Change.org Petition for F-4E and Forum Poll

[WinterH]

So basically Tinkickef, the great leader is always right, and we should love the Big Brother.

[WinterH]

The module that was announced before any of those listed above was the Mi-24 Hind. This is the module that should be released first.

 

Yeah I also wanted Mi-24 before. My beef is that, now the F-4 is basically prodded back into the neverland, as it is supposed to be reconsidered after finishing F/A-18 which has quite a ways to be complete, and then F-16,Mi-24 and AH-1. Knowing how long a single module takes even to becoming a halfway usable early access, this basically means F-4 is in "maybe my grandchildren will enjoy it" territory.

[backspace340]

By the votes about the F4 being back on track and not being pretty much even, with "For the F4" votes being higher ???

 

This blind F-16 cult following is just hilarious.... I see some old (bad) "trolls" in here as well (not you Kayos, tho you did try to read the poll the wrong way)

 

I'm not sure how you're reading it but there's currently 86 votes for prioritising the F4 ahead of the F16 (54 for doing it first, 32 for doing it after the helicopters but before the F16), and 135 votes for putting the F4 at the back of the queue (25 who want it done last, 110 who want the other modules finished first). So yes, the poll backs up what ED already decided to do.

Edited July 26, 2018 by backspace340

[Boris]

Who the hell is voting "no"??? You monsters!

[chromium]

Who the hell is voting "no"??? You monsters!

 

i.e., me. I'm not voting "no", but I vote that I prefer to see helos (AH-1) before F-4E. I might tell plenty of reasons (one for example is that currently with the situation of Ka-50 we don't have a real attack helo fully and correctly working)

 

As far as you create a poll, you will see how most of the people think.. and you might notice that even if F-4 is a really great and iconic aiframe... many won't it before everything else. And you won't consider all those people that are even not interested in voting about the F-4 or reading this thread about it.

[QuiGon]

So I'd prefer something more different, be it the Phantom (different gen, less tech, most probably way less work for the devs programming all that)

I don't think so. A lot of the tech needed for the F-16 is already there, thanks to the Hornet and even without, I wouldn't be too sure. The F-4 is a pretty complex bird and its analog tech (e.g. raw radar output with manual filtering by the RIO/WSO) is often much more difficult to code than the modern digital tech of the gen 4 birds where you don't have to bother with coding stuff like that.

[QuiGon]

???

This happened:

 

While the F-4E is still planned, we have other modules in higher priority like the Hornet, Yak-52, Mi-24, F-16, and AH-1. Focus on the F-4E will come once we clear several of these projects.

 

So, I would not expect any F-4E news for quite some time.

 

Thanks

By Chzih, F-4 Phantom postponed indefinitely

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3564035&postcount=14440

[WinterH]

For me an F-16V Block 70/72 (Current version) with the sniper pod and the APG-83 radar will be the minimum I want to see next, right after the F-18 ;)

 

Wow :lol::megalol::megalol:

[D4n]

As I said, F-4 pilots from Vietnam are the oldest ones currently, then the Russian Mi-24 pilots who flew it in Afghanistan, then those modern young F-16 pilots. I'm sure ED is aware of the business opportunity.

[Tinkickef]

So basically Tinkickef, the great leader is always right, and we should love the Big Brother.

 

Nope. ED is a business selling a product, they are in no way, shape or form any type of great leader in my life and unless you have some type of problem, they should not be in yours.

 

You are a customer, you have a choice, buy the product or do not buy it.

 

ED are a business, they have the ABSOLUTE right to conduct that business how they see fit. THe relationship between you and ED is simply that of a supplier and a consumer, absolutely nothing more.

 

If read more into it than that......well.

[streakeagle]

The Belsimtek of old:

 

Here are some screenshots of an upcoming release:

UH-1

Mi-8

F-86

MiG-15

 

2-4 weeks later:

Early access beta release available for download.

 

I would rather have not heard of the F-4, AH-1, Mi-24, or F-16 until they were close to release rather than waiting for the AH-1 and Mi-24 for years then finding out the F-4 is going to face the same fate.

 

The F-15C is a special case. Early announcements convinced me we were getting a full-blown DCS F-15C instead of only the professional flight model. So that was a little disappointing, but ultimately the flight models were my biggest gripe about LOMAC/FC over the years and fixing those made the F-15C and Su-27 great aircraft to fly from taxi, take-off, combat, to landing.

 

Of course, VEAO has pretty much set the bar for DCS disappointments/delays with the P-40F having been just a few weeks away and available for purchase... paid the money and years later all I have are screen shots and promises a release is coming.

[WinterH]

Nope. ED is a business selling a product, they are in no way, shape or form any type of great leader in my life and unless you have some type of problem, they should not be in yours.

