Would you be willing to buy multiple F-4 modules?

[Fri13]

6 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Seriously...?!

this seems very blinkered / short-sighted / US centric view...!

 

Yes, seriously. There is not many planes really that has large audience waiting them. And it is just insult to say it is a "blinkered/short-sighted/US centric" view. As it is not mine but it is from the ED and many other who has multiple times stated that US oriented aircraft sells better than Russian ones (check example ED producers arguments why Su-27 wouldn't be wise as it wouldn't sell by their market research results. Regardless is it under a law or not, to be modeled). 

 

Fact is fact, there are dozens of great aircraft to be modeled, from a military aviation point of view. But average buyer is not interested about everything there is. Like you can't make a every F-14 fan to love a Jaguar. Or you can't make a F-16 fan to like more about F-15. 

 

Certain aircraft has been schooled for decades to peoples minds. There are people who are purely enlisted to military just because some movies representing those aircraft.

The majority doesn't even know what kind aircraft there is, and then what kind variants there are of them. It is difficult to try to sell something that majority doesn't know.

 

There is a reason why ED chose F/A-18C for their #1 module right now, as it has far greater profit production than others. The A-10C was done because it was military contract for desktop training purposes, that they could turn to civilian markets as well.

But thinking that every other possible aircraft out there has same success lined up in them as F-14 or F/A-18C or even F-16C, is just not realistic.

 

There are always the collectors that are ready to buy everything they can get. But there are always more of those who will buy just the couple they like and are very happy for that situation. 

There are those who are interested about WW2, those who like 60-70's cold war era, those who accept 70-80's and then those who would make anything to get early 90's tech, and then there are those who want latest and greatest as possible.

 And this thread is about that, to offer majority something from the one airframe. Like the F-4, from early variants to latest variants. One module, with multiple variants can provide something for many who is already considering that they would buy a F-4.

 

Eventually things just gets slowed down as you can't make unpopular aircraft as well selling as some popular ones.

It would be great thing that almost anything that someone does would turn profitable so that they could get not just money to cover the costs to produce the product, but as well to produce the next two ones, so they don't need to go search investors or take a huge bank loan etc to do so. But fact is that as ED has said, without Early Access model where players start to buy modules early in the development to cover the costs in the coming years, it tells that when a F-16 or F/A-18C wouldn't have happened without it, that there is requirement for very careful planning that what to start developing. 

 

The F-4 Phantom II has been teased and told to be under development for many years. Delayed, pushed further and so on. There are reasons why something is just chosen to be put aside even when development has started like there is a better option for company surviving to do something else first. 

 

It just is big business risk considering that if one aircraft takes 4-5 years to make, $500'000 dollars and all the legal paperwork with the different third parties etc, that one could just pick up almost anything and make it success story. 

 

And one answer to help in that could be that there are small price added for extra variant that is little different (enough) from the one work that takes those years and all the heavy work etc. So that balance for overall project comes profitable for next 10 years (from start, to release, to maintaining).

While Personally I would buy almost everything that comes from the Soviet/Russian side, I would be a fool to claim that they all would sell as well as any of those big US made fighters already in (F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18). Maybe in a 5 years there is a different situation, that people are bored to those things and they want something new, something challenging and different. And then something like late F-4 model would be a huge success. Or maybe the SEPECAT Jaguar would be such a joker that would challenge the AJS-37 Viggen, that just happened to be back then the one with first Air-to-Ground radar, reversing thrust, first Blue side Anti-Ship mission capable fighter. Or maybe even a Gripen would surprise and become greater success than any other module. Or there is possibility that Eurofighter Typhoon is that one. 

 

But that is more dreaming than accepting realities that not everyone want to own everything or fly everything, instead just enjoy from their few favorite ones. 

 

 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Yes, seriously. There is not many planes really that has large audience waiting them. And it is just insult to say it is a "blinkered/short-sighted/US centric" view. As it is not mine but it is from the ED and many other who has multiple times stated that US oriented aircraft sells better than Russian ones 

There are more nations in the world than the u.s and Russia. I am sure there are people who want European aircraft

[Fri13]

9 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

There are more nations in the world than the u.s and Russia. I am sure there are people who want European aircraft

 

Sure there are other nations, but we are just in market penetration question for who wants what as you can't expect that people want own nation aircrafts for some reason.

