Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

[SevenVonLykken]

9 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

any news about the date, incidentally? They said 2022 but it was missed, I assume we're coming in the first major patch of the year?

for now, no. And 4th of Jan would be only for 2023 and Beyond from ED. though May the 4th of January be the first step to get the F-Phour Phantoms

[Czechnology]

20 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

any news about the date, incidentally? They said 2022 but it was missed, I assume we're coming in the first major patch of the year?

No news on dates. Imagine it they'll say anything it'll be after the 2023 video releases. If I see anything I'll be sure to share.

[Elf1606688794]

19 hours ago, exhausted said:

The market has a voice. I'm in the market, so I have a voice. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but that's how the marketplace of goods and ideas works. Obviously, bullying and trying to overwhelm ideas and opinions hasn't had the effect people wanted. You don't need to list sources for everything - in fact sources have only come up 1-2 times in this thread, and they really haven't been persuasive: the reason is most of the sources are such common knowledge that the utility of listing them is quite low. For the most part, I've read the listed secondary sources and have even seen the primary sources used in them have been seriously questioned in the historical community. Anyway, it's just an idea.

 

It's interesting how you said you have support from others but I don't see any of your posts in this thread getting upvoted but others are.

You've gone from insisting on historical facts (while calling the -E slow and sluggish, something I found hilarious because it's not) to simply "giving your opinions". Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

As others have pointed out, Heatblur has stated they will be doing a separate module for naval variants. When is that going to happen? Well it will probably be a while so patience is in order.

You've discounted other countries success with the -E, even unmodified -E's success has been discounted by you. Apparently you think only U.S. service counts but that seems narrow minded to me.

While stating the Phantom was designed as a naval fighter (you're not wrong about that) you completely ignore the fact that far more -C, -D, and -E models were made for the U.S. and other countries than naval variants. Only one other country used a naval variant while 10 countries used land based versions and 4 still do. With these things in mind it makes sense for a land based version to be made first.

We should smoke a joint and talk about this. Why? Because it's super hard to act like an angry stinky butthole while high on weed. Real conversations could be had then.

Personally, I'm ecstatic over the upcoming F-4E because I worked on it but... I still want naval variants because as a kid I was enthralled with stories of U.S. carrier fighter pile-its. I can't wait to bomb the VC and NVA with the -E or to fly escort for naval strike missions that are going Down Town.

Just a suggestion, what if you went back through this thread and read every one of your posts and try to put yourself in others shoes so you can see how you're coming across? Sometimes these types of exercises can give us new perspective. Regardless of whether or not you think that is worthy of your time, I hope you have a great day.

 

[Cobra847]

The naval variants are very important to us and not a distant afterthought, FWIW. We had to start with something - in this case we felt the -E was a great representation of the Phantom to begin with. That doesn't in any way diminish the importance of the naval versions though- do keep that in mind. We don't play favourites.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Cobra847

[Elf1606688794]

1 minute ago, Cobra847 said:

The naval variants are very important to us and not a distant afterthought, FWIW. We had to start with something - in this case we felt the -E was a great representation of the Phantom to begin with. That doesn't in any way diminish the importance of the naval versions though- do keep that in mind. We don't play favourites.

 

[RevampedGrunt]

I definitely have to agree that the E was the best variant to start with. Knowing how well you guys did with the F-14 so far is telling enough that the F-4 family will also be as great if not better. I'm hoping for one day, in the far future maybe, we'll see the E revisited and have a hard wing version of her, to give a good representation of the few countries who didn't have the Agile Eagle upgrade.

[_BringTheReign_]

11 hours ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

On 1/1/2023 at 2:33 PM, _BringTheReign_ said:

 

Is that beauty getting closer to release already? 

Actually just recorded the assembly video today, aiming to release the files, BOM, and assembly video before the F-4 reveal haha

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

TL;DR

You aren't sh*t without slats and a gun. F**k MiGs.

 

I don't think that's nice the way you're laughin'.

Y'see, my MiG don't like people laughin'.

He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him.

[Fangs Out]

Say, do we know if the first variant we are getting has TISEO or not. I remember hearing that both have the Agile eagle Upgrade where one was a DSCG variant and the other was the DMAS. However, both DSCG phantoms (our first variant) and DMAS phantoms both had aircraft with and without TISEO. 

[LanceCriminal86]

43 minutes ago, Fangs Out said:

Say, do we know if the first variant we are getting has TISEO or not. I remember hearing that both have the Agile eagle Upgrade where one was a DSCG variant and the other was the DMAS. However, both DSCG phantoms (our first variant) and DMAS phantoms both had aircraft with and without TISEO. 

