. So, we're talking Leatherneck Sims, RAZBAM, Belsimtek, or ED themselves.

 

And yeah, the F4.0 excuse is so weak.

[Pman]

It's sad, but true. A Phantom, specifically the Echo model, would be a real winner for whoever made it.

 

 

And, in the '90s, there were even more F-4 users, on top of that. I know the Luftwaffe, IAF, EAF, SKAF, and JASDF had them at the time. Even now, the TAF and JASDF still fly them.

 

 

 

Well, my point was we don't know how complex the RIO AI will need to be. We don't know how difficult it will be to program it and make it usable for the player.

 

F-14 should provide an idea.

 

 

I doubt it's greed. There's line between protecting a brand and outright greed. I think if you approached the current holder, Boeing in this case, with a body of work to prove that you could do it then they'd probably sign off on it. They may even regard it as PR work and provide all the essential information you'd need.

 

It's just that'd require, like I said, a body of work. So, we're talking Leatherneck Sims, RAZBAM, Belsimtek, or ED themselves.

 

And yeah, the F4.0 excuse is so weak.

You guys seem to think it's a commercial decision by the rights holders.

 

When not in the know I would suggest you avoid making assumptions.

 

Sadly I can not go into greater detail but don't think the viability of a f4-whatever has passed all the 3rd parties by.

 

Pman

[Hummingbird]

You guys seem to think it's a commercial decision by the rights holders.

 

When not in the know I would suggest you avoid making assumptions.

 

Sadly I can not go into greater detail but don't think the viability of a f4-whatever has passed all the 3rd parties by.

 

Pman

 

Well who can blame us? I mean it can hardly be a security issue, if it was we wouldn't be flying around in the aircraft already in DCS or be getting the ones soon to arrive.

 

I'd be very sad to hear if it was all because of a blunder in a certain contract made with a buyer, esp. since I don't see how it could possibly hurt them if someone modelled a 1970's version of the aircraft. I mean we've already got all the period manuals for the aircraft, so it's not like they're risking leaking any vital information.