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

[1BRAVO9]

Someone mentioned on another platform (I think Facebook) that a smart, savvy business would look at the F-15E coming out and its timeline and try to beat their release date.

The unexpected release during a period where buyers are excited would steal Razbam's thunder for sure.

It would be nice if Heatblur saw that opportunity and seized it.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, 1BRAVO9 said:

would steal Razbam's thunder for sure

Yes, but in the end every third party is developing for the same sandbox, and we are all here for the same reason. If both were independent platforms, then yes, but I think for DCS it might be different. Or perhaps that's just my good nature talking...

[Stackup]

Year of the Phantom

[1BRAVO9]

11 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Yes, but in the end every third party is developing for the same sandbox, and we are all here for the same reason. If both were independent platforms, then yes, but I think for DCS it might be different. Or perhaps that's just my good nature talking...

I'm just saying when you have a game that has multiple independent developers competition can be a good thing for the consumer and a smart business model would use the competition and player hype to their advantage.

They would be foolish not to.

Think about it, $70 -$80 is a good chunk of money for some people to drop on a game module and probably are only willing or only have the cash for one or the other. Whoever comes first will get that segment of the player base, the other will "suffer" from it.

Right now, from all of the hype, there are players with cash in hand ready to buy a module, regardless of the business it would be crazy from a business standpoint not to try to take advantage of that situation.

Edited May 29, 2023 by 1BRAVO9

[freehand]

Things like that do not or work or happen in the DCS community and I hope will never happen.

[1BRAVO9]

Just now, freehand said:

Things like that do not or work or happen in the DCS community and I hope will never happen.

 

What's so bad about competition?

What do you find so negative about two independent companies competing for your business?

 

[Gunfreak]

Heatblur has said they do not take other moduals into account when working on a relase date(this was said when someone was afraid the F4 would be pushed back as to not be released close to the F15)

[ThorBrasil]

 

[MysteriousHonza]

On 5/28/2023 at 10:33 PM, jaguara5 said:

I have the (bad) feeling that Phantom's hype train (preview videos) will start officially it's journey only after SE's release. 

it will start next year . I think it was few months ago? They said either on FB or forum that RWR is holding them at that point and i dont believe it takes months to complete rather basic RWR which doesnt even show vehicle type of the emmitor. It would be really nice of them to atleast tell us, where they are and what remains and how its going on. We dont need dates, just info in which stage and how far it is...

[Temetre]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb MysteriousHonza:

and i dont believe it takes months to complete rather basic RWR which doesnt even show vehicle type of the emmitor

The F-14s RWR simulation is afaik the only one in DCS thats actually accurate? Way more complex than any other ive seen, at least.

And IIRC theyre also building up an entire library of RWR sounds.

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

And IIRC theyre also building up an entire library of RWR sounds.

Yeah, my limited understanding of the early RWRs in the F-4 (and also Early F-14A that hasn't released yet) is that they show an azimuth line to the radar and use tones instead of icons to tell the flight crew what radar it is.  It will be interesting to have to learn the difference in sound between the different radars to determine if it's a SAM or aircraft and then what kind.  

[MadCartographer]

Both of my favorite planes coming to DCS soon.
F4 Phantom
F4 Corsair

I am a happy camper.

[Temetre]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb Stackup:

Yeah, my limited understanding of the early RWRs in the F-4 (and also Early F-14A that hasn't released yet) is that they show an azimuth line to the radar and use tones instead of icons to tell the flight crew what radar it is.  It will be interesting to have to learn the difference in sound between the different radars to determine if it's a SAM or aircraft and then what kind.  

I dont think they show the line on the radar, but they show a line on the RWR, showing vaguely where the RWRs think the radar impulse is coming from. Kinda like the F-14s RWR, except with flashing lines instead of names.

There might be also some audio signal you could listen too; eg in the A4-Skyhawk you only got audio RWR, but its possible to tell radar/locks by how they sounds. Its weird, but thats probably how your RIO could tell what aircraft a signal is. Probably the database being built up currently.

Also makes me wonder how itll rate "strength" of signal, search mode vs SST, or when theres lot of signals at once. I could imagine that its really complicated.

[MysteriousHonza]

37 minutes ago, Temetre said:

I dont think they show the line on the radar, but they show a line on the RWR, showing vaguely where the RWRs think the radar impulse is coming from. Kinda like the F-14s RWR, except with flashing lines instead of names.

