Carrier version for reduced price?

[Goetsch]

I don't think it's realistic to achieve in the short term, and for the Navy's F4, it needs to improve the current CV59

We need to implement bridle launch in DCS...

[Bremspropeller]

I think the bridle issue might be resolved quite easy. You hit U (or whatever you've mapped) and the bridle/ holdback magicly appears. Not purdy, but it's a good enough first implementation.

 

As an addendum to what I wrote earlier on the B/N and J/S discussion:

I don't want to trash the J, but people need to do a reality check here. First, the vanilla, pre-mod AWG-10 was a pretty sh1tty system that was down a lot and didn't hold together very well under ops conditions. Somewhat like the DIANE on the A-6A.

The second issue is that even post-mod and with the later AWG-10A and B, you still had a cr@ppy 70s Sparrow to do the shooting. Now, you could do a mexican volley and squeeze off all four (six) of them, but that's not quite the path to success either.

 

So if you want to p0wn people on ECW, a Beeline B or the N might actually float your boat quite well. I'm not particularily favoring one over the other. Just want to be fair towards both the Navy birds.

[Stackup]

On 1/9/2024 at 12:43 AM, Goetsch said:

We need to implement bridle launch in DCS...

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think the bridle issue might be resolved quite easy. You hit U (or whatever you've mapped) and the bridle/ holdback magicly appears. Not purdy, but it's a good enough first implementation.

VSN has been doing this since the initial version of their F-4 mod.  It's not perfect by any means, but it's a free mod.  Heatblur should have no real trouble implementing this feature for their paid naval F-4.

[VDV]

will we get NAVY variant of F-4 and will it be carrier capable?

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, VDV said:

will we get NAVY variant of F-4 and will it be carrier capable?

 

[rfxcasey]

I'll chime in against my better judgement. I suspect that the likelihood of a naval variant is very slim unfortunately. From what I've read Heatblur has stated work, if any, on a naval variant would start only AFTER the F-4E is "complete", not released. Given many modules like the F/A-18 Hornet and F-16 Falcon have/had been in early access for years, I don't suspect the F-4E will be considered "complete" in no less than 4 years. I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps servers like Enigma's cold war would include both the Heatblur F-4E AND the VSN made naval variants. The VSN F-4 is very nice now that they "fixed" the flight model, it's a lot of fun to fly and fight in.

[SgtPappy]

6 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

I'll chime in against my better judgement. I suspect that the likelihood of a naval variant is very slim unfortunately. From what I've read Heatblur has stated work, if any, on a naval variant would start only AFTER the F-4E is "complete", not released. Given many modules like the F/A-18 Hornet and F-16 Falcon have/had been in early access for years, I don't suspect the F-4E will be considered "complete" in no less than 4 years. I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps servers like Enigma's cold war would include both the Heatblur F-4E AND the VSN made naval variants. The VSN F-4 is very nice now that they "fixed" the flight model, it's a lot of fun to fly and fight in.

I mean, module makers don't just make a few modules then stop forever. They make one every, say 5-10 years (which yes, is an immensely long time) but that's how games work right? This is assuming the game continues to be profitable enough and I've been told the community is growing.

HB plans to make a Naval Phantom at some point in time, after the F-4E, Typhoon and A-6 in the same way ED made the F-16 about a decade after FC3. Then they made more modules. And then they made more.

The Naval F-4 isn't coming any time soon and I'm not going to sit here hyped for it because that would raise my blood pressure for the next several years, but it's equally illogical to assume it probably won't ever happen just because it won't happen now.

That said, please don't take this the wrong way - I might have misinterpreted what you mean, but I just wanted some of those who are not hopeful to hang on to a bit of hope. One day, it is likely to happen.

Edited January 17, 2024 by SgtPappy

[rfxcasey]

52 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

I mean, module makers don't just make a few modules then stop forever. They make one every, say 5-10 years (which yes, is an immensely long time) but that's how games work right? This is assuming the game continues to be profitable enough and I've been told the community is growing.

HB plans to make a Naval Phantom at some point in time, after the F-4E, Typhoon and A-6 in the same way ED made the F-16 about a decade after FC3. Then they made more modules. And then they made more.