 

You are a customer, you have a choice, buy the product or do not buy it.

 

ED are a business, they have the ABSOLUTE right to conduct that business how they see fit. THe relationship between you and ED is simply that of a supplier and a consumer, absolutely nothing more.

 

If read more into it than that......well.

 

Nah, by saying that you were sure the decision was taken with a lot of forethought, and for this you have refrained from taking part, you went well beyond what you say in the above quotation.

 

You have worn the mantle of the whiteknight, and insinuated that you are sure they have thought things well and greatly, and hence are righteous in their glorious decision, and so you won't question their infinite wisdom :smilewink:

 

Oh well... this one's gotta be my "getting banned" post I guess =P

[Tinkickef]

Nope. Not wearing the mantle of whiteknight and I don't see anything in your post to get you banned.

 

My opinion from a personal view is that they got it wrong. I already said the F4 is the only proposed module I am interested in buying. However, ED are not in business just to keep tinkickef happy. They have other customers with other priorities and wishes.

 

As said, they have the right to prioritise whatever they want and other than occasionally voicing my disappointment, I will always uphold that view.

 

There is a vast difference between stating ones preference and voicing a little disappointment, and getting a petition together to try to force them to change their minds.

 

One is the action of a rational adult. The other stems from a real sense of entitlement and a skewed perspective of the relationship between ED and the end user.

 

If the petition worked, 100s would be happy and 100s of others would be bitterly disappointed.

 

ED will not have dropped the F4 on a whim, there will have been meetings and discussions; taking into consideration factors that neither you, nor I have any inkling of, including resource management.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Tinkickef

[hvymtal]

This discussion is in the Community News sub forum of all places, and not in this thread, for what reason exactly?

 

Because I was completely unaware of this thread existing in the first place lol. Oh well, merged anyways :P

 

But it is the same thing

 

That was not worded as well as it could be; for the perspective of the F-4, yes that is the same thing. But there were other posters who seemed to be confused and were wondering why there weren't additional options for other modules. The point of the original thread before it was merged was specifically in the case of the F-4 and modules that surround it. Hope I cleare

 

I hope you actually read the rest of the post instead of focusing on one line, because I feel I addressed several of the concerns you brought up in the greater post.

 

 

 

On a personal note, the F4 is probably the only module I would have any interest in out of the proposed list.

 

1. However, ED know what they are doing and it is not for me to try tell them how to run their business. I am sure the decision to put the Phantom on the back burner was not taken without a lot of thought beforehand.

 

Because of this, I have refrained from taking part in the poll.

 

 

Nope. Not wearing the mantle of whiteknight and I don't see anything in your post to get you banned.

 

2. My opinion from a personal view is that they got it wrong. I already said the F4 is the only proposed module I am interested in buying. However, ED are not in business just to keep tinkickef happy. They have other customers with other priorities and wishes.

 

As said, they have the right to prioritise whatever they want and other than occasionally voicing my disappointment, I will always uphold that view.

 

3. There is a vast difference between stating ones preference and voicing a little disappointment, and getting a petition together to try to force them to change their minds.

 

One is the action of a rational adult. The other stems from a real sense of entitlement and a skewed perspective of the relationship between ED and the end user.

 

If the petition worked, 100s would be happy and 100s of others would be bitterly disappointed.

 

4. ED will not have dropped the F4 on a whim, there will have been meetings and discussions; taking into consideration factors that neither you, nor I have any inkling of, including resource management.

 

Numbered points to respond in-depth. I already have addressed all of this (and it's pretty clear you didn't actually read all of my original or my big supplementary one -.-), but to counter each major point directly

 

1. I have already stated that the poll is not intended to create pressure, it is intended to gauge interest and provide a tangible figure using the microcosm of the forums. The original intent was to create a poll where such desires can be quantified without having to go post-by-post and seeing how many forum members want the F-4 and how. That has been clearly stated by me, the OP of the old thread and creator of the poll, at multiple points. Whether that data creates pressure is up to ED to interpret for themselves, but the original intent was certainly not to create pressure.

 

2/4. Absolutely correct, I'm just not sure at how much tangible data they were relying on for that. Sales projections based on existing modules are not, in my opinion, accurate given that the current crop of 3rd gen aircraft is of a very different level of capability and depth to the F-4. Perhaps they took that into account, I don't know for sure.

Given the poll's outcome so far (even with a slight lead towards the F-16 in total and a decent lead if you only count the "prioritize F-4" options), perhaps they were correct, but, taking a massive leap of faith and assuming they based it on sales projections, probably not as correct as they thought.

 

3. Again, I'm not the originator of the petition, and the petition itself is hardly worded with malicious intent. The implications of such a petition can of course be interpreted as "forcing" or "bullying," but I feel that that opinion is engendered in a massive misinterpretation of the intent of the originator. Yes, change.org is been regularly abused for various ends that can be absolutely fairly be classified as an attempt to force or bully, but I fail to see any malicious or forceful intent in the petition in itself.

