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

[Temetre]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

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!

Yeah maybe im attributing something ive seen elsewhere to these comments.

No harm intended  

[Northstar98]

On 7/27/2023 at 4:14 PM, 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 don't think it's a fallacy - you can objectively determine what aircraft were involved in what real world operation and how much of a historical impact that operation had compared to others.

For example, if an aircraft or aircraft variant has seen more action (either within a conflict or has seen action in multiple conflicts), had a longer service life (though that's a difficult metric to really judge for aircraft that haven't been retired yet), has more operators/is more prolifc etc, you can, at least somewhat, objectively determine what aircraft is more "historically relevant" (though it may become more difficult with some aircraft and it'll inevitably become more subjective when deciding the weights of the various factors). To name a fairly easy example, a CH-47C or D is more historically significant than say, a CH-47J.

When it comes to DCS, you can objectively determine which is more relevant from a similar standpoint (only here it's arguably more clear) - if you have a theatre and a coherent set of assets that module x will fit into, but not for module y, then you can objectively state that module x is more relevant to DCS (at least from this perspective) in its current state than module y.

However, just because you can (at least somewhat, for at least some aircraft) objectively determine which aircraft is more historically relevant, that doesn't mean anybody needs to care about historical relevance or any particular historical scenario. For some people (like me) it does matter, but it equally doesn't matter for others (probably the majority even) and that's where it's absolutely subjective and neither is necessarily more valid than the other. An aircraft doesn't have to be historically relevant or well fitting for it to be desireable.

Personally, I would agree that Vietnam is probably the most relevant conflict for the Phantom. I'd agree it's probably what it's most famous for and I imagine a lot of F-4 fans here probably have Vietnam relevant versions at the top of their list. However, for me, I don't really care much for Vietnam - I'm much more interested in late Cold War gone hot, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for which the F-4Es announced by HB are the most relevant versions.

EDIT: And as a bonus, we have a more coherent set of units that would fit the F-4E than really any other version (apart from the G, which would be more difficult to model), though that isn't really the case with maps, where we've got maps relevant for the Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iranian F-4Es and British F-4Ms with the South Atlantic, but not a lot of complementary assets.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Northstar98

[SgtPappy]

To add to this, I do like the idea of variants of jets that are very very similar to the versions that fought during their most famous conflicts, but are a bit more modern such that they can fit into later scenarios too.

I think it's a prudent business model to have that versatility so we can, for example, choose the F-4E which is almost identical to the final F-4E's in Vietnam that saw combat with the USAF. At the same time, they work well as the Israeli 1973 F-4's while having the option for both AIM-7E, AIM-7F (maybe?) and the Pave Spike to use in late 70's early 80's servers such that they won't get absolutely clobbered by the 80's assets and plane set.

Like some others, I personally prefer the ones that fit Vietnam and the Middle East wars exactly, but I can understand and am fond of the idea of making the modules more playable in different environments because it helps more people get into the hobby. As an MP-enthusiast, this is paramount for my own enjoyment.

[Temetre]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Northstar98:

I don't think it's a fallacy - you can objectively determine what aircraft were involved in what real world operation and how much of a historical impact that operation had compared to others.

Im not saying people just "make up" what is the meaningful variant. They have 100% reason to think so. I was more on about how those reasons, the factors themselves with which you judge relevance of an aircraft, can be subjective.

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Northstar98:

Personally, I would agree that Vietnam is probably the most relevant conflict for the Phantom. I'd agree it's probably what it's most famous for and I imagine a lot of F-4 fans here probably have Vietnam relevant versions at the top of their list. However, for me, I don't really care much for Vietnam - I'm much more interested in late Cold War gone hot, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for which the F-4Es announced by HB are the most relevant versions.

Eg its not hard to make an argument that Vietnam was very close to the planes history. But thats not an unassailable argument either. Is Israels use of the F-4 less relevant than the US use of the F-4 in Vietnam? Thats the kinda question where I dont think you can really make a clear judgement. And how relevant is the difference between the used variants? Can we have one to represent multiple types of F-4s?

Purely personally I like the F-4E because it can portray so many variants, can be limited to what job I want. Especially the export models are often based on the E too (tho not all with slats apparently).

 

But honestly most people in this thread were perfectly reasonable about that when asked more about their view. Original comment that made me write my thing was actually the earlier one saying:

"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"

Which I guess slightly triggered me and made be a bit more presumptious than I shouldve been.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb SgtPappy:

To add to this, I do like the idea of variants of jets that are very very similar to the versions that fought during their most famous conflicts, but are a bit more modern such that they can fit into later scenarios too.