The Naval F-4 isn't coming any time soon and I'm not going to sit here hyped for it because that would raise my blood pressure for the next several years, but it's equally illogical to assume it probably won't ever happen just because it won't happen now.

That said, please don't take this the wrong way - I might have misinterpreted what you mean, but I just wanted some of those who are not hopeful to hang on to a bit of hope. One day, it is likely to happen.

 

Perhaps, but just because they keep making modules doesn't mean a naval Phantom II will be one of them. To the best of my knowledge HB has only said they're considering it but nothing carved in stone.

[Stackup]

44 minutes ago, rfxcasey said:

To the best of my knowledge HB has only said they're considering it but nothing carved in stone.

Q: Will there be a Navy F-4?
A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

This is very clear.  Will there be a navy F-4?  Yes.  It's right there in the FAQ.  Heatblur has said yes multiple times in this forum and their Discord and yet there are still those who continue to doubt that this is something that is happening.  Sure it will take years but every single DCS module has taken years to develop.

The thing Heatblur is considering as of conversations in the Discord is whether or not they can get data on the F-14B/U or even the D.  They aren't considering whether or not to make a Navy F-4 because they have already committed to it and said as much!

[RevampedGrunt]

For a team known for their interests in US naval aircraft, not doing a naval Phantom would be bewildering. I can't imagine that they themselves would want to skip the naval bird as well, especially with how much history the naval Phantoms have. 

[Bozon]

The situation with the Navy F-4 is somewhat unique. Navy F-4 will share a considerable amount of code with the F-4E, and much other code will just be modified from F-4E. Other important additions such as Jester are also shared. I can’t think of 2 other such closely inter-dependent modules. There is still a lot of work between them, but not like starting the F-4E from scratch.

All this means that “maturing” the F-4E module does contribute towards the Navy F-4 module. In addition HB stated that work on some of the modules is going to be parallelized, so their production queue is not strictly linear. HB have also started that F-4E will come out in a close to complete state, so I hope they will not leave it at “in development” state for years.

I would not hold my breath just yet since the F-4E is not even out yet. However, I am optimistic that a Navy F-4 is possible within up to 2 years.

I also suppose that it depends how well the F-4E sells, which affects the projected sales of F-4Navy and HB’s priorities/motivation accordingly.

[rfxcasey]

On 1/16/2024 at 11:39 PM, Stackup said:

Q: Will there be a Navy F-4?
A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

This is very clear.  Will there be a navy F-4?  Yes.  It's right there in the FAQ.  Heatblur has said yes multiple times in this forum and their Discord and yet there are still those who continue to doubt that this is something that is happening.  Sure it will take years but every single DCS module has taken years to develop.

The thing Heatblur is considering as of conversations in the Discord is whether or not they can get data on the F-14B/U or even the D.  They aren't considering whether or not to make a Navy F-4 because they have already committed to it and said as much!

Look I'm not going to argue with you, but there is no guarantee of anything no matter how much you want or wish there to be. "whether or not they can get data on the F-14B/U or even the D is a big IF and as we've all seen with the recent pandemic, things can change overnight. Changes in financial situations, new management with new priorities or even a company folding are not out of the realm of possibilities. Point is, there can potentially be a lot of "show stoppers" between NOW and THEN. To assert there will DEFINITELY be a naval version at this point in time is speculative.

 

On 1/17/2024 at 3:08 AM, Bozon said:

The situation with the Navy F-4 is somewhat unique. Navy F-4 will share a considerable amount of code with the F-4E, and much other code will just be modified from F-4E. Other important additions such as Jester are also shared. I can’t think of 2 other such closely inter-dependent modules. There is still a lot of work between them, but not like starting the F-4E from scratch.

All this means that “maturing” the F-4E module does contribute towards the Navy F-4 module. In addition HB stated that work on some of the modules is going to be parallelized, so their production queue is not strictly linear. HB have also started that F-4E will come out in a close to complete state, so I hope they will not leave it at “in development” state for years.

I would not hold my breath just yet since the F-4E is not even out yet. However, I am optimistic that a Navy F-4 is possible within up to 2 years.

I also suppose that it depends how well the F-4E sells, which affects the projected sales of F-4Navy and HB’s priorities/motivation accordingly.

