Jump to content

Will the modernized F-4E have the AIM-120?


S. Low

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, _BringTheReign_ said:

I have to disagree here and I understand that this thread has now become a seesaw lol.

It is a whole new plane - different cockpit, different avionics, weapons. That's research, time, and lots and lots and lots and lots of money. For something that does not have the same appeal to a mass audience as a USAF or Navy variant.

I understand the appeal of a modernized variant, but it's a rabbit hole that can best be serviced by excellent mod teams. 

For example, why does the F-16 SUFA mod exist? For the same reason folks here want modernized Greek/Turkish/Japanese/etc Phantoms - because your country flies it, or you just think it's cool, etc. But ED would never make an F-16 Sufa module, because it wouldn't sell as much as a USAF F-16. And ED won't likely ever make an F-16 Sufa, because why would they spend development dollars on something like that when they could make another bespoke airframe and generate revenue that way. Same goes here.

No, the current break down makes the most sense - F-4E, F-4E DMAS, and later possibly a J/S. 

I do actually agree with you on most of the points you made. I understand that it is a lot of work to make and I also agree that a naval version should come before it. That however doesn't change the fact that it would be nice to have and would give us the ability to create modern scenarios that we couldn't before. Plus it just fits well with the Syria map.

What I can't say is if it's worth the effort as opposed to them building a new plane. That's something for Heatblur to decide but from what I have seen from them they don't shy away from adding different versions if they think it's worth it. Take the F-14 for example. We got the A,B and we will also be getting an early A and an Iranian version. They didn't have to do that but they choose to. Now they might have regretted by now because it's certainly a lot of effort required.

What I am doing is basically promoting the idea to them. Do I think it's easy? No. Do I think it should come before the navy version? No. Do I think it would be nice to have? Yes. Do I think it is worth it over let's say a tornado or an F-111 or whatever else they would like to model next? I don't know. That's up to them.

We are getting a bit ahead of ourselves with all this talk when we haven't even seen the current module and when that will be ready. Still it's an interesting discussion to have.


Edited by Lieuie
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lieuie said:

They didn't have to do that but they choose to. Now they might have regretted by now because it's certainly a lot of effort required.

A lot less than it would take to make a Phantom updated to modern avionics. Most of the switchology is the same between Tomcat variants, the differences are relatively few and mostly concern some switches being there or not, as opposed to wholesale replacement of entire systems.

They don't need you to promote that idea to them. In fact, most of us regard this sort of "promoting" the way we regard most other advertising of something we don't want: as annoying waste of time. There's no need to "sell" it, it'll either stand on its own merit or (most likely) won't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

A lot less than it would take to make a Phantom updated to modern avionics. Most of the switchology is the same between Tomcat variants, the differences are relatively few and mostly concern some switches being there or not, as opposed to wholesale replacement of entire systems.

They don't need you to promote that idea to them. In fact, most of us regard this sort of "promoting" the way we regard most other advertising of something we don't want: as annoying waste of time. There's no need to "sell" it, it'll either stand on its own merit or (most likely) won't. 

Really? An entirely different engine with different instrumentation and the inclusion of earlier systems is easier? What about Heatblur Forge? I don't think there is that much of a difference as you suggest it is and even if it is it doesn't really change my opinion. I would still like a modernized Phantom. The whole point of my post was why I would like to have it, nothing more nothing less. I am not forcing anyone to create it or to agree with my opinion.

Also I completely understand if they decide not to make it and I am not going to jump off a cliff because of it. Whatever they decide I am fine with it. In fact I am more than thrilled that they make any Phantom. All of that doesn't mean I am not going to give justification for it. That's how the world works. When you want something you have to provide reasons for it. Whether you are a multi-milllion dollar company asking for financial backing or a child asking his parents for a toy. I didn't expect that to be the problem because that was the point of this thread. I am not spamming anyone about it. It was just a single post in a discussion on the issue. I thought I would just mention a point that I didn't think was emphasized in this discussion.