Edited July 27, 2018 by hvymtal

[shagrat]

Ok, I was very reluctant to say this, but I think I need to, anyway.

 

Of all things, the petition for the F-4E may get 500 supporters... Let's generously assume they get 5000 supporters and assume ED has "just" 500,000 paying customers worldwide, we have a very loud and aggressive 1% (!) of the customer base, trying to tell them what to do, based on the perception they somehow represent any kind of "majority"...

 

Edit: ...and the overall poll participation is about 250, with less than 50% (some 120) representing all 3 options of "we want the F-4E prioritized" with just some 60 people wanting it before anything else.

 

Even if we assume just 100,000 customers we have about 0.0006% that want the F-4E before anything else...

Edited July 27, 2018 by shagrat

[Tinkickef]

Because I was completely unaware of this thread existing in the first place lol. Oh well, merged anyways :P

 

 

 

That was not worded as well as it could be; for the perspective of the F-4, yes that is the same thing. But there were other posters who seemed to be confused and were wondering why there weren't additional options for other modules. The point of the original thread before it was merged was specifically in the case of the F-4 and modules that surround it. Hope I cleare

 

I hope you actually read the rest of the post instead of focusing on one line, because I feel I addressed several of the concerns you brought up in the greater post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Numbered points to respond in-depth. I already have addressed all of this (and it's pretty clear you didn't actually read all of my original or my big supplementary one -.-), but to counter each major point directly

 

1. I have already stated that the poll is not intended to create pressure, it is intended to gauge interest and provide a tangible figure using the microcosm of the forums. The original intent was to create a poll where such desires can be quantified without having to go post-by-post and seeing how many forum members want the F-4 and how. That has been clearly stated by me, the OP of the old thread and creator of the poll, at multiple points. Whether that data creates pressure is up to ED to interpret for themselves, but the original intent was certainly not to create pressure.

 

2/4. Absolutely correct, I'm just not sure at how much tangible data they were relying on for that. Sales projections based on existing modules are not, in my opinion, accurate given that the current crop of 3rd gen aircraft is of a very different level of capability and depth to the F-4. Perhaps they took that into account, I don't know for sure.

Given the poll's outcome so far (even with a slight lead towards the F-16 in total and a decent lead if you only count the "prioritize F-4" options), perhaps they were correct, but, taking a massive leap of faith and assuming they based it on sales projections, probably not as correct as they thought.

 

3. Again, I'm not the originator of the petition, and the petition itself is hardly worded with malicious intent. The implications of such a petition can of course be interpreted as "forcing" or "bullying," but I feel that that opinion is engendered in a massive misinterpretation of the intent of the originator. Yes, change.org is been regularly abused for various ends that can be absolutely fairly be classified as an attempt to force or bully, but I fail to see any malicious or forceful intent in the petition in itself.

 

Firstly. I intended no offence and if you feel I have attacked you in some way, I apologise unreservedly. My previous post was aimed squarely at the poster immediately before mine. I should have quoted it. My bad.

 

Second, I came to this thread from Hoggit and the title of the Hoggit thread detailing this poll says very clearly it was an attempt to change their minds or in other words, to apply peer pressure.

This is what coloured my view on the matter before I even arrived on this page.

[MemphisBelle]

OK guys, I´ve to admit that I´m a little "concerned" (nicely expressed)...who changed the Name of this thread and who added the poll?

 

I´m the Thread Starter and I havent added either the poll nore I havent started any Change.org Partition also. The least I can expect is that I will get asked whether I´d like to see the poll added and the topic Name changed but noone did send me a PM asking me or something like this. So, who did that????

 

:mad:

 

Not to get me wrong, polls are an interessting thing, especially in this case, but if someone is messing around in another ones thread without letting him know about this is an absolute nogo.

[joey45]

I think this was merged with another thread.

[MemphisBelle]

I think this was merged with another thread.

 

EDIT:

So now I found out that the Thread really was merged, it was really confusing not to know what happened. Merging threads normally are somewhat more clear, now I´m good again. Evereythings fine now.

 

To contribute to the Poll, I was for F-4 first of course...what else :D

Edited July 29, 2018 by MemphisBelle

[ViFF]

Voted for the F-4E Phantom ahead of everything else for the following reasons:

 

The main reason is that I really wish ED would give the F-4E a higher priority in terms of aircraft modules to go hand-in-hand with the terrains, specifically the Persian Gulf map.

 

With the F-5E already in place and together with (soon) Heatblur's F-14A, getting the F-4E module in place sooner rather than later will be a major milestone achievement in terms of theatre completeness for the Iranian combat aircraft composition.

