A Case against the Phantom

[Lurker]

I think the biggest problem with a Phantom module in DCS World is the version or type that the developer will choose to develop. If they do a later variant, people will clamor for an early one. If they do an early one, people will clamor for the newest and best. Then there is the multicrew\AI WSO problem which is not a trivial issue to solve. (So far only Heatblur have manged this properly, Petrovich AI for example leaves a lot to be desired but its still WIP)

[Mig Fulcrum]

1 ora fa, Lurker ha scritto:

I think the biggest problem with a Phantom module in DCS World is the version or type that the developer will choose to develop. If they do a later variant, people will clamor for an early one. If they do an early one, people will clamor for the newest and best. Then there is the multicrew\AI WSO problem which is not a trivial issue to solve. (So far only Heatblur have manged this properly, Petrovich AI for example leaves a lot to be desired but its still WIP)

For this reason a Phantom module has to come in at least 2 variants: E and B/N/J/S

Edited September 3, 2021 by Mig Fulcrum

[Tom Kazansky]

6 minutes ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

For this reason a Phantom module has to come in at least 2 variants: E and B/S/J

Absolutely. The Phantom in 2 variants (Heatblur style) would be prefect.

 

Have to agree with @QuiGon
this thread makes it even harder to wait for the F-4.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Tom Kazansky

[Lurker]

Would you guys be willing to pay extra for the two modules? Somehow I doubt that what Heatblur did is going to become the norm (2 or more variants for the price of one) it's just too much work, and after release support, etc. etc. etc. 

[LucShep]

15 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Would you guys be willing to pay extra for the two modules? Somehow I doubt that what Heatblur did is going to become the norm (2 or more variants for the price of one) it's just too much work, and after release support, etc. etc. etc. 

 

Depends on the extra...  

Regarding the F14, not going to criticize its worth (because I feel it is worth it), but the F14 is that one module that consistently is the most expensive module, and never on sale/discount.

Edited September 3, 2021 by LucShep

[Lurker]

2 minutes ago, LucShep said:

 

Depends on the extra...

Regarding the F14, not going to criticize its worth (because I feel it is worth it), but the F14 is that one module that consistently is the most expensive module, never on sale/discount.

 

With regards to this discussion that's completely irrelevant. Also it's not completely true, Heatblur has put the F14 on sale, just at much lower discounts than other modules. 

[LucShep]

7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

With regards to this discussion that's completely irrelevant. Also it's not completely true, Heatblur has put the F14 on sale, just at much lower discounts than other modules. 

 

In two and half years, the only two times I saw the F14 with discount it was a 10% lowered price ($80,00 module).

Compare that to every other module that consistently gets far bigger discounts (many at 50%) every temperate season...

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Would you guys be willing to pay extra for the two modules?

 

I would. Definitely!

[WRAITH]

Bring the F-4 and mod it to the G-II A.W.W ................ PLEASE LoL

 

 

 

[Kang]

On 9/1/2021 at 3:58 PM, TLTeo said:

These "much capabilities" posts are really getting out of hand. If that's your metric for what a DCS module needs to be worth flying, then only the Hornet, Viper and Jeff belong in DCS. "There is no HUD or FBW and the radar screen is bad!"...really?

 

Guess everyone who insists on that line of thought can wait for the Typhoon to be released and afterwards simply stop bothering with anybody else is developing for a long time at least.

[Viper1970]

For a twin pack of the F-4 in two versions, one Navy (F-4J) and one Airforce (F-4E) version,  I would spent up to 100€ or even more and it would be a first day buy.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Viper1970

[WRAITH]

 

 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Them British Phants always looked so damn good.

[Tom Kazansky]

3 hours ago, Viper1970 said:

For a twin pack of the F-4 in two versions, one Navy (F-4J) and one Airforce (F-4E) version,  I would spent up to 100€ or even more and it would be a first day buy.

 

+1

 

80€ each or 120€ both would be ok for me. (that's a lie but don't tell...Heatblur?)

[TLTeo]

9 hours ago, Lurker said:

Would you guys be willing to pay extra for the two modules? Somehow I doubt that what Heatblur did is going to become the norm (2 or more variants for the price of one) it's just too much work, and after release support, etc. etc. etc. 

Depends. If it was the price of two full modules, probably not. If I got, say, 50% off the second variant if I already own the first, then yeah sure.

[schurem]

Oh I'd buy four or more variants. An early B, a D an E that comes with or without the soft wing and TISEO, a K/N, and a J/S. All of the phantoms! 