Edited by Lieuie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lieuie said:

I don't think there is that much of a difference as you suggest it is and even if it is it doesn't really change my opinion.

There is. Here's the thing: a modern Phantom has MFDs. Iranian Tomcat does not. This single system, even if it was the only difference from the old aircraft, involves a massive amount of work. MFDs have many pages, which interact with aircraft systems in far more ways than switches can ever hope to. That's on top of different engines and other FM alterations. Adding a bunch of different analog gauges is easy compared to MFDs, even the old RWR isn't quite that complex.

Forge is a system for "modular" cockpit displays that only involves manipulating the 3D models. The knobs will still be there, just in different places. As a rule, what you can see accounts for a tiny fraction of overall work on the jet. 3D work, while visually impressive, is probably the least complex part of making a jet. Texturing is a more involved, but even then, it pales in comparison to FM and systems work. It takes a lot less time to model a knob than it takes to program things to make turning it do anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ustio said:

IMO we are almost reaching the limit on the type of modern aircraft they can make and most of the well known 3rd gen aircraft are already taken by 3rd party dev so sooner or later they have to go for add on Variants(even Razbam are going to do this with their Harrier and M2000).

 

Regarding to SUFA i think it would sell well if they sell as an add on type DLC instead of seperate module simply because, it's a 2 seat F-16, more weapons(having 360 python missile would be fun), it can fill a stand in role for Turkish, Greece, UAE F-16. 

Now Mr.Finke from truegrit was an F-4F ICE pilot that can Carried amraam before he fly the typhoon. So if its going for amraam F-4 its going to be that and i would believe it would sell well and i would love it too

 

However with that being said, if we take a step back and look at HB development, we still have yet to get AI draken, AI A-6 which was already teased, and 2 tomcats variant on top of the typhoon they are making. So i doubt we'll be seeing any other variant other than E and navy one

 

This Idea is actually really cool and a good way to open up the game to more aircraft types. having a cheaper dlc that adds some specialized or slightly different version of an aircraft to the sim. I honestly wouldn't mind if this becomes a thing where you could down the line buy an f-4f or terminator for 20-25 USD and run those in game. 

I can agree though that Heatblur has other more pressing things on their plate than making these micro changes dlc.


Edited by Zpigman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

44 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There is. Here's the thing: a modern Phantom has MFDs. Iranian Tomcat does not. This single system, even if it was the only difference from the old aircraft, involves a massive amount of work. MFDs have many pages, which interact with aircraft systems in far more ways than switches can ever hope to. That's on top of different engines and other FM alterations. Adding a bunch of different analog gauges is easy compared to MFDs, even the old RWR isn't quite that complex.

Forge is a system for "modular" cockpit displays that only involves manipulating the 3D models. The knobs will still be there, just in different places. As a rule, what you can see accounts for a tiny fraction of overall work on the jet. 3D work, while visually impressive, is probably the least complex part of making a jet. Texturing is a more involved, but even then, it pales in comparison to FM and systems work. It takes a lot less time to model a knob than it takes to program things to make turning it do anything.

You are probably right.


Edited by Lieuie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They don't need you to promote that idea to them. In fact, most of us regard this sort of "promoting" the way we regard most other advertising of something we don't want: as annoying waste of time. There's no need to "sell" it, it'll either stand on its own merit or (most likely) won't. 

I think sometimes people get carried away with forums as a representation of the customer base when it is often a tiny subset who desire something and quite often the same few people repeating the request over and over.

However, I don't think we should dismiss suggestions as having no value to developers. Sometimes there is genuine consensus and a steer for developers of potential options and content that the wider community would appreciate - the feedback through discussions like these is far more accessible than surveying the customer base on a regular basis. I see no issue in throwing ideas out and seeing what the community reaction is. The risk is that it becomes somewhat repetitive but every now and then one will get some decent numbers supporting it.

  • Like 3

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 9:28 AM, Baldrick33 said:

I think sometimes people get carried away with forums as a representation of the customer base when it is often a tiny subset who desire something and quite often the same few people repeating the request over and over.

