F-4E Phantom Development Report - DCS Newsletter 31/03/2023

[Omega417]

3 hours ago, streakeagle said:

One problem I have with DCS modules is that they are almost always the latest, most advanced variant rather than the types that were historically significant. The F-4s I want to fly are the F-4B/C/D/E/J variants that flew in Vietnam and over Israel. The principal RWRs utilized by F-4s in combat were the older strobe type.

I have no choice but to settle for whatever Heatblur and other 3rd parties provide. But my preference is for aircraft versions and equipment types employed in combat that are historically correct. In the case of the F-4, that means Vietnam and Yom Kippur era variants, which did not have digital alpha-numeric style RWRs.

A mid-70's F-4E with slats and TISEO is close enough for me to enjoy it in Vietnam era missions, but I would much rather have early hard wing F-4Es with the original gun muzzle or even better yet, F-4B/C/D/J variants with the appropriate field changes to accurately reflect what was flown in combat.

 

My only disagreement with that is, Those changes/upgrades were made for a reason, Air crew complained about RWRs being hard to understand in heat of the moment. Or, the muzzle blast causing other issues with the jet. But i think there is a fine line between "Historically accurate", and "Enjoyable to Use"

[Aussie_Mantis]

17 hours ago, streakeagle said:

One problem I have with DCS modules is that they are almost always the latest, most advanced variant rather than the types that were historically significant. The F-4s I want to fly are the F-4B/C/D/E/J variants that flew in Vietnam and over Israel. The principal RWRs utilized by F-4s in combat were the older strobe type.

I have no choice but to settle for whatever Heatblur and other 3rd parties provide. But my preference is for aircraft versions and equipment types employed in combat that are historically correct. In the case of the F-4, that means Vietnam and Yom Kippur era variants, which did not have digital alpha-numeric style RWRs.

A mid-70's F-4E with slats and TISEO is close enough for me to enjoy it in Vietnam era missions, but I would much rather have early hard wing F-4Es with the original gun muzzle or even better yet, F-4B/C/D/J variants with the appropriate field changes to accurately reflect what was flown in combat.

 

I had $50 riding on it not being strobe.

 

I have won $50.

 

Hail to the King of Phantards.

[WarbossPetross]

8 часов назад, Omega417 сказал:

But i think there is a fine line between "Historically accurate", and "Enjoyable to Use"

Not in a study-level sim that rides on the premise of making it as real as possible. I agree these upgrades were made for a reason IRL, but we're here for the exact things our metaphorical grandpas were using because that's all they had. And yes, I'm still waiting for MiG-21 PFM that actually did rounds in Vietnam.

[Omega417]

I get that, but for the average joe or jane who want to fly a fun looking plane, who then get turned off by the extreme complexity or difficulty of use. That gets reflected in ratings, and sales. I didnt articulate it well but thats what i was going for.

[Raisuli]

5 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

Not in a study-level sim that rides on the premise of making it as real as possible. I agree these upgrades were made for a reason IRL, but we're here for the exact things our metaphorical grandpas were using because that's all they had. And yes, I'm still waiting for MiG-21 PFM that actually did rounds in Vietnam.

Study level has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with fidelity of the model being created.  Therein lies the rub; it's hugely expensive to create full fidelity, which limits what the producers can create, so they need to create wisely to recoup that investment.

I'm one of the people who would rather have newer technology that's going to hang in better with a wider variety of opposition in my study level sim, but I'm also not trying to replicate a specific time period.  For those of you who are 'early cold war' you honestly have my sympathy, because there are far too many of us who like shiny.  Even if they model a B-24 I want the J with an Emerson nose turret, because that's what my dad served on.  F4U?  Give me the -4.  P-38?  Sign me up for an L.  I like late war monsters! 

This is an aircraft that is in service sixty two years after its introduction and thirty one years after they stopped producing them.  In aircraft years those things really are dinosaurs, and the technology changes since it was designed are simply nuts.  Trust me I can relate, being something of a dinosaur myself.  I remember Neil Armstrong walking on the moon...

[SgtPappy]

22 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

I had $50 riding on it not being strobe.

 

I have won $50.

 

Hail to the King of Phantards.

Since I played a pivotal role in the expansion of your wallet, I'll get a cut right (even if they're imaginary Aussie bucks )?

 

14 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

Not in a study-level sim that rides on the premise of making it as real as possible. I agree these upgrades were made for a reason IRL, but we're here for the exact things our metaphorical grandpas were using because that's all they had. And yes, I'm still waiting for MiG-21 PFM that actually did rounds in Vietnam.

I and many others want the more historical versions but we can't speak for everyone. There is also a large enough audience that wants the more modern versions of a given design and that point of view is just as valid as ours. If this was a business decision by HB and ED to make the more modern versions for better sales, then it makes sense. If we got the strobes, there would be others complaining about having a less modern RWR displays too. It's not up to us to gate-keep anyone, regardless of what conflicting feature we or they want.