I think it's a prudent business model to have that versatility so we can, for example, choose the F-4E which is almost identical to the final F-4E's in Vietnam that saw combat with the USAF. At the same time, they work well as the Israeli 1973 F-4's while having the option for both AIM-7E, AIM-7F (maybe?) and the Pave Spike to use in late 70's early 80's servers such that they won't get absolutely clobbered by the 80's assets and plane set.

Like some others, I personally prefer the ones that fit Vietnam and the Middle East wars exactly, but I can understand and am fond of the idea of making the modules more playable in different environments because it helps more people get into the hobby. As an MP-enthusiast, this is paramount for my own enjoyment.

Well put, but to be fair, its not like were getting an F-4F ICE, its still gonna be a ~75s aircraft and arguably the most famous interation^^

Personally I think its important to have a "big variant" like the F-4E, rather than a more specifc niche model, because this is gonna be the only big F-4 simulation for a long time. If HB didnt make an F-4 with slats, for example, then we'd never get the fly a slatted F-4 for the foreseeable future. A big part of the puzzle that is the F-4s story would be missing.

The '85 is less relevant for histroical conflicts probably, but its a very intresting evolution of avionics, and likely give F-4 a bigger role as strike-aircraft in later scenarios in DCS. Likely a lot easier to do than eg simulating an F-4D instead.^^

 

IMO its actually a nice surprise how many variants well get. Not just the two F-4Es, but also a naval one, which will likely include the unslatted J and the S. And if the F-4 is highly succesful, and HB is interested, maybe we gonna get later addons for different variants?

Edited July 29, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:27 PM, Temetre said:

Eg its not hard to make an argument that Vietnam was very close to the planes history. But thats not an unassailable argument either. Is Israels use of the F-4 less relevant than the US use of the F-4 in Vietnam? Thats the kinda question where I dont think you can really make a clear judgement.

Yeah - with you there, how you determine which conflict or scenario or operator, or whatever is going to be more subjective. I think you can argue one way or another and like I said, historical relevancy doesn't necessarily have to be a factor (even if it is for me).

When it comes to DCS I'd even say that an Israeli variant would be quite relevant seeing as we have 2 appropriate maps, but as of yet no map of Vietnam.

Personally, I'm very happy with HB's decision - it's the most relevant Phantom for my personal use case and one that would fit many assets (though notably not really maps, unless you're standing in for other F-4E operators - we'd probably need a late Cold War Germany map for that).

I also agree with you on the F-4E being desireable due to being very prolific, it does give you at least a bit more flexibility as a stand-in for other operators.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Northstar98
learning to type properly

[Gunfreak]

The F4E with "modern" RWR is still closer to F4E with old RWR or even an F4D then say the F16C block 50 is to an F16A block 10.

[Kalasnkova74]

19 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

To add to this, I do like the idea of variants of jets that are very very similar to the versions that fought during their most famous conflicts, but are a bit more modern such that they can fit into later scenarios too.

I think it's a prudent business model to have that versatility so we can, for example, choose the F-4E which is almost identical to the final F-4E's in Vietnam that saw combat with the USAF. At the same time, they work well as the Israeli 1973 F-4's while having the option for both AIM-7E, AIM-7F (maybe?) and the Pave Spike to use in late 70's early 80's servers such that they won't get absolutely clobbered by the 80's assets and plane set.

Like some others, I personally prefer the ones that fit Vietnam and the Middle East wars exactly, but I can understand and am fond of the idea of making the modules more playable in different environments because it helps more people get into the hobby. As an MP-enthusiast, this is paramount for my own enjoyment.

I’ll point out HB does not feature the only DCS  F-4 Phantom II module. Yes, the VSN Phantom II mods have flaws, but that team’s done a great job with it so far and have patched many of the issues it had at the start. With Heatblurs F-4E covering the Phantom IIs later iteration with slats, early PGMs, and so on VSN is free to gradually improve the F-4B/F-4C to deliver the historical Phantom experience. 
 

Having the F-4B/F-4C mod -which I hope one day will equal the A-4 in detail and popularity- will deliver the historical F-4 experience alongside the later F-4E. With both modules in play, everyone should be able to fly a Phantom II they want. 

[JOEM423]

Can we please have this Aircraft already, Including the Naval Versions!!!