There seems to be good penetration with French aircrafts (M2000C) etc, but it is not about the nation but the aircraft capabilities.

[Zoomer]

If ED released a modern F-4 It would be a definite purchase on my part, plus I`d be willing to give an extra 10-15 euro down the line for the Vietnam variant if it was offered as an addition at a later date. Full price for the second variant would be too much imo. A similar proposition to the A10C upgrade would be a good option. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Zoomer

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

There are always the collectors that are ready to buy everything they can get. But there are always more of those who will buy just the couple they like and are very happy for that situation. 

There are those who are interested about WW2, those who like 60-70's cold war era, those who accept 70-80's and then those who would make anything to get early 90's tech, and then there are those who want latest and greatest as possible.

 And this thread is about that, to offer majority something from the one airframe. Like the F-4, from early variants to latest variants. One module, with multiple variants can provide something for many who is already considering that they would buy a F-4.

I'm considering buying the F-4, and I'm a bit of a Phantom Phan -if you couldn't guess. So I'll buy as many F-4 modules as we get. I just hope we get some more Vietnam era assets.

 

 

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Eventually things just gets slowed down as you can't make unpopular aircraft as well selling as some popular ones.

It would be great thing that almost anything that someone does would turn profitable so that they could get not just money to cover the costs to produce the product, but as well to produce the next two ones, so they don't need to go search investors or take a huge bank loan etc to do so. But fact is that as ED has said, without Early Access model where players start to buy modules early in the development to cover the costs in the coming years, it tells that when a F-16 or F/A-18C wouldn't have happened without it, that there is requirement for very careful planning that what to start developing. 

 

This s the reason theaters and asset packs are important to the DCS and also the reason that I don't mind seeing multiple modules of the same plane being released- especially ones that have been entered service in the 1950s and had designated YF-110A. The question is pricing. 

 

[DaWu]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Yes, seriously. There is not many planes really that has large audience waiting them. And it is just insult to say it is a "blinkered/short-sighted/US centric" view. As it is not mine but it is from the ED and many other who has multiple times stated that US oriented aircraft sells better than Russian ones (check example ED producers arguments why Su-27 wouldn't be wise as it wouldn't sell by their market research results. Regardless is it under a law or not, to be modeled). 

 

Fact is fact, there are dozens of great aircraft to be modeled, from a military aviation point of view. But average buyer is not interested about everything there is. Like you can't make a every F-14 fan to love a Jaguar. Or you can't make a F-16 fan to like more about F-15. 

 

Certain aircraft has been schooled for decades to peoples minds. There are people who are purely enlisted to military just because some movies representing those aircraft.

The majority doesn't even know what kind aircraft there is, and then what kind variants there are of them. It is difficult to try to sell something that majority doesn't know.

 

There is a reason why ED chose F/A-18C for their #1 module right now, as it has far greater profit production than others. The A-10C was done because it was military contract for desktop training purposes, that they could turn to civilian markets as well.

But thinking that every other possible aircraft out there has same success lined up in them as F-14 or F/A-18C or even F-16C, is just not realistic.

 

There are always the collectors that are ready to buy everything they can get. But there are always more of those who will buy just the couple they like and are very happy for that situation. 

There are those who are interested about WW2, those who like 60-70's cold war era, those who accept 70-80's and then those who would make anything to get early 90's tech, and then there are those who want latest and greatest as possible.

 And this thread is about that, to offer majority something from the one airframe. Like the F-4, from early variants to latest variants. One module, with multiple variants can provide something for many who is already considering that they would buy a F-4.

 

Eventually things just gets slowed down as you can't make unpopular aircraft as well selling as some popular ones.

It would be great thing that almost anything that someone does would turn profitable so that they could get not just money to cover the costs to produce the product, but as well to produce the next two ones, so they don't need to go search investors or take a huge bank loan etc to do so. But fact is that as ED has said, without Early Access model where players start to buy modules early in the development to cover the costs in the coming years, it tells that when a F-16 or F/A-18C wouldn't have happened without it, that there is requirement for very careful planning that what to start developing. 

 

The F-4 Phantom II has been teased and told to be under development for many years. Delayed, pushed further and so on. There are reasons why something is just chosen to be put aside even when development has started like there is a better option for company surviving to do something else first. 

