Is the F-4E dropped or delayed?

[Hummingbird]

Just wondering wether the F-4E which was announced a couple years back is still on ED's roadmap or wether it has been dropped entirely?

[Mars Exulte]

Last I heard it and the AH-1 are postponed until the 16, 18, 10, 24 are all wrapped up. Not canceled but outside the scope of ''things I need to build a simpit for''. I wouldn't expect for several years, at least.

[erniedaoage]

My last information about the production order was like f18, f16, mi24, ah-1 and than the phantom. I think they are using the 2 helos as a testbed for the Ai-copilot of things so they have a proper structure before they are going to do the rio in the f4. But its just an assumption on my side. I think after the F4 and Eds own ai-rio there are alot of opportunities for a lot of 2 seater modules. Even for 3rd parties if they are allowed to use EDs ai to be implemented and changed for their projects.

Damn i really want that f4 :D

[Mars Exulte]

Ohhh, I didn't even think about the rio. Yep, that would definitely be an engineering issue.

[Hummingbird]

Would be nice with a word from the devs themselves on this, as it's a highly requested module and obviously a lot of people are confused on wether or not it's actually coming.

[TheGuardian]

You'll just get the standard answer of "When we know something, we'll let you know!". Last I heard (sometime late last year I think) was that it was put on the shelf for the time being, but that wouldn't stop a 3rd Party from doing it.

 

[Mars Exulte]

Would be nice with a word from the devs themselves on this, as it's a highly requested module and obviously a lot of people are confused on wether or not it's actually coming.

 

If it doesn't have it's own subforum, it's not ''official'' and not in major dev yet. That's just a given. So, it's the same as every other wishlist item on this forum, except instead of an out right ''maybe *shrug*'' it's ''someday, probably''.

 

The only person here confused is you. It's not coming anytime soon. Whether it's ''paused'' or ''not started'' or ''canceled'', end result is the same = don't hold your breath.

[sublime]

last I heard was permanently on hold which is a bizarre term. why wouldnt u say cancelled? i think maybe translation went bad.

I remember the announcement. I think part of the problem was around 2015 Razbam was the premier ED subcontractor. like HB or Dekkka is now IMO. Then... Razbam announced they were doing like 12-15 diff planes. it was nuts. I seriously remember them saying f4, ah1, mig25, all this stuff. even then I was like 'this will never happen'

but I really thought the f4 would come. =(

[Hummingbird]

 

If it doesn't have it's own subforum, it's not ''official'' and not in major dev yet. That's just a given. So, it's the same as every other wishlist item on this forum, except instead of an out right ''maybe *shrug*'' it's ''someday, probably''.

 

The only person here confused is you. It's not coming anytime soon. Whether it's ''paused'' or ''not started'' or ''canceled'', end result is the same = don't hold your breath.

 

Ok, way to make it personal...

 

Infact a lot of people are confused about it, this thread alone is a good indicator of it. What people want to know is wether or not it's planned. A "maybe" means it isn't planned, and hence 3rd parties have free hands to make it for DCS.

[Caster]

 

Ok, way to make it personal...

 

Infact a lot of people are confused about it, this thread alone is a good indicator of it. What people want to know is wether or not it's planned. A "maybe" means it isn't planned, and hence 3rd parties have free hands to make it for DCS.

 

I see you've not crossed paths before...

[Dragon1-1]

Last word I heard of it was "on hold". They (well, Belsimtek, at any rate) had done too much work on the thing to drop it, I think. The module is coming, although not anytime soon. A fair enough decision, IMO, they've got too much on their hands as it is.

[Art-J]

With external mesh, cockpit and some systems done partially, I don't think they'll drop it completely either. Unfortunately, with Belsimtek no longer being independent "partner company", it's not their call anymore to say where it goes on production list.

 

As for official words on the subject from ED, I recall there were some this year - in the interviews with Wags or Nick, and in one of newsletters I think. Basically, as mentioned, it's on hold and that's that.

[QuiGon]

As for official words on the subject from ED, I recall there were some this year - in the interviews with Wags or Nick, and in one of newsletters I think. Basically, as mentioned, it's on hold and that's that.

 

Simon Pearson, ED's Global Business Development Director commented on that in an interview 3 months ago:

[Buzzles]

last I heard was permanently on hold which is a bizarre term. why wouldnt u say cancelled? i think maybe translation went bad.

I remember the announcement. I think part of the problem was around 2015 Razbam was the premier ED subcontractor. like HB or Dekkka is now IMO. Then... Razbam announced they were doing like 12-15 diff planes. it was nuts. I seriously remember them saying f4, ah1, mig25, all this stuff. even then I was like 'this will never happen'

but I really thought the f4 would come. =(

Your memory might not be what it once was :P

 

BST announced the F4 (and AH1) for that matter, before they were absorbed back into ED proper.

 

 

[sublime]

Your memory might not be what it once was :P

 

BST announced the F4 (and AH1) for that matter, before they were absorbed back into ED proper.