[Indianajon]

I was uncertain where to ask these so I thought sod it and have put them here. One is a specific heatblur question,  the other is a more general aviation one.

So first. With regards Jester 2.0, is it going to be the same voice actor? The same cheekiness, etc or is the Jester term simply a reference to the AI script? I have read lots but nothing specific about who is voicing him.

Second, totally un-heatblur related but the imagery had me thinking.... did the Phantom tail hook have any issues with thermal shock damage? It's placement between the cans must have subjected it to pretty intense temperature variations. Whilst I know designers are smart and there is probably a simple answer, was there ever any incidents of damage, breakages etc to the hook due to thermal stress and/or did it reduce the 'life' of the hook?

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, Indianajon said:

I was uncertain where to ask these so I thought sod it and have put them here. One is a specific heatblur question,  the other is a more general aviation one.

So first. With regards Jester 2.0, is it going to be the same voice actor? The same cheekiness, etc or is the Jester term simply a reference to the AI script? I have read lots but nothing specific about who is voicing him.

Second, totally un-heatblur related but the imagery had me thinking.... did the Phantom tail hook have any issues with thermal shock damage? It's placement between the cans must have subjected it to pretty intense temperature variations. Whilst I know designers are smart and there is probably a simple answer, was there ever any incidents of damage, breakages etc to the hook due to thermal stress and/or did it reduce the 'life' of the hook?

Regarding Jester2, who knows? Should have the same general “feel” to him though, being from the same stable.

The hook - heavy billet stainless steel and never have I seen one suffer from adverse heating, the back end shingles are also through and through tough as nails. They will discolour, they will tarnish, and including the inboard sections of the stab, give each individual F-4 a sort of fingerprint - no two are exactly the same! 

[RevampedGrunt]

2 hours ago, Indianajon said:

I was uncertain where to ask these so I thought sod it and have put them here. One is a specific heatblur question,  the other is a more general aviation one.

So first. With regards Jester 2.0, is it going to be the same voice actor? The same cheekiness, etc or is the Jester term simply a reference to the AI script? I have read lots but nothing specific about who is voicing him.

Second, totally un-heatblur related but the imagery had me thinking.... did the Phantom tail hook have any issues with thermal shock damage? It's placement between the cans must have subjected it to pretty intense temperature variations. Whilst I know designers are smart and there is probably a simple answer, was there ever any incidents of damage, breakages etc to the hook due to thermal stress and/or did it reduce the 'life' of the hook?

From what I recall, voice lines will not change, anything new will be done by the same VA.

[Raisuli]

30 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

Regarding Jester2, who knows? Should have the same general “feel” to him though, being from the same stable.

The hook - heavy billet stainless steel and never have I seen one suffer from adverse heating, the back end shingles are also through and through tough as nails. They will discolour, they will tarnish, and including the inboard sections of the stab, give each individual F-4 a sort of fingerprint - no two are exactly the same! 

So, pardon while I extend that question, is the underlying structure still aluminum?  Did they use something capable of handling higher heat, or a special alloy with a higher tolerance for plastic deformation at high temperatures?  Is the airflow (or lack of it) enough to keep those temperatures under control?

I've always looked at those heat resistant panels (shingles?) and wondered about the materials science behind managing the temperature gradients.  Intuitively just having the afterburner flame that close they'd get hot, but intuitively there's airflow around the skin of the fuselage, and that's not necessarily true!  Intuition often leads to bad assumptions...

Edited August 14, 2023 by Raisuli

[G.J.S]

There is only really a heat problem on the ground, or at speeds below around 80kts. Above that, the airflow plays around the rear fuselage sufficiently to allow some natural cooling to take effect, even in blower. Yes, the grade of metals used does take into account the expected heat soaking, but it’s perfectly doable. The underlying structure is generally the same, lightweight but strong.

[Smyth]

6 hours ago, Raisuli said:

So, pardon while I extend that question, is the underlying structure still aluminum?  Did they use something capable of handling higher heat, or a special alloy with a higher tolerance for plastic deformation at high temperatures?  Is the airflow (or lack of it) enough to keep those temperatures under control?

I've always looked at those heat resistant panels (shingles?) and wondered about the materials science behind managing the temperature gradients.  Intuitively just having the afterburner flame that close they'd get hot, but intuitively there's airflow around the skin of the fuselage, and that's not necessarily true!  Intuition often leads to bad assumptions...

