With age comes accuracy?

[Smashy]

Is it easier to accurately simulate older aircraft, avionics, sensors and weapons when compared to a newer platform?

For modules like the Hornet, F-15E, and Apache I imagine a lot of details are fudged over either intentionally or because reliable unclassified data sources simply aren't available.

Would this be the case with the F-4E?  As awesome as the Phantom looks, it's even more exciting to think HB would be delivering as accurate a sim experience as possible.  Do unclassified data sources exist for a platform as old as the F-4E?

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Smashy said:

Is it easier to accurately simulate older aircraft, avionics, sensors and weapons when compared to a newer platform?

For modules like the Hornet, F-15E, and Apache I imagine a lot of details are fudged over either intentionally or because reliable unclassified data sources simply aren't available.

Would this be the case with the F-4E?  As awesome as the Phantom looks, it's even more exciting to think HB would be delivering as accurate a sim experience as possible.  Do unclassified data sources exist for a platform as old as the F-4E?

It would be easier, first there is the issue of classified vs open source documents. There are clearly some open source documents for the F-15E otherwise we wouldn't be getting it however there are not enough for the Su-27 Flanker.  Something the same age as the F-4E is way less likly to have something classified about it, this is the reason that we have a FF MiG-21 Bis but we might never get a FF Flanker or Fulcrum unless something dramatically changes. Then on the flipside if something is too old their might be a chance that the necessary documents weren't saved which people feard would be the case with the Thud, that might be wrong and I hope it is. 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Smashy said:

Is it easier to accurately simulate older aircraft, avionics, sensors and weapons when compared to a newer platform?

For modules like the Hornet, F-15E, and Apache I imagine a lot of details are fudged over either intentionally or because reliable unclassified data sources simply aren't available.

Would this be the case with the F-4E?  As awesome as the Phantom looks, it's even more exciting to think HB would be delivering as accurate a sim experience as possible.  Do unclassified data sources exist for a platform as old as the F-4E?

The challenge changes from “information unavailable due to political reasons” (classification , government policy around reproducing Chinese and Russian aircraft, etc) to “information unavailable due to the passage of time”.

The F-4E & MiG-21Bis are unique in that they’ve been flying continuously since the Cold War (and are still in service in the F-4s case) , so theres people alive today who worked on those jets and can speak to the capabilities.

Hardware like the MiG-19, F-105, F-101, etc hasn’t seen squadron service for over 30 years. Mechanics, weapons loaders, and pilots have all long since retired or passed away. Sure, the paperwork’s declassified (in some cases), but back in the day how a system worked on the jet and how it worked on paper tended to be different. 
 

Someone once referred to DCS modules as museum artifacts you can fly at home, and I think there’s truth to that. One day all of us will be gone, and so it goes for anyone who flew or worked on the F-4E (and other jets). But as long as there’s organized civilization, the DCS module will endure for future generations to experience. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Kalasnkova74

[Dragon1-1]

3 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Mechanics, weapons loaders, and pilots have all long since retired or passed away.

Retired, yes, but this only means they have all the time in the world to work on flight sims, so this actually helps. I'd recon there are plenty of Thud and MiG-19 pilots and techs still alive and kicking, although they're not necessarily easily reachable. This only really starts to be a problem when you get to WWII times, and even then, the are stories of former Luftwaffe experten who took our Messer and Focke Wulf for a swing (apparently, they liked the DCS version). Unless you're doing an obscure design, or one dating back to early WWII, reference material tends to be pretty available. One exception is anything Japanese, but that's mostly because Japan deliberately destroyed a lot of their documentation, so it's rather sparse (though possible to find for the most notable designs).

Fully agreed about DCS being a virtual museum. This is why I see accuracy as so important, as we're basically virtually preserving the aircraft for future generations. Unlike regular museums, where they mostly sit around and maybe fly around occasionally, in DCS we can experience them in their natural environment, flying and fighting like they were meant to. P-51s might still be flying around for a long time, but flying them with functional guns is going to be something that, if ever attempted at all, would be a special event requiring a massive pile of firearm and aviation law waivers, and unlikely to ever happen for anything less famous than P-51 or Spitfire.

[303_Kermit]

7 hours ago, Smashy said:

Do unclassified data sources exist for a platform as old as the F-4E?

Yes. There's a lot. Easy to find even by Google search. That's why CW planes are so brilliant. There still plenty of them, there are pilots flying them, and veterans remembering them, and they're no more top secret.

Edited November 1, 2023 by 303_Kermit