However, I don't think we should dismiss suggestions as having no value to developers. Sometimes there is genuine consensus and a steer for developers of potential options and content that the wider community would appreciate - the feedback through discussions like these is far more accessible than surveying the customer base on a regular basis. I see no issue in throwing ideas out and seeing what the community reaction is. The risk is that it becomes somewhat repetitive but every now and then one will get some decent numbers supporting it.


Very true.  I see people talking about competitiveness in MP as a metric of how popular a module will be, and I think they may be misinterpreting the breakdown of DCS players.

My understanding is that MP players are a minority and that the vast majority of EDs customers are SP-focused.  Historically, Vietnam-era SP flight sims haven't performed as well sales-wise.

My gut feeling is that the F-4E, while an important addition to a (thankfully) increasingly Cold War-happy MP playerbase, won't generate the sales performance some are expecting.  I don't know if a Greek or Turkish late, upgraded F-4 would even be possible given documentation woes.  An F-4G would be neat, but even with gross simplification of ECM, it may be difficult to get sufficient documentation for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Citizen said:



.  Historically, Vietnam-era SP flight sims haven't performed as well sales-wise.

 

Well, how many were there and how did you gain access to their sales figures?

I can only think of two.Flight of the intruder and SF: Vietnam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Snappy said:

Well, how many were there and how did you gain access to their sales figures?

I can only think of two.Flight of the intruder and SF: Vietnam.


Right here in DCS, we can interpolate performance based on Steam data.

The F-5 was released in 2016.
The MiG-21 was released in 2014.
For Vietnam-era dogfighting, these are your two best options.

The F/A-18C was released in 2018.  It seems to be outperforming the F-5 and MiG-21 combined by about 20-25%.  It's an imperfect dataset, but we are working with the law of large numbers.  Would including DCS store data change the numbers?  I have no doubt.  Would it change it enough to make up a 50% delta?  Highly unlikely, and given the effort ED has put into getting folks to use the ED store, that data may well favor modern aircraft.

The Vietnam era is an important one, no doubt.  I believe it's harder to market since it lacks the romance of WW2 or the sex appeal of the modern stuff.  That's a shame because for MP, it's pretty clear that it's the most fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much systems, re-playability, and campaigns factor into this. The majority of DCS users prefer singleplayer according to ED, but the F-5E and MiG 21 have fewer campaigns and fewer capabilities than something like a Hornet... or a Phantom(s) for that matter! 


Edited by _BringTheReign_
  • Like 1

https://youtube.com/@thesimnet                                    questions@thesimnet.com 

image.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 6:32 PM, _BringTheReign_ said:

But ED would never make an F-16 Sufa module, because it wouldn't sell as much as a USAF F-16. And ED won't likely ever make an F-16 Sufa, because why would they spend development dollars on something like that when they could make another bespoke airframe and generate revenue that way. Same goes here.

This is a bit citation needed. Between multicrew and added weapons/capability this could sell just as much as a USAF F-16. I don't think it's easy to predict how they would compare. The same goes for Hornet and Super Hornet and Eagle vs Strike Eagle.

1 hour ago, Citizen said:


Right here in DCS, we can interpolate performance based on Steam data.

The F-5 was released in 2016.
The MiG-21 was released in 2014.
For Vietnam-era dogfighting, these are your two best options.

The F/A-18C was released in 2018.  It seems to be outperforming the F-5 and MiG-21 combined by about 20-25%.

The F-5 isn't an equivalent to the F-18. It's a low cost export fighter that didn't really see use by the US. The MiG-21 is maybe a bit more well known, but it's Russian. The real test would be seeing F-4 sales numbers as the F-4 does have a place similar to that of the F-18.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Citizen said:

The F-5 was released in 2016.
The MiG-21 was released in 2014.
For Vietnam-era dogfighting, these are your two best options.