[whiteladder]

Quote

But this is to be expected of a plane ultimately designed by people who don't know a thing about combat

 

 

I think this is a bit harsh, to be fair the USN got what they asked for in 1955 when they asked for a all-weather fleet defence interceptor, given that they already had a gun armed dogfighter with the F-8.  its hardly the designers fault it fought a war it wasn`t designed for.  

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

16 hours ago, whiteladder said:

 

 

I think this is a bit harsh, to be fair the USN got what they asked for in 1955 when they asked for a all-weather fleet defence interceptor, given that they already had a gun armed dogfighter with the F-8.  its hardly the designers fault it fought a war it wasn`t designed for.  

And, it's hardly the designer's fault that the USAF was content trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Edited September 17, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[TLTeo]

Meeeeh I don't buy those arguments. The Crusader community had a ~6:1 kill:loss ratio mostly achieved through missiles. The gun-less Navy Phantoms went from 2:1 to 7:1 between pre and post Top Gun. The USAF jets stayed at ~2:1 throughout Vietnam regardless of whether they carried guns or not. Meanwhile those same -E model jets in Israel did extremely well for themselves.

 

The problem at that time wasn't the design of the aircraft. It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft.

[Wizard_03]

28 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Meeeeh I don't buy those arguments. The Crusader community had a ~6:1 kill:loss ratio mostly achieved through missiles. The gun-less Navy Phantoms went from 2:1 to 7:1 between pre and post Top Gun. The USAF jets stayed at ~2:1 throughout Vietnam regardless of whether they carried guns or not. Meanwhile those same -E model jets in Israel did extremely well for themselves.

 

The problem at that time wasn't the design of the aircraft. It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft.

This! 

[whiteladder]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

Meeeeh I don't buy those arguments. The Crusader community had a ~6:1 kill:loss ratio mostly achieved through missiles. The gun-less Navy Phantoms went from 2:1 to 7:1 between pre and post Top Gun. The USAF jets stayed at ~2:1 throughout Vietnam regardless of whether they carried guns or not. Meanwhile those same -E model jets in Israel did extremely well for themselves.

 

The problem at that time wasn't the design of the aircraft. It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft.

 

I should have qualified my post by saying I actually think the Phantom was an excellent design!! The point I was trying to make was any flaws ( it was by no means perfect) in it as a whole weapon system were not because the designers didn't know a thing about combat, but they were asked to design something to shoot down non manoeuvring bombers, not to dogfight Mig 15s.

I completely agree with you about doctrine and training, and it's testament to the versatility of the underlying design of the aircraft that it took on so many roles so well.

Rubbish aircraft don't have 5000+ production runs, no matter what the OP thinks.

[Svend_Dellepude]

PHANTOOOOM!!!!!!

[dundun92]

6 hours ago, TLTeo said:

It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft

This, 1000%.

[Lurker]

Anyone who thinks the Phantom was an excellent design is clearly deluded by it's otherworldly good looks. It was definitely a good workhorse design, but it was never an aircraft that really excelled at any one thing. In the competition for it's adoption it narrowly won out against the Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III

Which was for all intents and purposes a better aircraft. At least according to test pilot testimony. It could run circles against the Phantom, it was faster, more maneuverable and it was cheaper to produce and operate, however the Navy finally chose an aircraft with two engines and a two seater, settling for less performance but more utility and payload. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Lurker

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

Anyone who thinks the Phantom was an excellent design is clearly deluded by it's otherworldly good looks. It was definitely a good workhorse design, but it was never an aircraft that really excelled at any one thing. In the competition for it's adoption it narrowly won out against the Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III

Which was for all intents and purposes a better aircraft. At least according to test pilot testimony. It could run circles against the Phantom, it was faster, more maneuverable and it was cheaper to produce and operate, however the Navy finally chose an aircraft with two engines and a two seater, settling for less performance but more utility and payload.

 

The Crusader III was also much more difficult to operate, as "the pilot in the XF8U-3 was easily overwhelmed with the workload required to fly the intercept and fire Sparrows which required constant radar illumination from the firing aircraft, while the Phantom II had a radar intercept officer to share the workload". In a pure dogfight the Crusader III might have been better than the Phantom, but the Phantom is a much more versatile aircraft than the Crusader III and can also be oeprated much more effectively due to its two crewmembers.

 

For me it doesn't matter anyways which aircraft is better, as I don't care about that at all. I just want to experience iconic/interessting aircraft and the Phantom II is definitely such an aircraft!

 

With your attitude we wouldn't need any other aircraft in DCS than the F-16, unless the F-35/F-22 becomes possible...

Edited September 17, 2021 by QuiGon