 

The other reason is that IMHO going the way of the F-16C before the F-4E will result that overall it will take longer to get to early access on both as opposed to putting the F-4E ahead of the F-16. I believe this because the F-16 has complex avionics, ground radar / SMS pages and other MFD screens / TGP / AGM-88 etc. There is this mantra going around that "in terms of coding once it will be in place for the F-18 it can be very quickly adapted for the F-16". Even if this is subjectively true, the development of an F-4E module does not have such an overwhelming number of systems and weapon dependencies "getting it done in the F-18 first" and can move along at least to the early access with basic systems as was noted by Belsimtek before the merger.

 

 

I really love the F-16 and to this day continuously have countless of hours of fun in the other sim but I also tend to agree with what was mentioned; that the F-16 will be "more of the same F-18" sans CV Ops but on a single engine with a bit more mavericks & CBUs to boot.

 

Both are ubiquitous fighters and would make many international customers happy, but as far as my preference goes I really enjoy the high fidelity and amazing attention to detail that ED and Belsimtek give to the mechanical modeling flight modeling, especially in the older modules and the 3rd generation aircraft produced so far.

 

Please consider giving higher priority for the F-4E Phantom.

 

S!

Edited July 29, 2018 by ViFF

[shagrat]

Why do so many people think simulating "older" systems and avionics is "much easier"?

Let's think about some facts. An MFD is a screen with a number of pixels. Most of the stuff is put letters to a box, draw a line/circle, triangle etc.

The FLIR, Video etc. use the same render results as the world around the plane, just with a contrast/BW/Green filter on top.

 

Now, the "simple" gauges of a Steam age plane in comparison, need detailed and sometimes pretty complex objects modeled in 3D for needles, pointers, flags.

To make it look realistic, lighting, dropshadows and what not need to be accurately modeled.

To make these elements move believable or better "exactly as in real live" you need to analyze the behaviour in dependence to e.g. airpressure in the pitot tube, to the VVI needle or the fluid dynamics in the hydraulic systems when going through gauges. Electrics need to be modeled with currency affecting basically all electric systems, if done right and so on and so on...

 

I really don't think an older plane is "easier" or "faster" to model. Especially if you need to model each gauge and attached system from scratch, as you don't have the same systems from another plane already modeled. Even then, it may behave totally different when mixed with new or other analogue components.

 

Just my two cents.

[D4n]

Here are some screenshots of an upcoming release:

UH-1

Mi-8

F-86

MiG-15

 

I don't see screenshots there.

[vali_grad]

Why do so many people think simulating "older" systems and avionics is "much easier"? ...

 

Just my two cents.

 

one a10c mfd = all clocks of p51 & then some :)))

old birds are "easier" to model but the info for doing it, is hard to find ..why dcs WWII failed ? lack of solid data in the research :)

[QuiGon]

one a10c mfd = all clocks of p51 & then some :)))

old birds are "easier" to model but the info for doing it, is hard to find ..why dcs WWII failed ? lack of solid data in the research :)

WW2 birds, yes, but not Cold War birds with all their analog electronic displays (e.g. raw radar output, which doesn't need to be modelled for modern 4gen jets with clean filtered digital radar displays). That's why the avionics of these birds are much more difficult to simulate then digital "on/off" type of displays as I also said before:

I don't think so. A lot of the tech needed for the F-16 is already there, thanks to the Hornet and even without, I wouldn't be too sure. The F-4 is a pretty complex bird and its analog tech (e.g. raw radar output with manual filtering by the RIO/WSO) is often much more difficult to code than the modern digital tech of the gen 4 birds where you don't have to bother with coding stuff like that.

[shagrat]

one a10c mfd = all clocks of p51 & then some :)))

old birds are "easier" to model but the info for doing it, is hard to find ..why dcs WWII failed ? lack of solid data in the research :)

As I said in my post, if you want to model a gauge to a certain level that I would call "standard" with DCS, it requires modeling the analogue behaviour and its physical representation.

If you just model a needle on the VVI that follows your height, as a digital value, it would be easy. If you look closer to the "analogue" instruments, you will notice they behave more like their real world counterparts, interpreting pressure differences and often even different pitot tube designs.

The visual representation of the instrument is usually a number of 3D objects animated to "look" like the real deal. An MFD or HUD is a rectangle with a simple dot matrix that shows numbers, letters and basic geometric elements like circles, rectangles and lines... Even the video feeds for the simulation of a FLIR or Targeting Camera is a simple "copy" of the 3D render of the outside world with additional filter (shaders) run on top.

 

So if you create even a simple warbird in DCS, the analogue instruments are not "easier" to model, unless you simplify the gauges to some "wiggle algorithms" to make them "look alive" and that is not what DCS stands for... ;)