 

It just is big business risk considering that if one aircraft takes 4-5 years to make, $500'000 dollars and all the legal paperwork with the different third parties etc, that one could just pick up almost anything and make it success story. 

 

And one answer to help in that could be that there are small price added for extra variant that is little different (enough) from the one work that takes those years and all the heavy work etc. So that balance for overall project comes profitable for next 10 years (from start, to release, to maintaining).

While Personally I would buy almost everything that comes from the Soviet/Russian side, I would be a fool to claim that they all would sell as well as any of those big US made fighters already in (F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18). Maybe in a 5 years there is a different situation, that people are bored to those things and they want something new, something challenging and different. And then something like late F-4 model would be a huge success. Or maybe the SEPECAT Jaguar would be such a joker that would challenge the AJS-37 Viggen, that just happened to be back then the one with first Air-to-Ground radar, reversing thrust, first Blue side Anti-Ship mission capable fighter. Or maybe even a Gripen would surprise and become greater success than any other module. Or there is possibility that Eurofighter Typhoon is that one. 

 

But that is more dreaming than accepting realities that not everyone want to own everything or fly everything, instead just enjoy from their few favorite ones. 

 

 

your are correct. There are only 3 planes left that guarantee mass market sales. F15, EF and F22. Everything else is niche. I don’t understand why they did not reserve the F15 for themselfs but gave it to razbam who never will get it ready as it seems. 
 

I didn’t even buy the F14 because it’s too old for me. Not even a real hud. And then I am asked to buy an F4 or F111? Not gonna happen.

Same with MiG29. A S or K variant would be an instant buy, but an A model? No thx

[Evoman]

43 minutes ago, DaWu said:

your are correct. There are only 3 planes left that guarantee mass market sales. F15, EF and F22. Everything else is niche. I don’t understand why they did not reserve the F15 for themselfs but gave it to razbam who never will get it ready as it seems. 
 

I didn’t even buy the F14 because it’s too old for me. Not even a real hud. And then I am asked to buy an F4 or F111? Not gonna happen.

Same with MiG29. A S or K variant would be an instant buy, but an A model? No thx

Modern flying computers make flying and acquiring targets easier but there is a trade off just like everything else. Check out what the IAF top Ace Col. Giora Epstein with 17 kills says about modern fighter jets when he transitioned from the Mirage III / Nesher to the F-16 @42:37.

 

 

[upyr1]

15 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Modern flying computers make flying and acquiring targets easier but there is a trade off just like everything else. Check out what the IAF top Ace Col. Giora Epstein with 17 kills says about modern fighter jets when he transitioned from the Mirage III / Nesher to the F-16 @42:37.

 

 

Whatching that makes me want a Mirage III 

1 hour ago, DaWu said:

 

I didn’t even buy the F14 because it’s too old for me. Not even a real hud. And then I am asked to buy an F4 or F111? Not gonna happen.

 

Not even the F-4 ICE or Terminator which have been upgraded with a HUD and other modern avionics

[Fangs Out]

Or the F-4EJ Kai with LGBs TGPs  and guided bombs with late gen missiles 

[Harker]

Modern flying computers make flying and acquiring targets easier but there is a trade off just like everything else. Check out what the IAF top Ace Col. Giora Epstein with 17 kills says about modern fighter jets when he transitioned from the Mirage III / Nesher to the F-16 @42:37.
 
 

There's no tradeoff. It might be more fun to fly a non-FBW jet, but fun is not the point of a military. Newer jets and avionics offer a massive increase in lethality, survivability, situational awareness and overall capability. The pilot in the video says its not as fun anymore, nothing more.

I have spoken personally with two pilots who transitioned to jets with glass cockpits and both of them said they'd never go back to analog planes and steam gauges, because everything is just so much easier.

Which brings us to DCS. It's a game, so the point is to have fun and under that logic, flying an older jet is more fun because it's more involved. But flying is only a part of DCS, the other being systems modeling.

In a game like DCS, the biggest point is game depth. The focus on modern aircraft changes from flying to systems management, which has much more depth than in their older counterparts. Players take more time to master the entire aircraft, can do more things in the cockpit to keep themselves occupied and can engage in more diverse and complicated mission scenarios.