No, first is the non-TISEO, airframes up to around the 69- and maybe some 70- serials, which did not get TISEO. Second release will be a TISEO/factory slat/DMAS etc.

 

I have not found any aircraft from the 66- to 69- serials with a TISEO, the jets starting with 71- as hurried out to SEA under Rivet Haste were the first factory jets with slats and TISEO etc. Older jets did get the slat retrofits but not TISEO from any evidence I have seen so far, photos or otherwise.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by LanceCriminal86

[Kalasnkova74]

4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I don't think that's nice the way you're laughin'.

Y'see, my MiG don't like people laughin'.

He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him.

Sounds like Mikoyan & Gurevich should meet up with McDonnell & Douglas at the flagpole. I’ll bring the camera. 

[SgtPappy]

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

No, first is the non-TISEO, airframes up to around the 69- and maybe some 70- serials, which did not get TISEO. Second release will be a TISEO/factory slat/DMAS etc.

 

I have not found any aircraft from the 66- to 69- serials with a TISEO, the jets starting with 71- as hurried out to SEA under Rivet Haste were the first factory jets with slats and TISEO etc. Older jets did get the slat retrofits but not TISEO from any evidence I have seen so far, photos or otherwise.

 

 

 

To add to this, in March 1973, Israel received the first non-TISEO F-4E's that came from the factory with slats (Block 48 to 51, maybe 53) that would see combat. These would be the first slatted F-4E's to score MiG kills when war broke out in October of that year.

I think the first version we are getting would essentially be anything in this block range, except with mods up until 1974 which may include things like the ALE-40 countermeasures dispenser.

Edited January 3, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Aussie_Mantis]

6 hours ago, Fangs Out said:

Say, do we know if the first variant we are getting has TISEO or not. I remember hearing that both have the Agile eagle Upgrade where one was a DSCG variant and the other was the DMAS. However, both DSCG phantoms (our first variant) and DMAS phantoms both had aircraft with and without TISEO. 

 

6 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

No, first is the non-TISEO, airframes up to around the 69- and maybe some 70- serials, which did not get TISEO. Second release will be a TISEO/factory slat/DMAS etc.

 

I have not found any aircraft from the 66- to 69- serials with a TISEO, the jets starting with 71- as hurried out to SEA under Rivet Haste were the first factory jets with slats and TISEO etc. Older jets did get the slat retrofits but not TISEO from any evidence I have seen so far, photos or otherwise.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

To add to this, in March 1973, Israel received the first non-TISEO F-4E's that came from the factory with slats (Block 48 to 51, maybe 53) that would see combat. These would be the first slatted F-4E's to score MiG kills when war broke out in October of that year.

I think the first version we are getting would essentially be anything in this block range, except with mods up until 1974 which may include things like the ALE-40 countermeasures dispenser.

 

 

 

The FAQ said it was a late '74-'75 F-4E, so I'm predicting a non-TISEO block 48 F-4E. They did however say it will most definitely have slats, as well as DMSQ and other upgrades applied prior to this point, e.g. the 5-5-6 mod that puts a HOTAS in your plane.

 

Irregardless, it'll be better than the f@#&ed up one in War Thunder which is a block 48 mesh slatted non-TISEO with DMAS and 1991 TISEO phantom capabilities and a 1970s RWR.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[SgtPappy]

25 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

The FAQ said it was a late '74-'75 F-4E, so I'm predicting a non-TISEO block 48 F-4E. They did however say it will most definitely have slats, as well as DMSQ and other upgrades applied prior to this point, e.g. the 5-5-6 mod that puts a HOTAS in your plane.

 

Irregardless, it'll be better than the f@#&ed up one in War Thunder which is a block 48 mesh slatted non-TISEO with DMAS and 1991 TISEO phantom capabilities and a 1970s RWR.

 

What is DMSQ? I know that DVST was the old display and DSCG is the newer digital version that had better displays. 

Or is DVSQ something else completely unrelated? Couldn't really find much on google.

Edited January 3, 2023 by SgtPappy

[LanceCriminal86]

12 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

 

 

 

 

The FAQ said it was a late '74-'75 F-4E, so I'm predicting a non-TISEO block 48 F-4E. They did however say it will most definitely have slats, as well as DMSQ and other upgrades applied prior to this point, e.g. the 5-5-6 mod that puts a HOTAS in your plane.

 

Irregardless, it'll be better than the f@#&ed up one in War Thunder which is a block 48 mesh slatted non-TISEO with DMAS and 1991 TISEO phantom capabilities and a 1970s RWR.