The more modern versions are not any less realistic just because they aren't as historically relevant.. and this is coming from someone aching for the old school strobe RWR, ealier MiGs and period-accurate weapons.

We can say DCS is meant to be as realistic as possible, but there are unrealistic things too like icons, map symbols, special module settings and such that are meant to make the game more accessible and this is a good thing for the survival of our hobby.

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

In a perfect world we'd get very baseline modules, with Special Options available per module with several timer periods / upgrade packages that can be selected. That way, we all get what we want. We can even start with a module equivalent to fresh out of IOC, and experience the entire lifetime.
I'm in the "prefer historical version" camp too btw: I would have much preferred an AH-64A over the AH-64D we have for example. But that's just me...

[felixx75]

I'll throw out my hat and say that the majority of dcs players prefer modern versions. You can see that very clearly whenever something new is announced and a lot of people ask if you could get this or that. An example:

The current F-14A/B is absolutely gorgeous BUT when are we getting the F-14D?!

The M-2000C is great, but a 2000-5 would be even better.

The F-4E is announced and many call for a different version, etc...

But basically it doesn't really matter what a developer brings, we're almost never satisfied with what we have and always want something we don't have...

[freehand]

I am just grateful we has such a wide choice a few years back the sim world was very sparse.  

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, freehand said:

I am just grateful we has such a wide choice a few years back the sim world was very sparse.  

Tell me about it. When I was playing strike fighters 2 some 9 years ago, I only dreamed of DCS having F-86's and F-4's and yet here we are - and they're so realistic. We're customers, yes but we're also spoiled!

[BobbyG]

Strike Fighters gave me YEARS of entertainment. I miss it at times.

[Bosun]

I think it's worth stopping for a moment and appreciating that you're arguing about whether the modelled radar technology is strobe or not...

...in a virtual simulation.  


Let's all just appreciate how far we've come in technology, that we're having an honest-to-goodness discussion about which methodology of electromagnetic propogation in radar technology is modelled. 

Not that it's being modelled at all, but which one.  Not that we have the fidelity to recreate propogation and the physical limitations and dimensions thereof as standard base of in-game fidelity, but which one.  

I'm just over here like that guy at the world's fair in 1929 who saw a lightbulb switch for the first time.  I don't care what bulb is in that light - the fact you could turn it on and off again with a switch is enough to override the squabbling of which one.

[AzraelKurita]

I dont know what you think of it, but I for myself gonna be waiting for the Release till I start complaining 

Jokeing aside...... 

I guess most of us who play DCS want to get as close as possible to flying a real Plane.

If you are looking for a Simulator which is easy to fly, has no challenge to master or bets mostly on action.......DCS is the wrong Sim.

For sure it will be a Challenge to master flying the Phantom.....or the Radar...or a Dogfight....or this.....or that....

If you want to feel like a real Crewmember flying the Phantom you have to face the same Problems the real Crews had to face.......but thats just my Oppinion.

[Raisuli]

1 hour ago, Bosun said:

Let's all just appreciate how far we've come in technology, that we're having an honest-to-goodness discussion about which methodology of electromagnetic propogation in radar technology is modelled.

Admittedly we have made a little progress. 

I did an A2A refueling followed by a 1 hour, 500 mile, 38 waypoint formation flight tour of Syria with an AI F-14A as lead (practicing my formations) followed by five minutes of A2A refueling to get some gas followed by realizing a landing with 15,000 pounds of gas in an F-18 is really hard on the brakes.  Should have dropped the tanks, but I'm also practicing A2A refueling.

This is where I started with flight sims in 1981:

[Aussie_Mantis]

4 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Tell me about it. When I was playing strike fighters 2 some 9 years ago, I only dreamed of DCS having F-86's and F-4's and yet here we are - and they're so realistic. We're customers, yes but we're also spoiled!

 

3 hours ago, BobbyG said:

Strike Fighters gave me YEARS of entertainment. I miss it at times.

I still have it. My modpack is currently 140GB and I have at least 72 different F-4 variants and several hundred playable aircraft.

 

Help.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[pii]

On 7/20/2023 at 2:50 PM, SgtPappy said:

There is also a large enough audience that wants the more modern versions of a given design

ED has to be able to get enough info on a plane to make it and most newer planes are still classified

[cfrag]

On 7/21/2023 at 3:46 AM, Raisuli said:

This is where I started with flight sims in 1981:

Huh. I recognize that mountain range anywhere: A2FS1 by subLogic. Spent days trying to land the plane, and got quite good at it, it felt so real. Best spring of my life (I think it was 1980, and I started writing 6502 assembler on my Apple ][ after school so I can write similar games - I hoped).

yea, there has been some progress, I guess  

[Temetre]

The whole "historical version" seems like a fallacy. How is one existing plane version "more historical" than another? Why is a modern version less relevant?

