Would you consider making the E carrier capable IN GAME please?

[SgtPappy]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:37 PM, Baco said:

Yeah the tipical naysayers.  Purism over playbility. yep. oh well. god fobid they use the E as a C right? LOL... 

Guess Ill have to wait til 2025 or 26 with some luck and maybe by then we get teh Saratoga also LOL...

What did you expect exactly from a flight simulation that strives for realism?

It's one thing to ask and that's totally fair... it's another to come to literally one of two high-fidelty combat simulation communities and then be salty when hearing what you don't want to hear.

Then on top of it, act like you're entitled for the developer to develop the uneducated guess of two lines of code it would take to make the feature. If it's that easy, make the mod yourself.

Edited November 29, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Elf1606688794]

6 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

If it's that easy, make the mod yourself.

Someone, will do exactly that and sooner rather than later I'd think.

[Baco]

Really baffles me the feeling of personal attack some people get when someone proposes a "compromise"... LOL and the Kid sim.. That's personal man I'll leave it at that...

nuts I tell you...

 

On 11/28/2022 at 10:25 PM, SgtPappy said:

What did you expect exactly from a flight simulation that strives for realism?

It's one thing to ask and that's totally fair... it's another to come to literally one of two high-fidelty combat simulation communities and then be salty when hearing what you don't want to hear.

Then on top of it, act like you're entitled for the developer to develop the uneducated guess of two lines of code it would take to make the feature. If it's that easy, make the mod yourself.

 

its not hearing what I don't want to hear, its the level of fanatic aggression in the words...its almost like religious zealots.

Now Cobra said  the same thing in a reasonable manner.   

And I can' t get deeper without stepping on some toes so I'll leave it at that. too.

[SgtPappy]

6 hours ago, Baco said:

Really baffles me the feeling of personal attack some people get when someone proposes a "compromise"... LOL and the Kid sim.. That's personal man I'll leave it at that...

nuts I tell you...

 

its not hearing what I don't want to hear, its the level of fanatic aggression in the words...its almost like religious zealots.

Now Cobra said  the same thing in a reasonable manner.   

And I can' t get deeper without stepping on some toes so I'll leave it at that. too.

I empathize with how you feel. It doesn't feel great when you just want to put something out there and it feels like someone steps on it. I think we've all been there at some point.

That said, I would urge you to look again at the responses, as I can only see maybe 1 that could be conceived as aggressive - and that's a stretch. The rest appeared to be personal preferences.

Meanwhile your tone in the replying posts was passive aggressive and also blanketly labeled the other responses as "typical naysays" who prioritized "purism over playability" followed by sarcasm which, let's be honest, could also be construed as overly-aggressively defensive. Maybe it isn't but then neither are the original responses which prompted your rebuttals. Can't be both ways. I can't say I'm innocent of this either. Fact of the matter is, we are one community that bickers form time to time but we might need to give each other a tad more benefit of the doubt to support our hobby.

Edited December 2, 2022 by SgtPappy

[rkk01]

OP asks a really valid question…

… not because it’s out of place with the DCS community’s obsession with realism….

 

It’s a valid question because it shows the huge level of interest in the naval versions

Let’s hope HB get the F-4 on deck ASAP after the “E”

[303_Kermit]

22 hours ago, Baco said:

Really baffles me the feeling of personal attack some people get when someone proposes a "compromise"... LOL and the Kid sim.. That's personal man I'll leave it at that...

nuts I tell you...

 

its not hearing what I don't want to hear, its the level of fanatic aggression in the words...its almost like religious zealots.

Now Cobra said  the same thing in a reasonable manner.   

And I can' t get deeper without stepping on some toes so I'll leave it at that. too.

Technically the word "compromise" means, that both negotiating sides doesn't reach their goal. In wiki (eng.) "To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand." In our situation we have two sides:
-For us the goal is : "to have most realistic module".
-For you a goal is: "to have carrier capable F-4E"

So compromise (according to definition) isn't carrier capable F-4E. Compromise is when F-4E became for example a hydroplane. It's not satisfying any of us, but it's a compromise. Either you don't understand the meaning a word "compromise", or you do understand, but you try to manipulate us.
In first case you're just silly, in second you're offensive.