There might be also some audio signal you could listen too; eg in the A4-Skyhawk you only got audio RWR, but its possible to tell radar/locks by how they sounds. Its weird, but thats probably how your RIO could tell what aircraft a signal is. Probably the database being built up currently.

Also makes me wonder how itll rate "strength" of signal, search mode vs SST, or when theres lot of signals at once. I could imagine that its really complicated.

It really isnt, additionally it could pick only certain radars. You wouldnt get anything on it with many radars in DCS. It saw older ones like SA-2/3, zsu-23-4 and some plane radars. It can tell you if its ground, air or AAA with type of the lines, otherwise you need to listen how PRF sounds and determine what is actually looking at you. Its really close to what is on A-4 mod in case of sounds. IIRC, base ALR-45 cant even tell if there is SA-6, one of the most used SAMs in DCS. 
Its pretty much exactly this, only a bit more modern

 

nullNot to mention they started teasing APR-45 2 years ago.... 2 YEARS

Edited May 30, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[Temetre]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb MysteriousHonza:

It really isnt, additionally it could pick only certain radars. You wouldnt get anything on it with many radars in DCS. It saw older ones like SA-2/3, zsu-23-4 and some plane radars. It can tell you if its ground, air or AAA with type of the lines, otherwise you need to listen. 

Hm, did the SPO-10 or so of the Mig-21 not tell the difference between search radar mode and lock? Or do I misremember, was that unrealistic? Did a trial, cant remember anymore (it was so useless lol).

If the F4 can tell vague range and even basic type, then thats already a big plus imo. Gonna be interesting if theres some radars it just cant detect tho lol.

[MysteriousHonza]

3 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Hm, did the SPO-10 or so of the Mig-21 not tell the difference between search radar mode and lock? Or do I misremember, was that unrealistic? Did a trial, cant remember anymore (it was so useless lol).

If the F4 can tell vague range and even basic type, then thats already a big plus imo. Gonna be interesting if theres some radars it just cant detect tho lol.

It cant tell range, no RWR can realistically tell range, only how strong the signal is and thats guessing a lot (in case of DCS ones, dunno about uber moder stuff in 5th gens).
SPO-10 can tell if youre in STT.

[Temetre]

vor 22 Minuten schrieb MysteriousHonza:

It cant tell range, no RWR can realistically tell range, only how strong the signal is and thats guessing a lot (in case of DCS ones, dunno about uber moder stuff in 5th gens).
SPO-10 can tell if youre in STT.

Ah, then I misunderstood you. I know the F-14, which is apparently quite realistic, can make 3 distinctions with enemy fighters:

1. Unlikely to be in threat range

2. Inside of threat range

3. Likely engaging the aircraft, or already locked

Its actually surprising to me how much of a guess the RWR could make about the engagement distance of the enemy aircrafts.

My guess for 5ths gen would be some kind of triangulation/sensor fusion stuff. Treat RWR signals as a potential track, allowing the plane to collect data. F16 already does it with stationary targets and the HAT pod. Ofc AESA radars are apparently harder to precisely detect by RWR, so its gonna be an arms race between detection identification I suppose.

Also thanks for the video, gonna watch it later. Those old "tutorial videos" are fun xD 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Temetre

[Omega417]

Its all about # of antennas, sensitivity, and filters.

[Stackup]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

I dont think they show the line on the radar, but they show a line on the RWR, showing vaguely where the RWRs think the radar impulse is coming from.

That would be why I said it shows a line TO the radar.  Guess I should have clarified that.  Line to the radar station or aircraft it senses, not a line on the aircraft radar screen.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Stackup

[Temetre]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Omega417:

Its all about # of antennas, sensitivity, and filters.

And software^^

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Stackup:

That would be why I said it shows a line TO the radar.  Guess I should have clarified that.  Line to the radar station or aircraft it senses, not a line on the aircraft radar screen.

Oh yeah that makes sense!  

[_BringTheReign_]

 

23 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

i dont believe it takes months to complete rather basic RWR which doesnt even show vehicle type of the emmitor.