 

Earlier block jet is not going to have the APS-107, should be the APR-25/26 or whichever replaced the APS-107 in the mid-70s. The APS antenna may be modeled visually but that RWR wouldn't be. Air Force actually stopped installing them somewhere mid 68- serials, so first batch Es had no APS antenna, then most 67- and half of 68- production had it, then it disappeared. It looks like they left the antennas but removed the equipment as they are still around in photos from the 90s. Not sure what we will get visually but if the APS-107 antenna is visually modeled, I wouldn't expect that to be implemented. I do believe it's been solidly stated the APR-25/26 or 

But as I said, be expecting it to represent the 66- to ~ later 69-serials that were updated with the slats in the mid-70s, and had the later gun shroud added, plus some of the capabilities added to those jets, with the APR-25/26 RWR. They may represent more systems/features wise that the jets had moving through the 80s and their sunset in early 90s, as those blocks were still serving with the Guard/Reserves through 91 or so.

Separate from them, the later block jet will have the TISEO, factory slats, and all the other bells and whistles like DMAS that the later blocks received again through their retirement. Those should be anything 71- serials and after. Not sure about ARN-101 though. But those could represent up to/including the handful of F-4Es that served in the Gulf War, as they were from the 71- to 73- ranges. The later block might end up with the APR-37, as I think the later blocks also received that RWR upgrade.

[_BringTheReign_]

12 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

it'll be better than the f@#&ed up one in War Thunder which is a block 48 mesh slatted non-TISEO with DMAS and 1991 TISEO phantom capabilities and a 1970s RWR.

Not to mention an F-4C cockpit to boot lmao
I am glad - my frustration with the lack of historical accuracy in that arcade game brought me to the warm embrace of DCS hahaha

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, _BringTheReign_ said:

Not to mention an F-4C cockpit to boot lmao
I am glad - my frustration with the lack of historical accuracy in that arcade game brought me to the warm embrace of DCS hahaha

The War Thunder F-4C is a terribly broken thing, as is the -E which followed. 

[Aussie_Mantis]

20 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Earlier block jet is not going to have the APS-107, should be the APR-25/26 or whichever replaced the APS-107 in the mid-70s. The APS antenna may be modeled visually but that RWR wouldn't be. Air Force actually stopped installing them somewhere mid 68- serials, so first batch Es had no APS antenna, then most 67- and half of 68- production had it, then it disappeared. It looks like they left the antennas but removed the equipment as they are still around in photos from the 90s. Not sure what we will get visually but if the APS-107 antenna is visually modeled, I wouldn't expect that to be implemented. I do believe it's been solidly stated the APR-25/26 or 

But as I said, be expecting it to represent the 66- to ~ later 69-serials that were updated with the slats in the mid-70s, and had the later gun shroud added, plus some of the capabilities added to those jets, with the APR-25/26 RWR. They may represent more systems/features wise that the jets had moving through the 80s and their sunset in early 90s, as those blocks were still serving with the Guard/Reserves through 91 or so.

Separate from them, the later block jet will have the TISEO, factory slats, and all the other bells and whistles like DMAS that the later blocks received again through their retirement. Those should be anything 71- serials and after. Not sure about ARN-101 though. But those could represent up to/including the handful of F-4Es that served in the Gulf War, as they were from the 71- to 73- ranges. The later block might end up with the APR-37, as I think the later blocks also received that RWR upgrade.

Nah, they said it was AN/APR-36 on the Phantom that was delaying development in a facebook post ( @Czechnology posted it in another thread) , and the model had the APS antenna in the trailer. The FAQs have mentioned that it'll get DMSQ and all other upgrades prior to '75-ish..

[aztec01]

The short answer to the OP as to why so much negativity?   Because, we are by nature, grognards, "grumblers" ,  Not necessarily a bad thing, it's what we do.  There are some misconceptions though.  The Phantom was not first announced in 2022.  It was FIRST announced somewhere around 2017 by Belsimtek.  There were a couple of development shots and then stone dead silence.  ED did everything they could to hide it except say it was vaporware.  Gradually it was grudgingly leaked that it was shelved for maybe a later time.  So it was, in reality, vaporware. Mind you, we got all the zot and lazer fighters afterwards, but the big open sore in ED was the shutdown of the Rhino for...the Christen Eagle, the I-16 and the Yak-52 etc.  It's left a bad taste and, until it is actually on my hard drive, I have little confidence that it will be actually on delivered.  So, we grumble.