The choice is yours. You may call a friend or ask public.

Edited December 3, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Baco]

I can admit I might be passive aggressive.

But the over dissection of a simple "feature request" an addition that you can use or not use if you deem it offensive or "non realistic" is over the top.

Just like asking for easy AAR or whatever makes a DCS P{layers life easier and its not mandatory and a feature you can ignore or turn off.

All in the name of a "hyper realism" that is juts a fantasy, maybe it is "as close as you can get", but still a false premise.

but i rest my case its like talking to a wall .

Have a wonderful day gentlemen and gals.ladies

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, Baco said:

I can admit I might be passive aggressive.

But the over dissection of a simple "feature request" an addition that you can use or not use if you deem it offensive or "non realistic" is over the top.

Just like asking for easy AAR or whatever makes a DCS P{layers life easier and its not mandatory and a feature you can ignore or turn off.

All in the name of a "hyper realism" that is juts a fantasy, maybe it is "as close as you can get", but still a false premise.

but i rest my case its like talking to a wall .

Have a wonderful day gentlemen and gals.ladies

Don't worry, one day we'll have a Navy F-4 (I hope for the J!) and then pretty much everyone will be happy.

And again, someone made a mod for the F-15 to use its tailhook for carrier landings, so I feel like eventually someone will make a mod of a carrier-launched F-4E though I feel that may hurt my brain to look at

[Lieuie]

On 12/10/2022 at 7:31 AM, SgtPappy said:

Don't worry, one day we'll have a Navy F-4 (I hope for the J!) and then pretty much everyone will be happy.

And again, someone made a mod for the F-15 to use its tailhook for carrier landings, so I feel like eventually someone will make a mod of a carrier-launched F-4E though I feel that may hurt my brain to look at

The tail hook should work out of the gate without the need of modding it.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Lieuie

[Baco]

On 12/10/2022 at 2:31 AM, SgtPappy said:

Don't worry, one day we'll have a Navy F-4 (I hope for the J!) and then pretty much everyone will be happy.

And again, someone made a mod for the F-15 to use its tailhook for carrier landings, so I feel like eventually someone will make a mod of a carrier-launched F-4E though I feel that may hurt my brain to look at

Yeah I know its been announced, but lets be realistic, EF 2000, A-6, are "first in line", and who knows what else (still waiting for a 95-GR, or even a 135 Early for that matter) and being that a Module takes a few years to create and make ready for EA, we are talking 2025 with any luck.

 

Regarding tail hook, yeah it should work but won´t be able to launch again.

[exhausted]

+10000000 for the carrier based Phantom, needs 100% more devil dog and naval aviator

 

Otherwise, what are we even going to do with it?

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, exhausted said:

Otherwise, what are we even going to do with it?

Exactly the same thing everyone does with every single one of the modules they own - whatever they want to do with them (obviously within the bounds of what the module allows, which for just about any Phantom is going to be a lot, though the E will have the most potential for the late Cold War and probably best fits DCS as it currently stands by a significant margin).

Edited December 13, 2022 by Northstar98

[SgtPappy]

On 12/12/2022 at 4:27 PM, Baco said:

Yeah I know its been announced, but lets be realistic, EF 2000, A-6, are "first in line", and who knows what else (still waiting for a 95-GR, or even a 135 Early for that matter) and being that a Module takes a few years to create and make ready for EA, we are talking 2025 with any luck.

 

Regarding tail hook, yeah it should work but won´t be able to launch again.

Yes I honestly count myself so lucky that the first Phantom coming out is precisely my favourite version, and I feel for our Navy fans. I know for a fact there will be times I'm going to be hurting to use that pulse Doppler goodness that the F-4J or S would bring. Let's hope that the F-4E and early F-14A RWR rework cuts down the amount of work needed to get the USN Phantoms out as soon as possible.

That said, you bet your butt I'm going to try a takeoff in the F-4E from the very stern of the boat... 

Edited December 13, 2022 by SgtPappy

[upyr1]

On 11/24/2022 at 2:52 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Hardly "no extra work". You'd need a launch bar, with the real E doesn't have. No dice, this is a land-based Phantom.