Based on their comments they are building a raw audio library for emitters which will integrate with DCS core. Between that and the physically based radar model, I think we're seeing revolutionary simulation overhauls, trying to integrate with core spaghetti code that's 20+ years old - I don't envy the team that has to deal with that, and I can imagine every five minute task takes an hour hahaha

 

[Raisuli]

What I really want right now is cockpit layout.  I'm rebuilding a couple panels on the simpit and want to make sure I have the F-4 covered.  Don't need the jet yet, and we can negotiate bindings after release, just need to make sure the right switches are there to set armaments...

Otherwise I've got more than enough to do flying other aircraft poorly.

[av8orDave]

On 5/29/2023 at 7:26 PM, 1BRAVO9 said:

I'm just saying when you have a game that has multiple independent developers competition can be a good thing for the consumer and a smart business model would use the competition and player hype to their advantage.

They would be foolish not to.

Think about it, $70 -$80 is a good chunk of money for some people to drop on a game module and probably are only willing or only have the cash for one or the other. Whoever comes first will get that segment of the player base, the other will "suffer" from it.

Right now, from all of the hype, there are players with cash in hand ready to buy a module, regardless of the business it would be crazy from a business standpoint not to try to take advantage of that situation.

 

Just wanted to chime in and say I appreciate your post. I've long thought that the best business model for consumers would be one where multiple developers are effectively competing on a free-market for your business / module sales. 

This would improve the quality of the modules (wouldn't everyone want to buy from the developer who consistently makes a quality product?), it would improve the development pace (wouldn't the developer who wants to make money want to beat the developer who is competing for limited consumer spending?), it would improve developer communications & customer service, and it would hopefully improve the atrocious launch practices currently prevalent in the community.

I assume this isn't how it is working... I assume that ED holds the key to the platform, and gets a cut of every module sale. Having said this, they'd want to maximize sales for every module, and with consumer spending being limited, "allowing" multiple developers to launch modules at the same time could limit total sales potential; this could result in a model where there is an incentive to "coordinate" launch timing across developers.

I'll emphasize that I don't know that this is the model or what happens, but it doesn't seem like a major leap. My assumption is that what happened on the F-15E is that it was planned for June, and when it was realized this could limit summer sale orders (by soaking up the limited consumer dollars), they chose to push it out from this timeframe. Again, only speculation.

I don't know why some folks (like the guy above who responded to your post) hope a "free-market" could never happen in this community, as I suspect the current competition-limiting model is partly to blame for the sometimes questionable quality, glacial development pace, and wacky launch practices we see.

Thesis over! I'm a long-time flight simmer and I want to see ED and the developers succeed!

Edited May 31, 2023 by davidrbarnette

[1BRAVO9]

1 hour ago, davidrbarnette said:

Just wanted to chime in and say I appreciate your post. I've long thought that the best business model for consumers would be one where multiple developers are effectively competing on a free-market for your business / module sales. 

This would improve the quality of the modules (wouldn't everyone want to buy from the developer who consistently makes a quality product?), it would improve the development pace (wouldn't the developer who wants to make money want to beat the developer who is competing for limited consumer spending?), it would improve developer communications & customer service, and it would hopefully improve the atrocious launch practices currently prevalent in the community.

I assume this isn't how it is working... I assume that ED holds the key to the platform, and gets a cut of every module sale. Having said this, they'd want to maximize sales for every module, and with consumer spending being limited, "allowing" multiple developers to launch modules at the same time could limit total sales potential; this could result in a model where there is an incentive to "coordinate" launch timing across developers.

I'll emphasize that I don't know that this is the model or what happens, but it doesn't seem like a major leap. My assumption is that what happened on the F-15E is that it was planned for June, and when it was realized this could limit summer sale orders (by soaking up the limited consumer dollars), they chose to push it out from this timeframe. Again, only speculation.

I don't know why some folks (like the guy above who responded to your post) hope a "free-market" could never happen in this community, as I suspect the current competition-limiting model is partly to blame for the sometimes questionable quality, glacial development pace, and wacky launch practices we see.

Thesis over! I'm a long-time flight simmer and I want to see ED and the developers succeed!

 

Thanks for the response.

 

You are spot on, you elaborated on everything I was implying and alluding to.

 

Just like you I was bewildered by the guy's response. That's why I asked him to explain.

 

Maybe there is a reason he didn't.  

[DSplayer]

Fresh from the HB Discord