Then Heatblur announces they were picking up the mantle and...more silence.  Not debating the devs philosophy, but, we've been here before.  I take each reveal with a grain of salt.  I NEVER believed a 2022 release date, and with the interminable delays of Razbam's super premium zot bot, the Strike Eagle,  I can't help but think that ED will delay the release of the Phantom until 4-6 months after the SE because, truth is, some of us only have so much money to spend (ED stridently denies it).  So I am HOPING to see a first half 2024 release of the Phantom.  I have been playing this family of sims since the original "Flanker" was first introduced in 1995 by SSI.  I am old and have been waiting for the natural evolution of the Flanker family to include the mighty Phantom ever since LOMAC.  Why they couldn't toss in a Flaming Cliffs version of the Phantom years ago is beyond me, so I grumble.  I grumble because as my time grows shorter and the delays grow longer, my dream of flying the Phantom in my living room before I go west just gets farther and farther away.  Since I am actually OLDER than the Phantom, and it was my first and most enduring love, I declare that I have a right (maybe even duty) to grumble.

Edited June 22, 2023 by aztec01

[exhausted]

On 1/2/2023 at 12:56 PM, Elf1606688794 said:

It's interesting how you said you have support from others but I don't see any of your posts in this thread getting upvoted but others are.

You've gone from insisting on historical facts (while calling the -E slow and sluggish, something I found hilarious because it's not) to simply "giving your opinions". Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

As others have pointed out, Heatblur has stated they will be doing a separate module for naval variants. When is that going to happen? Well it will probably be a while so patience is in order.

You've discounted other countries success with the -E, even unmodified -E's success has been discounted by you. Apparently you think only U.S. service counts but that seems narrow minded to me.

While stating the Phantom was designed as a naval fighter (you're not wrong about that) you completely ignore the fact that far more -C, -D, and -E models were made for the U.S. and other countries than naval variants. Only one other country used a naval variant while 10 countries used land based versions and 4 still do. With these things in mind it makes sense for a land based version to be made first.

We should smoke a joint and talk about this. Why? Because it's super hard to act like an angry stinky butthole while high on weed. Real conversations could be had then.

Personally, I'm ecstatic over the upcoming F-4E because I worked on it but... I still want naval variants because as a kid I was enthralled with stories of U.S. carrier fighter pile-its. I can't wait to bomb the VC and NVA with the -E or to fly escort for naval strike missions that are going Down Town.

Just a suggestion, what if you went back through this thread and read every one of your posts and try to put yourself in others shoes so you can see how you're coming across? Sometimes these types of exercises can give us new perspective. Regardless of whether or not you think that is worthy of your time, I hope you have a great day.

 

Well, in all fairness what you see in ego-feeding upvotes and the reasons you are seeing those might not match up. By and large, people take special care not to complain around here; it's part of the culture of this postboard even if not everybody wants to live by that vision. They don't all care that you worked on the variant being released at all, they only care that a flyable Phantom II will be offered.

I complain because many of us are not sold on the choice to release a land-based version of a carrier fighter first and likely solely. The likelihood of fulfilling a vision to create and release a proper carrier fighter is sketchy at best, which almost every case in DCS will show. So don't confuse popularity for agreement. Like you, those all important upvotes are just people who don't want to hear complaints. 

Yeah, I'm sure you have a special attachment to the F-4E but at the end of the day your bird has a tailhook and gained its fame in the service of the Navy and Marine Corps. That's what I/we want to see.

[RevampedGrunt]

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

Well, in all fairness what you see in ego-feeding upvotes and the reasons you are seeing those might not match up. By and large, people take special care not to complain around here; it's part of the culture of this postboard even if not everybody wants to live by that vision. They don't all care that you worked on the variant being released at all, they only care that a flyable Phantom II will be offered.

I complain because many of us are not sold on the choice to release a land-based version of a carrier fighter first and likely solely. The likelihood of fulfilling a vision to create and release a proper carrier fighter is sketchy at best, which almost every case in DCS will show. So don't confuse popularity for agreement. Like you, those all important upvotes are just people who don't want to hear complaints. 

Yeah, I'm sure you have a special attachment to the F-4E but at the end of the day your bird has a tailhook and gained its fame in the service of the Navy and Marine Corps. That's what I/we want to see.

Maybe a chunk of people specifically desire the naval Phantoms, but other prefer the land based ones, and the rest simply don't care as long as it is a Phantom. 

[exhausted]

5 hours ago, RevampedGrunt said:

Maybe a chunk of people specifically desire the naval Phantoms, but other prefer the land based ones, and the rest simply don't care as long as it is a Phantom. 