There's also the MiG-19, neglected by both its devs and the community. Except they're not really a "Vietnam-era sim". This is three modules, only one of which is the correct version for Vietnam, and they're literally all there is. No map, no campaigns, no ground assets, no AI aircraft, nothing. Also, quality on all three aircraft is spotty (MiG-19 looks good, but systems have issues), although some work is being done to bring them up to modern standards. It's no surprise that they don't do quite as well as, say, a Phantom would.

Truth to be told, there's no real Vietnam-era flight sim on the market. There's SF2, which is a low-grade sim, Flight of the Intruder, which is ancient, and Air Conflicts: Vietnam which is arcade. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is that DCS have several time eras and each time era have it's audience. It is the WW2 era with the spitfire, mosquito. BF-109 etc. Then there is the cold war era ranging all the way from 1950 to 1990 with the Sabre, mig-19 and the Tomcat. Then lastly there is the post-cold war era where we see the F-16, JF-17 and the F-18 etc. There is overlap between the eras but you get the point.
All up until the release of the F-14 all we had was essentially the mig-21 and F-5. Not exactly the most sought after cold war jets. However the F-4 (together with the mig-21) is like the most iconic cold war planes. A cold war without the F-4 is like a WW2 community without the P-51. With the release of the F-4 and mirage F-1, the cold war community will get a massive lift as it recives two of it's most iconic jets.  Furthermore the F-4 will also add alot to the Persian gulf map in particular as it opens up a floodgate of missions especially Iran-iraq war scenarios but also all up into present era as Iran still fly them. 
ED decided to postpone the development of the F-4 back in 2018 to instead focus on the F-18 and F-16, which was a wise business decision as it did draw a <profanity>load of more people into DCS.

But it will be interesting to see the sales numbers for the F-4E compared to other modules, I suspect it will be on par with the F-14. And ofc it helps that it is made by the most trusted third party developer. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heinlein said:

But it will be interesting to see the sales numbers for the F-4E compared to other modules, I suspect it will be on par with the F-14. 

Naah, in my 6-pilot squadron two people bought the Cat just because TopGun 2. F-4 never got that big of a advertisement in a movie.


Edited by sparrow88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, sparrow88 said:

Naah, in my 6-pilot squadron two people bought the Cat just because TopGun 2. F-4 never got that big of a advertisement in a movie.

 

After the success of “Maverick” I predict we will see a prequal to the series “Top gun: the early years” staring Maverick’s dad in an F-4.

  • Like 5

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bozon said:

After the success of “Maverick” I predict we will see a prequal to the series “Top gun: the early years” staring Maverick’s dad in an F-4.

I sure hope in general that fighter jet porn genre will become more popular now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 2 horas, Bozon dijo:

After the success of “Maverick” I predict we will see a prequal to the series “Top gun: the early years” staring Maverick’s dad in an F-4.

That would actually be awesome!

 

hace 3 horas, sparrow88 dijo:

Naah, in my 6-pilot squadron two people bought the Cat just because TopGun 2. F-4 never got that big of a advertisement in a movie.

 

True but you have to look a bit broader at the DCS community. I guess you guys are a on the young side and more "MFD master race" crowd. There are alot of people like me who are more "reject MFD's, embrace steamgauges". And alot of people are aviation history enthusiasts and are more on the older side and grew up watching F-4's. And i also just took a look at heatblurs YT page and the F-4 announcement video have 576 K views while the Eurofighter have just over 400K. The F-14 launch trailer have over 1 mil views but that is three years old.  But in the end we will have too see. I believe they will make boatloads of money on it. The interest is definitely there 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Heinlein said:

True but you have to look a bit broader at the DCS community. I guess you guys are a on the young side and more "MFD master race" crowd.

You are dead wrong there 😜

 

15 hours ago, Heinlein said:

And alot of people are aviation history enthusiasts and are more on the older side and grew up watching F-4's

Except F-14 is known even to people who have little interest in aviation and in countries that never operated F-4s. I am not saying that F-4 will not sell but Tomcat is like a popculture item similar to X-wing at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sparrow88 said:

You are dead wrong there 😜

 

Except F-14 is known even to people who have little interest in aviation and in countries that never operated F-4s. I am not saying that F-4 will not sell but Tomcat is like a popculture item similar to X-wing at this point.