And it's not about flying the latest and greatest. Consider the fact that there are a lot of players who want to have an E-2 in DCS, or sit inside a SAM command center. If ED released a low fidelity F-22, most people wouldn't fly it after two days, because even though it might be the best A2A platform, the depth wouldn't be there.

[DaWu]

10 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Whatching that makes me want a Mirage III 

Not even the F-4 ICE or Terminator which have been upgraded with a HUD and other modern avionics

if they make a f4 with hud and mfds I would buy it. But not a version without

10 hours ago, Evoman said:

Modern flying computers make flying and acquiring targets easier but there is a trade off just like everything else. Check out what the IAF top Ace Col. Giora Epstein with 17 kills says about modern fighter jets when he transitioned from the Mirage III / Nesher to the F-16 @42:37.

 

 

I don’t really care what he has to say. In the end it’s what I like personally to fly and that is modern computers

[bies]

43 minutes ago, DaWu said:

But not a version without

Phantom with MFD? So you will not buy Phantom since it didn't have MFD. 

 

Maybe Turkish F-4 modernisation "Terminator 2020" but this will never by allowed to disclose or reveal any real data. So no chance to have something like that in DCS.

[upyr1]

19 minutes ago, bies said:

Phantom with MFD? So you will not buy Phantom since it didn't have MFD. 

 

Maybe Turkish F-4 modernisation "Terminator 2020" but this will never by allowed to disclose or reveal any real data. So no chance to have something like that in DCS.

Looking at Wikipedia I wouldn't be so sure no one would allow us to get our hands on the data for the F-4 F ICE, Terminator 2020 or any of the other upgrades with modern avionics. The upgrades typically involve sticking  AN/APG-65 radar in the nose which was used in the F-18A and early C models. Our F-18 has uses the more advanced AN/APG-73. So the only question now is would it be worth a developer's time to turn the F-4E into an F-4F ICE or terminator 2020? The ICE was retired a few years ago.  

[bies]

People are making too much confusion here about different variants.

 

Simon Pearson said in the interview they are making F-4 Phantom and they want to make "everything Phantom", but they are simply checking if they can make all this variants or not, many reasons can be involved.

 

I guess at least they will make basic F-4E and if it will be possible also different variants.

 

But all this Heatblur making one variant, ED different, RAZBAM yet another - all independently repeating each other work? It would be unreal.

 

And to be clear i would buy every historically relevant variant B, C, D, E, J, N, S. I would guess it would be a "pack", for sure not every single variant sold separately for the full price.

 

Some exotic niche modernisation would be coding completely different avionics, creating completely different 3d cockpit with MFDs, completely different weapon systems all of that probably without any data or documentation and for sure without any license or any Turkish subject matter expert input. I can bet no one is going to do something like that.

Edited March 3, 2021 by bies

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Harker said:

There's no tradeoff. It might be more fun to fly a non-FBW jet, but fun is not the point of a military. Newer jets and avionics offer a massive increase in lethality, survivability, situational awareness and overall capability. The pilot in the video says its not as fun anymore, nothing more.

 

There are many Harrier pilots that say they do not want to transition to F-35 but instead retire. But they totally all agree that the sensor suite in the F-35 is superior to what Harrier provides. But it is not about that, but the interface design in the Harrier is just better than in F-35 (or A-10 or F/A-18 etc) by many opinions.

 

But nothing of that means that technological standpoint the newer wouldn't provide something amazing to admire and be happy to use. 

But, the newer can have just something that removes the feeling, the touch and the capability work more effectively. 

It is like comparing a certain power tools like a CNC machine to a fine tuned lathe.

You can buy with $500'000 a amazing planer that will make it repeating manner time after time. But it doesn't mean that one expert in the handcraft can not produce the same:

https://youtu.be/zs9X-XzFGHI?t=154

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaClhzlpc_0

Question is not just about efficiency, as when it comes to complex shapes and forms and variation in the material etc. The hand tools just works better.

 

The current situation in many places is that there is simply no real war conditions for these high tech machines.

The F-14 became famous to be difficult to service and it became too costly. 

The F-22 has similar case, and so does F-35. 

 

It is easy thing to service those things when you have no high requirements to be in operational condition, where whole carrier/base lives are in danger if all the aircraft are not in the condition to be used.