Yes, I would expect to hear from all 'teams' in any case

[NineLine]

17 hours ago, aztec01 said:

The short answer to the OP as to why so much negativity?   Because, we are by nature, grognards, "grumblers" ,  Not necessarily a bad thing, it's what we do.  There are some misconceptions though.  The Phantom was not first announced in 2022.  It was FIRST announced somewhere around 2017 by Belsimtek.  There were a couple of development shots and then stone dead silence.  ED did everything they could to hide it except say it was vaporware.  Gradually it was grudgingly leaked that it was shelved for maybe a later time.  So it was, in reality, vaporware. Mind you, we got all the zot and lazer fighters afterwards, but the big open sore in ED was the shutdown of the Rhino for...the Christen Eagle, the I-16 and the Yak-52 etc.  It's left a bad taste and, until it is actually on my hard drive, I have little confidence that it will be actually on delivered.  So, we grumble.

Then Heatblur announces they were picking up the mantle and...more silence.  Not debating the devs philosophy, but, we've been here before.  I take each reveal with a grain of salt.  I NEVER believed a 2022 release date, and with the interminable delays of Razbam's super premium zot bot, the Strike Eagle,  I can't help but think that ED will delay the release of the Phantom until 4-6 months after the SE because, truth is, some of us only have so much money to spend (ED stridently denies it).  So I am HOPING to see a first half 2024 release of the Phantom.  I have been playing this family of sims since the original "Flanker" was first introduced in 1995 by SSI.  I am old and have been waiting for the natural evolution of the Flanker family to include the mighty Phantom ever since LOMAC.  Why they couldn't toss in a Flaming Cliffs version of the Phantom years ago is beyond me, so I grumble.  I grumble because as my time grows shorter and the delays grow longer, my dream of flying the Phantom in my living room before I go west just gets farther and farther away.  Since I am actually OLDER than the Phantom, and it was my first and most enduring love, I declare that I have a right (maybe even duty) to grumble.

 

The F-4 and Cobra were shelved when BST was rolled into Eagle Dynamics. The conflicts with current ED products made their schedule unknown. HB stepped forward and an agreement was struck for them to take over the F-4. The use of the term vaporware doesn't make sense as it's in active development now, it was not back then. I can understand the frustration when waiting for your favourite aircraft but things take time. The Christen Eagle and I-16 were not ED products and had no impact on the Phantom at all, the Yak-52 as well would not have impacted the F-4, especially considering the fact that the Yak-52 was a professional product that was allowed to be moved to DCS based on the agreement with the customer wanting it. 

As for delays, they are a necessary evil in the development of these aircraft as they move through different phases of development. We do not delay products, we will schedule things to release when it's the best time but the key point in any release is the module's readiness, and this is dependent on the team working on it. The term delay is deceiving in most cases when in fact it is the readiness of the module that determines the release. The same goes with the F-4, it will be very popular and we want it in everyone's hands as soon as possible, that said it has to be ready. 

We have no intentions of releasing any more "Flaming Cliffs" level aircraft for DCS, maybe when MAC comes we will see these types of releases but for DCS we set the bar and want to continue to raise it. 

You are right, you have every right to grumble, but I wanted to make some points a little more clear. 

Thanks.

[Silver_Dragon]

18 hours ago, aztec01 said:

Mind you, we got all the zot and lazer fighters afterwards, but the big open sore in ED was the shutdown of the Rhino for...the Christen Eagle, the I-16 and the Yak-52 etc.
 

Only a reminder... the "Rhino project" was intent build by a team (Coretex) with never reach to 3rd Party status. ED had nothing to do with the Rhino project, and in fact, the team disbanded due to disagreements among its members. I was part of that team and there was nothing to do. In fact, several of them founded new 3rd parties afterwards, and the videos that came out later about a supposed F-18E as a "reborn Coretex" on FB, were simply videos that were made by the initial team that disbanded.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Vampyre]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Only a reminder... the "Rhino project" was intent build by a team (Coretex) with never reach to 3rd Party status. ED had nothing to do with the Rhino project, and in fact, the team disbanded due to disagreements among its members. I was part of that team and there was nothing to do. In fact, several of them founded new 3rd parties afterwards, and the videos that came out later about a supposed F-18E as a "reborn Coretex" on FB, were simply videos that were made by the initial team that disbanded.

 

The F-4 was referred to as the Rhino before the even the legacy Hornet was a twinkle in its designer's eye. The Super Hornet picked up the moniker because the Navy needed a way to quickly differentiate a Hornet from a Super Hornet around the boat due to the different weights for, mainly, landing.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Vampyre
capitalization