How many of the people who do not have an interest in aviation play DCS? I don't think that's a good indication of the target market. DCS is aimed at people who love aviation. In that pool of people I think that the Phantom is second only to the Tomcat in terms of popularity. It is a significant aircraft with a huge operational history in multiple countries with a lot more people having been around them who would love to fly it in DCS. Let's not forget the F-4 is the father of the modern multirole fighter and probably the aircraft that shaped modern airborne warfare more than anyone else with the exception of the stealth element. I think all those points are very important to those who are interested in DCS or serious flight simulations in general.


Edited by Lieuie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 9:18 PM, Exorcet said:

This is a bit citation needed. Between multicrew and added weapons/capability this could sell just as much as a USAF F-16. I don't think it's easy to predict how they would compare. The same goes for Hornet and Super Hornet and Eagle vs Strike Eagle.

The F-5 isn't an equivalent to the F-18. It's a low cost export fighter that didn't really see use by the US. The MiG-21 is maybe a bit more well known, but it's Russian. The real test would be seeing F-4 sales numbers as the F-4 does have a place similar to that of the F-18.

To build a Sufa, you require a licence agretment with Israel, very problematic, and that aircraft has totaly diferent with a F-16CM Lot 20 version, has a israel F-16 export version build by demand, with diferent systems and software, new weapons, radars, airframe and flight model, and a long etc, more of them restricted. That has a complete new module, has the same situation with the F-4  ICE "with amrrams".


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 17 minutos, Lieuie dijo:

How many of the people who do not have an interest in aviation play DCS? I don't think that's a good indication of the target market. DCS is aimed at people who love aviation. In that pool of people I think that the Phantom is second only to the Tomcat in terms of popularity. It is a significant aircraft with a huge operational history in multiple countries with a lot more people having been around them who would love to fly it in DCS. Let's not forget the F-4 is the father of the modern multirole fighter and probably the aircraft that shaped modern airborne warfare more than anyone else with the exception of the stealth element. I think all those points are very important to those who are interested in DCS or serious flight simulations in general.

 

My toughs exactly. The F-14 is wider known to your average normie, but lets face it, your average normie gamer does not play DCS, they play Warthunder. The most common complaint (and the biggest compliment) I get from new players is that DCS is too complicated. To play DCS it  requires a special breed of people that want to sit down and study each aircraft and its history and technology in order to use it it's full potential. And you can't learn hardly any plane in DCS without the F-4 pops up somewhere as almost all the modern tech in modern planes traces back to what was first introduced in the Phantom. 
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS is a VERY expensive game - directly by cost of multiple modules you need to purchase, and indirectly by computer requirements and peripheral equipment (stick, and some of: throttle, pedals, head tracking/VR). This already raises the mean age of DCS players significantly.

In addition as several posters pointed above, only people who are already aviation enthusiasts may even try DCS seriously.

F-4 Phantom is very well known world wide outside the US. An aviation enthusiast from outside the US is far more likely to have seen an F-4 fly than an F-14. It is also far more likely that their country airforce flew F-4s than F-14s.

F-14 is a very charismatic plane. Heck, the recent “Mavric” movie clearly demonstrated (no spoilers) how much more charismatic it is than the F-18, when it showed up in that film. But OUT SIDE the US, the F-4 carries a lot of nostalgia with it, that the F-14 does not.


Edited by Bozon
  • Like 1

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first Top Gun was an international hit, though. This is the sole reason why the F-14 is so beloved around the world, although it is a remarkably cool aircraft. I'd recon most aviation enthusiasts have seen Top Gun. Indeed, quite of them might have become aviation enthusiasts after seeing it. 

What Maverick did was to put the Super Hornet, already a well known aircraft, in a similar place. The F-4 had a following for a different reason, which is just how widespread it was in Vietnam, and its influence on modern fighter tactics and design. You already have to know a few things about combat aviation to know just how important it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...