 

This is not just for the fighters, it is for everything from the simplest personal service weapon to daily equipment to be weared. Like modern soldiers are promoted to be carrying a electric heated suites, where batteries are located on their back. That they have a three button switch in their sleeve to pull out and adjust their comfort heating level in seconds. 

 

Well, what then when you are 3-4 days in the wild, no power, no recharging capability, no possibility to even move etc? You are stuck to one location and required to stay aware of next attack?

All the high tech equipment is fancy and nice when you can dominate and decide when and how to use them. But once you drop to the worst case scenarios, they become burden. The real challenges are found, the problems are to be solved and you just need to do what you have. 

That is what made AV-8B so great that it had (IIRC) 90% mission capability. It didn't let down like A-10's, F-16's, F/A-18's etc did in their durability. 

If the countries would be facing a war against more modern enemy, it would show off what the equipment really is worth of.

 

So when it comes to survivability and situation awareness etc, it can't be declared until the worst case scenario happens, as very well those F-35 sensors can be useless, no one knows.

In time the service times might become too high and mission capability status goes too low. 

It really requires a real war to see what happens, not a 6-day war but more like a 6 years war. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, bies said:

But all this Heatblur making one variant, ED different, RAZBAM yet another - all independently repeating each other work? It would be unreal.

 

Totally agree. It would be repeating 90% of the work, resulting big differences in quality and performance etc. And it would be like a MiG-21 now that you have had what, 4-5 different flight modeling, so who knows what is the closest to real?

 

 

[Berserk]

On 2/28/2021 at 1:27 AM, DaWu said:

Not interested in museum tech. Give me a f22

 

Everything in DCS is museum tech. Even current DCS F/A-18 and F-16 are 15 years old versions of 45 years old designs. F/A-18C has been phased out from US Navy many years ago. Now it stands in dozen of museums.

 

F-35B is modern, pilot don't even land it on a boat - computer does it automatically. F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20 will never be in DCS as full fidelity modules, no in 20 years, nobody will sell the license, nobody will disclose the data only because some guys want to play the game.

 

Not i would find interesting sitting in front of iPad cruising on Alt Hold tens of miles from the closest enemy and click something to delete him from my scope, not even with missile fired by my plane but some drone or sprinting wingman. And all of that with fake systems made as realistic as Su-57 mod with all the real capabilities classified and very well hidden from the public.

 

But even this planes starting to show their age, drones are going to replace them in all tasks where plane could be potentially attacked by the enemy and shoot down. So what next? Modern drone simulator?

Edited March 3, 2021 by Berserk

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, Harker said:

Which brings us to DCS. It's a game, so the point is to have fun and under that logic, flying an older jet is more fun because it's more involved. But flying is only a part of DCS, the other being systems modeling.

In a game like DCS, the biggest point is game depth. The focus on modern aircraft changes from flying to systems management, which has much more depth than in their older counterparts. Players take more time to master the entire aircraft, can do more things in the cockpit to keep themselves occupied and can engage in more diverse and complicated mission scenarios.

And it's not about flying the latest and greatest. Consider the fact that there are a lot of players who want to have an E-2 in DCS, or sit inside a SAM command center. If ED released a low fidelity F-22, most people wouldn't fly it after two days, because even though it might be the best A2A platform, the depth wouldn't be there.

this is why I hope Eagle has not abandoned MAC. The two games have slightly different but over lapping markets. I hope the two games share assets as much as possible and we can do cross platform. There are some of us- (looks in mirror) who would buy an MAC module of a plane that can't be don full fidelity. 

[bies]

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

There are some of us- (looks in mirror) who would buy an MAC module of a plane that can't be don full fidelity. 

Or maybe MiG-29A is a part of the plan to replace FC3 by full fidelity modules.

F-15C - there is like ten threads asking for FF one.

Su-25 - no problem here. Just a bit of work hours.

A-10A - the same, nearly all the job is already done on the occasion of A-10C and many guys are asking for FF simple analog A-10A.

And Soviet era Su-27S - MiG-29 9.12 counterpart, who knows, it may be possible in the near future.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, bies said:

People are making too much confusion here about different variants.