From the horse's mouth (McDonnell) circa 1973:

"The aft fuselage is constructed of aluminum with the exception of the area subjected to the engine exhaust which is fabricated of stainless steel, Hastelloy X and titanium. Ventilation air and insulation are used where needed to control the temperature of the primary structure"

[Omega417]

If i remember right the "Shingles" also have bleed air flowing over them on the inside of the structure, the exit for the bleed air is around the drag cute and the extreme end of the Jet. This creates that awesome detail where the back end of the F-4 looks like it is smiling.

[G.J.S]

6 hours ago, Omega417 said:

If i remember right the "Shingles" also have bleed air flowing over them on the inside of the structure, the exit for the bleed air is around the drag cute and the extreme end of the Jet. This creates that awesome detail where the back end of the F-4 looks like it is smiling.

Can’t speak for other variants, but there were no vents on the drag chute door that I remember. Nav light on the door, fuel vent above the door, and below, just in line with the end of the hook, we’re two vents, one either side facing downward.

[Gunfreak]

That reminds me. The drag chutes in DCS look kinda, well not fantastic. 

Can we expect some Heatblur magic that will push the envelope on dragchute graphics and physics.

[RevampedGrunt]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

That reminds me. The drag chutes in DCS look kinda, well not fantastic. 

Can we expect some Heatblur magic that will push the envelope on dragchute graphics and physics.

I doubt we'll see much change aside from the chute model looking better.

[Raisuli]

12 minutes ago, RevampedGrunt said:

I doubt we'll see much change aside from the chute model looking better.

Personally I spend an enormous amount of time looking at the chute graphics; heck, I eject on the runway so I can stare at it laying there.  Sometimes I set up a chair and an endless line of AI aircraft so I can watch the chutes deploy.  That's about 80% of my game enjoyment, so it would make sense if HB put a ton of time into the chute and not worry about trivial stuff like flight models and getting SkyNet integrated into Clown, AKA Jester Jr.. 

Oh, and internal equipment bays.  I don't fly the KA-50, I stand around and marvel at the equipment bays.  That's the other 60%

Seriously, we need to get the VA to record a few iterations of lines from the Terminator series.  SkyNet, after all...  Can you imagine the posts after he says 'Your terminated' when an AC is shot down, or 'I'll be back' when he punches out?  Terminator predates Flop Gun by a couple years, so if his lines are mid-80's pop culture...

[juvat22]

i wonder where the generatur switches and lights are gone? tacan-panel is also in front of comm-nav-panel?

Edited August 16, 2023 by juvat22

[RevampedGrunt]

9 minutes ago, juvat22 said:

i wonder where the generatur switches and lights are gone? tacan-panel is also in front of comm-nav-panel?

 

It must be on the right side still, there's quite a bit of that panel that we don't see yet so who knows what's in there... Unless you've got a chart on hand that shows everything (I am positive there is but not sure where it's at).

[Art-J]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:31 PM, Indianajon said:

So first. With regards Jester 2.0, is it going to be the same voice actor? The same cheekiness, etc or is the Jester term simply a reference to the AI script? I have read lots but nothing specific about who is voicing him.

IronMike answers this question in this post (and remaining ones in the linked thread):

 

[Schmidtfire]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:56 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

I’ll point out HB does not feature the only DCS  F-4 Phantom II module. Yes, the VSN Phantom II mods have flaws, but that team’s done a great job with it so far and have patched many of the issues it had at the start. With Heatblurs F-4E covering the Phantom IIs later iteration with slats, early PGMs, and so on VSN is free to gradually improve the F-4B/F-4C to deliver the historical Phantom experience. 
 

Having the F-4B/F-4C mod -which I hope one day will equal the A-4 in detail and popularity- will deliver the historical F-4 experience alongside the later F-4E. With both modules in play, everyone should be able to fly a Phantom II they want. 

HB does feature the only DCS F-4 Phantom II module.

Not to take anything away from VSN, they have done a good job. But there is a vast difference between a mod and a module.

Even the best of mods (like A-4) is not really comparable to a commercial product with full SDK and access to the ED team. It sort of looks like the real deal, but isn’t. Also, running mods risk messing up DCS World on different levels, so it’s not for everyone.

[Gunfreak]

Yeah I'd rather fly the F4E with no gun ammo pretending to be an D or C then fly thr VSN one.

You don't go back to microwave hot pocket after eating a steak. And that's not on VSN, they do as well as they can being outside of the DCS partnership with what resources they have. I would actually love for them to go full 3rd party and do the f104 or f105 as a full fidelity 3rd party modual.