And specifically Phantoms, its not like they ever only flew in Vietnam. Were literally getting the most commonly produced variant of the aircraft, which most of the export models were originally based on. The F-4E variant clearly carries the most historical significance, if there is such a thing.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Temetre

[SgtPappy]

11 hours ago, Temetre said:

The whole "historical version" seems like a fallacy. How is one existing plane version "more historical" than another? Why is a modern version less relevant?

And specifically Phantoms, its not like they ever only flew in Vietnam. Were literally getting the most commonly produced variant of the aircraft, which most of the export models were originally based on. The F-4E variant clearly carries the most historical significance, if there is such a thing.

 

I guess just like anything, we assign what constitutes fame and significance.

The F-4 as we know served in many air forces - Navy and air force versions alike - and they made aces, shot down plenty of enemy planes and saw a lot of air to ground combat too. If we define historical significance for a fighter aircraft as seeing combat and destroying enemy equipment then there's your answer.

By contrast, something like the P-38K which was only ever experimental might not be considered as historically important as it didn't do anything.

That said, more or less historical significance doesn't invalidate some planes compared to others but it should by now be easy to see why the more historical version would be more popular. And there's no wrong or right about that, it's just preference.

[Stackup]

12 hours ago, Temetre said:

The whole "historical version" seems like a fallacy. How is one existing plane version "more historical" than another? Why is a modern version less relevant?

Well by being older.  I think "earlier" is more accurate than "historical" since the comment was referring to the AH-64A vs D.  It's not that a modern version is less relevant per se, but more of the fact not everyone likes their planes to have the latest and greatest equipment.  There's people that would prefer to have the A models of the teen series fighters like the F-15, F-16, F-18, and of course we got that with the F-14.  Doesn't mean the C variants we have aren't relevant, but that some people would prefer the older versions for more analogue gauges with less screens and no FBW.  To go even further than variants of the same aircraft, I would rather fly the upcoming A-7 than the F/A-18 that replaced it because not only would I no longer have MFD's but I have a dedicated light attack aircraft with a higher payload that can operate in scenarios from the 70s all the way to Desert Storm in the 90's.

Same thing goes for the F-4E.  The modern version is less relevant to those who want to simulate the Vietnam War because of the upgrades it received after the war.  But, if you want to simulate something from the late 70's into the 80's, the version we are getting should be right at home.  It all depends on what you want to simulate as to what is relevant.  Another example of the modern version not being relevant is the F-14B vs the Early A.  The A model was featured in movies like Top Gun and The Final Countdown as well as the Gulf of Sidra incidents.  The more modern B model has no place in those scenarios.

12 hours ago, Temetre said:

And specifically Phantoms, its not like they ever only flew in Vietnam. Were literally getting the most commonly produced variant of the aircraft, which most of the export models were originally based on. The F-4E variant clearly carries the most historical significance, if there is such a thing.

Yes they flew in more places than Vietnam and served with many countries.  However, not all export F-4E's had slats.  If we want to simulate an F-4EJ for instance, or even the F-4E as it debuted in Vietnam, we would need a more historical (older) version with the hard wing.  That doesn't mean the one we are getting is bad or irrelevant by any means, but it IS irrelevant to those scenarios unless you use your imagination.

In the same way, I hope the Naval F-4 is a J and not an S because the J has a hard wing and was also exported to the UK.  To me an S would be pointless since it was overshadowed by the F-14 and the F-4 saw the vast majority of it's USN action in Vietnam, so I would prefer a version that fits that timeframe.

[Temetre]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb SgtPappy:

I guess just like anything, we assign what constitutes fame and significance.

The F-4 as we know served in many air forces - Navy and air force versions alike - and they made aces, shot down plenty of enemy planes and saw a lot of air to ground combat too. If we define historical significance for a fighter aircraft as seeing combat and destroying enemy equipment then there's your answer.

By contrast, something like the P-38K which was only ever experimental might not be considered as historically important as it didn't do anything.

That said, more or less historical significance doesn't invalidate some planes compared to others but it should by now be easy to see why the more historical version would be more popular. And there's no wrong or right about that, it's just preference.

Oh then I 100% agree with that, some comments just sounded like "this is objectively the more significant version" which was a bit strange to me. Maybe I misunderstood, thats why I was asking.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Stackup:

Well by being older.  I think "earlier" is more accurate than "historical" since the comment was referring to the AH-64A vs D.  It's not that a modern version is less relevant per se, but more of the fact not everyone likes their planes to have the latest and greatest equipment.  There's people that would prefer to have the A models of the teen series fighters like the F-15, F-16, F-18, and of course we got that with the F-14.  Doesn't mean the C variants we have aren't relevant, but that some people would prefer the older versions for more analogue gauges with less screens and no FBW.  To go even further than variants of the same aircraft, I would rather fly the upcoming A-7 than the F/A-18 that replaced it because not only would I no longer have MFD's but I have a dedicated light attack aircraft with a higher payload that can operate in scenarios from the 70s all the way to Desert Storm in the 90's.