You should be able to trap, hook is the same as on a Navy Phantom. Gear isn't, but you're not taking off anyway.  

The Navy Phantoms use a bridal system. Next there is a debate in the real world Phantom Community about whether or not a USAF Phanotm's landing gear could take a landing.  But I would like to see the USAF Phantoms have a working wire and an arrestor wire as an asset for land bases 

[JayTSX]

Definitely something that would help with loss of hydraulics (which definitely never ever happened to me...) and just in general a fun "little" addition imo

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The Navy Phantoms use a bridal system. Next there is a debate in the real world Phantom Community about whether or not a USAF Phanotm's landing gear could take a landing.  But I would like to see the USAF Phantoms have a working wire and an arrestor wire as an asset for land bases 

Bridle not bridal. The problem is that AFAIK, none of the carriers we have support a bridle. So to fly off a Nimitz, you'd need a launch bar. Forrestal probably too, at least the version we have (although I might be wrong on that one). 

Now, the proper Navy Phantom would come with appropriate launch system, and a carrier equipped with the bridle catcher. This was presumably a factor in HB's choice of variants.

[Northstar98]

On 12/14/2022 at 4:16 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Bridle not bridal. The problem is that AFAIK, none of the carriers we have support a bridle. So to fly off a Nimitz, you'd need a launch bar.

Naval phantoms also have a nose strut that can extend a fair way such that the aircraft can assume an appropriate AoA for launch - the E doesn't have one.

On 12/14/2022 at 4:16 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Forrestal probably too, at least the version we have (although I might be wrong on that one). 

Being pedantic about it, our Forrestal is in its 1990s-1993 configuration (Phalanx Block 1). Being less pedantic about it, it's post SLEP (owing to overal sensor and weapons configuration and I'm fairly certain DCS doesn't model the difference between Phalanx Block 0 and Block 1), which means after mid/late May 1985.

The last Phantoms on Forrestal were F-4S' during June - November 1982. This is before SLEP, meaning significantly different sensors and weapons.

For sensors, that means AN/SPS-30 and -43 as opposed to the AN/SPS-48C and -49(V)5, though given DCS' fairly lacklustre fidelity here it probably doesn't mean much outside of looks.

For weapons though, that's where the difference is really significant - no Phalanx and BPDMS (w/ RIM-7E & Mk 115) as opposed to Phalanx and IBPDMS (w/ RIM-7M & Mk 95, which is superior in just about every single aspect by a significant margin).

If you want to go even earlier to a more Vietnam style fit, then you've again got a major change of weapons.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

You forgot to include the important difference - the bridle catcher got removed (IIRC).  This is a pretty vital bit for launching aircraft using it, as they weren't exactly disposable pieces of equipment. I'm sure there were other differences between launch systems, too.

[G.J.S]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The Navy Phantoms use a bridal system. Next there is a debate in the real world Phantom Community about whether or not a USAF Phanotm's landing gear could take a landing.  But I would like to see the USAF Phantoms have a working wire and an arrestor wire as an asset for land bases 

AF Phantoms had much lower MLG tire pressures, also the tires were wider.
An Air Force F-4E could for sure land on a carrier . . . . . Once.
The only way it would leave the deck again would be if it was shunted over the side.

Edited December 14, 2022 by G.J.S

[DSplayer]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You forgot to include the important difference - the bridle catcher got removed (IIRC).  This is a pretty vital bit for launching aircraft using it, as they weren't exactly disposable pieces of equipment. I'm sure there were other differences between launch systems, too.

Not exactly required tho. The French when they were in the last years of operating their last bridle aircraft, the Super Étendard, just slung bridles off the deck after launch since their carrier no longer had a catcher.

[Baco]

Don´t look now but we have had Skyhawks taking off from Forestalls and Nimitz for a while... yeah thats right they use Bridles. 

When they do model a Naval phantom, yes I expect the full monty.. but for a quick stand in I can live without perfection...}

And Yeah if I am going to have to pay full price for a new Phantom, give me a Midway or Mod Essex too...

Still modern cataputs can support bridles , its just not done any more. Question,

Did no Super Etandard ever took off form a Nimitz class carrier during a NATO standardization exercise?