 

Simon Pearson said in the interview they are making F-4 Phantom and they want to make "everything Phantom", but they are simply checking if they can make all this variants or not, many reasons can be involved.

 

I guess at least they will make basic F-4E and if it will be possible also different variants.

 

But all this Heatblur making one variant, ED different, RAZBAM yet another - all independently repeating each other work? It would be unreal.

 

Unless they worked together and shared code, it would be utterly stupid for a different company to make each version. This would hold true about any fighter and not just the Phantom. 

 

 

1 hour ago, bies said:

 

And to be clear i would buy every historically relevant variant B, C, D, E, J, N, S. I would guess it would be a "pack", for sure not every single variant sold separately for the full price.

 

Some exotic niche modernisation would be coding completely different avionics, creating completely different 3d cockpit with MFDs, completely different weapon systems all of that probably without any data or documentation and for sure without any license or any Turkish subject matter expert input. I can bet no one is going to do something like that.

 

This brings up the point to this thread, is how many different F-4 modules would people be willing to buy? Ideally we will will have one F-4 module that will cover the major US and possibly UK variants, though if Eagle is reluctant to do  that due to the simple scope of the endeavor then perhaps this thread can give them some marketing ideas.  I don't expect the Terminator or ICE, unless we have the historic variants and the avionics are already modeled. As I said before it looks like the ICE and similar upgrades use systems from the F-18. 

[upyr1]

31 minutes ago, bies said:

Or maybe MiG-29A is a part of the plan to replace FC3 by full fidelity modules.

F-15C - there is like ten threads asking for FF one.

Su-25 - no problem here. Just a bit of work hours.

A-10A - the same, nearly all the job is already done on the occasion of A-10C and many guys are asking for FF simple analog A-10A.

And Soviet era Su-27S - MiG-29 9.12 counterpart, who knows, it may be possible in the near future.

I expect that is their plan as well. Though there are some planes like the F-105 which lack enough data for a full fidelity module as it has been destroyed  and others like the Su-35 where the information is classified.  Either way MAC should be encouraged especially if they have add on modules and they leave it up to us whether or not we allow MAC players on a DCS server.  MAC : Vietnam or MAC :Korea, could pay for the cost of the theater's assets and 3d models and cockpits for planes from the era. 

[HWasp]

22 hours ago, DaWu said:

if they make a f4 with hud and mfds I would buy it. But not a version without

 

I don’t really care what he has to say. In the end it’s what I like personally to fly and that is modern computers

 

You should go and ask ED to make the next Bf-109 and Spitfire modifications with HUD, MFDs and fly by wire. And 9X + datalink! Don't forget that.

[jojyrocks]

If there is too much difference. Yes. For example; If the module is a British F-4 versions with their different Rolls Royce engines.

 

Now I am not sure of the commonality element with comparing F-4E to that of  Naval J versions.

[Buzzles]

Going back to OP, would I buy multiple variant modules of any plane? No, definitely not as full price modules, even with discounts if you own one already.

 

Would I be maybe pay for a full module once, and then a much smaller fee for an 'upgrade/downgrade' to add different versions? Maybe.
If the differences are substantial in cockpit and systems, eg F-14A/B -> F14-D, F-16A -> F-16C etc... and even then, I'd have to really want that sub version. I'd likely just stick with the main version I'd bought.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, jojyrocks said:

If there is too much difference. Yes. For example; If the module is a British F-4 versions with their different Rolls Royce engines.

 

Now I am not sure of the commonality element with comparing F-4E to that of  Naval 

This is why I and others are saying if they want to charge at least give us discounts if we buy multiple versions.

[Harker]

Going back to OP, would I buy multiple variant modules of any plane? No, definitely not as full price modules, even with discounts if you own one already.
 
Would I be maybe pay for a full module once, and then a much smaller fee for an 'upgrade/downgrade' to add different versions? Maybe.
If the differences are substantial in cockpit and systems, eg F-14A/B -> F14-D, F-16A -> F-16C etc... and even then, I'd have to really want that sub version. I'd likely just stick with the main version I'd bought.

I'm the same on this. I'd never pay more than 5-10$, for the F-14A, if I already had the B, the difference is too small. That is, if I decided to get it at all.

But F-14B to F-14D is a different story, they're substantially different in how you interact with the aircraft etc and that's worth it, IMO.