Same thing goes for the F-4E.  The modern version is less relevant to those who want to simulate the Vietnam War because of the upgrades it received after the war.  But, if you want to simulate something from the late 70's into the 80's, the version we are getting should be right at home.  It all depends on what you want to simulate as to what is relevant.  Another example of the modern version not being relevant is the F-14B vs the Early A.  The A model was featured in movies like Top Gun and The Final Countdown as well as the Gulf of Sidra incidents.  The more modern B model has no place in those scenarios.

If were just talking personal preference, then I totally get you. I just find it weird when its some times sounds like people try to make that objective statements, like "this is the more relevant version".

Honestly, I can see both of it. In some scenarios I love modern tech and the complex battle field it creates, but also really enjoy the cold war stuff for its own reasons (hence im super excited for F-4). Or WW2, I loved IL2 sturmovik so much back in the day, and I was rarely flying the best version of those old planes.  

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Stackup:

Yes they flew in more places than Vietnam and served with many countries.  However, not all export F-4E's had slats.  If we want to simulate an F-4EJ for instance, or even the F-4E as it debuted in Vietnam, we would need a more historical (older) version with the hard wing.  That doesn't mean the one we are getting is bad or irrelevant by any means, but it IS irrelevant to those scenarios unless you use your imagination.

In the same way, I hope the Naval F-4 is a J and not an S because the J has a hard wing and was also exported to the UK.  To me an S would be pointless since it was overshadowed by the F-14 and the F-4 saw the vast majority of it's USN action in Vietnam, so I would prefer a version that fits that timeframe.

Personally I feel like the slats are a big and significant evolutionary step in the F-4s history, it would be a real shame to not have them. Especially considering this is gonna be the ultimative simulation of the F-4 for the foreseeable future.

HB has said they would like to make the Navy F-4 the J and the S variant though, so both unslatted and slatted. So thats pretty cool!

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Temetre

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

“Historical version” can simply mean “version that had the biggest impact on history” or “version that made the aircraft more widely known and/or appreciated”, or more likely “version that is no longer in use today or recently”

F-4D / hardwing F-4E because Vietnam, and AH-64A because Panama / Desert Storm.

Yes personal preference comes into play, but it’s often more than that. Many people were doubting the decision to send in helicopters on the opening night of Desert Storm but the Apache showed the doubters what it can do if employed correctly. That doesn’t mean that the -D is less relevant, but by that time the aircraft was more established so the general impact was different, if you get my meaning.

 

Also, many people here are not native English so might not always pick the perfect word in every circumstance. And to top it off, written communication isn’t always perfectly clear - by its very nature

[Temetre]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

“Historical version” can simply mean “version that had the biggest impact on history” or “version that made the aircraft more widely known and/or appreciated”, or more likely “version that is no longer in use today or recently”

F-4D / hardwing F-4E because Vietnam, and AH-64A because Panama / Desert Storm.

Yes personal preference comes into play, but it’s often more than that. Many people were doubting the decision to send in helicopters on the opening night of Desert Storm but the Apache showed the doubters what it can do if employed correctly. That doesn’t mean that the -D is less relevant, but by that time the aircraft was more established so the general impact was different, if you get my meaning.

 

Also, many people here are not native English so might not always pick the perfect word in every circumstance. And to top it off, written communication isn’t always perfectly clear - by its very nature

I dont think its language difference, and more that people portraying subjective opinon as fact. Taking their view on which plane is the most "important" way too serious, to the point where its condescending towards others (see 'people always want the most modern and capable' bit).

Like, you even say the hardwing F-4E is more relevant than the slatted F-4E. You dont see how arbitary that is?

The D/hard E doesnt even line up with the factors you mention. Biggest historic impact? Well, neither version won the war. And the late vietnam F-4E is the result of all historic lessons for the USAF use of fighters. Most widely known/appreciated? Definitely late war F-4E. Not in service is not a factor here, but I think you could make in argument that planes in service are pretty relevant too.

And its not like the F-4E is even limited to the Vietnam war, its just that Americands tend be kinda obsessed with that period (for obvious reasons).

Edited July 28, 2023 by Temetre

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

portraying subjective opinon as fact

You misinterpreted my words. Let's just agree to disagree and celebrate the fact that there are so many differences among us humans  It keeps life interesting.
We all have different tastes and preferences, and luckily so!