 

 

or ever was. my memory sucks, and I smoke a ton of pot. however, fine, it was BST not Razbam. switch the name the story is the same. if you were here you remember : they announced A LOT of projects ( im prolly exagerrating on 10 but it was too many ) and now all are on permanent hold. I mean seriously : the AH1 was announced before the F4. its been ' on the way' since b4 the F14 was even announced or started, the viper, the f18, half the ww2 stuff. we didnt even have ww2 content packs then. the f4 was announced a year later or so in 2015 or 2016. I distinctly remember this as my father flew them and I REALLLY wanted in on a F4. plus I had the mig 21. I like the older jets, theres a sweet spot for me from the 60s to late 80s.

ANNNYYYWAYS... news was always thin.. then none ... and then earlier this year I read here that someone read the permanent hold on the russian side.

i really should start going around on the russian side with google translate - theyre getting way better info than we are

[Eldur]

Ohhh, I didn't even think about the rio. Yep, that would definitely be an engineering issue.

 

I just don't like the "fact" that ED might develop their own implementation of something that's there already which things can be based on - Jester. Reinventing the wheel, literally.

[QuiGon]

I just don't like the "fact" that ED might develop their own implementation of something that's there already which things can be based on - Jester. Reinventing the wheel, literally.

 

I disagree. ED is the developer of the core sim and if they can't provide core functions like multicrew for the sim and instead have to rely on 3rd party implementations for such core features than this can be pretty problematic (who guarantees that the Jester function gets updated to stay functional, what happens if Heatblur quits, who can access the code, ...). Core features like this should be developed by the core engine developer, which is ED. If 3rd partys want to do their own solutions, than that's fine, but ED should not have to rely on them.

[TLTeo]

 

I just don't like the "fact" that ED might develop their own implementation of something that's there already which things can be based on - Jester. Reinventing the wheel, literally.

 

You mean like the air to ground radar that was already in the Viggen (minus EXP modes ofc)? :P I agree with Quigon, 3rd parties should be free to develop their own new functionalities if they choose so, but ideally ED would also provide a generalized implementation for all to use.

[Eldur]

Well the way I see it is that ED might try getting that code, if it's been written already by a 3rd party and qualifies well enough, into their own codebase, of course with the permission of the 3rd party (you know, that licensing shenanigans, IPs - I mean, not the network addresses - and so on). That way they might probably be able to save up lots of their own resources that they'd need to develop the same thing on their own - from scratch. Kinda like using it as a framework.

[QuiGon]

Well the way I see it is that ED might try getting that code, if it's been written already by a 3rd party and qualifies well enough, into their own codebase, of course with the permission of the 3rd party (you know, that licensing shenanigans, IPs - I mean, not the network addresses - and so on). That way they might probably be able to save up lots of their own resources that they'd need to develop the same thing on their own - from scratch. Kinda like using it as a framework.

 

I'm sure ED would look into that if it would be worthwile, but there's much uncertain about it that we have no insight in:

- Does it integrate well into EDs codebase?

- Licensing and other agreements

- Cost vs. benefit

 

Only ED can answer those questions, but I don't think it's the better alternative over ED doing their own implementation of multicrewing.

[Mars Exulte]

 

I just don't like the "fact" that ED might develop their own implementation of something that's there already which things can be based on - Jester. Reinventing the wheel, literally.

 

You're assuming Jester wasn't hardcoded specifically for the F-14. ''Similar concepts'' for a meatsack like us aren't quite so ''similar'' to a computer. If it wasn't DELIBERATELY coded to be open ended and transferable, it is almost definitely NOT.

 

Example : game that is designed to be modded (Homeworld 2) vs one that is not (Homeworld 1). I modded both extensively. I assure you, there's a huuuuge world of difference depending on how something's coded.

[Silver_Dragon]

Well the way I see it is that ED might try getting that code, if it's been written already by a 3rd party and qualifies well enough, into their own codebase, of course with the permission of the 3rd party (you know, that licensing shenanigans, IPs - I mean, not the network addresses - and so on). That way they might probably be able to save up lots of their own resources that they'd need to develop the same thing on their own - from scratch. Kinda like using it as a framework.

 

Remember. ED like build own code vs depend about a 3rd party with can someday drop from DCS (example VEAO 3rd party and Hawk module) and support and develop disapear. Talked by Wags and others ED team members some time ago.

About the F-4, that is not a "the module has dead?", that the same Wags talk some time ago, that is only a matter of time (as the Hornet, Viper and other in the past).

[QuiGon]

 

I just don't like the "fact" that ED might develop their own implementation of something that's there already which things can be based on - Jester. Reinventing the wheel, literally.

 

I guess this is an answer for you:

 

 

Might wanna go shopping for multicrew code at Heatblur..

 

Completely different, what we are doing with the new multicrew for the UH-1H is going to lay foundations for future multicrew with more than 2 crew.

 

thanks

 

 

;)

[Northstar98]

More than 2 crew?

 

Does that potentially mean bigger aircraft modules? Maybe full fidelity ground vehicles?

[QuiGon]

More than 2 crew?

 

Does that potentially mean bigger aircraft modules? Maybe full fidelity ground vehicles?

 

The Huey already has a crew of 4. You can already switch to all 4 crew positions in singleplayer, just not multicrew them in MP yet.