This is a much more realistic assessment of the situation.

Edited February 16, 2024 by rfxcasey

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, rfxcasey said:

To assert there will DEFINITELY be a naval version at this point in time is speculative.

You asserted they were only considering making one though which is speculative on your part because there is a mountain of evidence of Heatblur saying they will and no evidence they won't except your market speculations and the slow march of time.

Edit:  But whatever, we can all make speculations and there will always be people who look at this stuff with an "I'll believe it when I can buy it" mentality and that's perfectly fine.  I just wish more people would have some semblance of hope that promises of modules to be made will be kept.  Timelines on the other hand can slip as seen with almost every release ever.

Edited January 17, 2024 by Stackup

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, rfxcasey said:

Look I'm not going to argue with you, but there is no guarantee of anything no matter how much you want or wish there to be. "whether or not they can get data on the F-14B/U or even the D" is a big IF and as we've all seen with the recent pandemic, things can change overnight. Changes in financial situations, new management with new priorities or even a company folding are not out of the realm of possibilities. Point is, there can potentially be a lot of "show stoppers" between NOW and THEN. To assert there will DEFINITELY be a naval version at this point in time is speculative.

 

This is a much more realistic assessment of the situation.

 

Agreed with all that you said.

I however feel that being overly pessimistic per your post I quoted before is more or less as speculative as being overly optimistic. The dev said they will make a Navy F-4, then that's their plan. It's not any more or less likely than any other cancelation or interruption. DCS could also one day stop existing or being popular. But just like the latter, why would anyone point out "well DCS could die one day just like so many other games so I'm fairly sure we won't get X,Y or Z modules". Things can always change and those changes can affect pretty much anything, so there's not any reason to think the Navy F-4 will be as likely to not exist compared to any other module that has released or been canceled.

Not trying to argue, just a thought.

[rfxcasey]

1 hour ago, Stackup said:

You asserted they were only considering making one though which is speculative on your part because there is a mountain of evidence of Heatblur saying they will and no evidence they won't except your market speculations and the slow march of time.

Edit:  But whatever, we can all make speculations and there will always be people who look at this stuff with an "I'll believe it when I can buy it" mentality and that's perfectly fine.  I just wish more people would have some semblance of hope that promises of modules to be made will be kept.  Timelines on the other hand can slip as seen with almost every release ever.

 

"I just wish more people would have some semblance of hope that promises of modules to be made will be kept."

Why? Does others voicing their opinion really hurt your feeling that much?

 

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

Agreed with all that you said.

I however feel that being overly pessimistic per your post I quoted before is more or less as speculative as being overly optimistic. The dev said they will make a Navy F-4, then that's their plan. It's not any more or less likely than any other cancelation or interruption. DCS could also one day stop existing or being popular. But just like the latter, why would anyone point out "well DCS could die one day just like so many other games so I'm fairly sure we won't get X,Y or Z modules". Things can always change and those changes can affect pretty much anything, so there's not any reason to think the Navy F-4 will be as likely to not exist compared to any other module that has released or been canceled.

Not trying to argue, just a thought.

Its not pessimism, its realism. We're also talking about separate full fidelity modules for what is essentially (and (arguably) arguably) the same aircraft being sold independently, which is like a niche within a niche. This hasn't really happened before in DCS save for the FC3 low-fi Eagle and A-10, which is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. I honestly hope they make a naval version, but once again, there is a lot that can happen between now and then. Personally, I'm not holding my breath just yet.

How many naval variants does HB think they can sell? Why would you potentially undercut sales of the E model by suggesting that potential buyers might wait for a naval variant instead? The E was more prolific, has broader international appeal and can be used in a wider variety of historic scenarios. I completely understand why HB chose to go that route from a business standpoint. The real questions are, how different is the naval variant, how much work from the E can be reused, how cost effective is developing it verse prospective sales, how many folks will actually buy both?

I can see HB selling a lot of Es to an international audience, I can see a naval variant selling much less. Just my humble and honest opinion, I could be wrong.

Edited January 17, 2024 by rfxcasey

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

Look I'm not going to argue with you, but there is no guarantee of anything no matter how much you want or wish there to be. "whether or not they can get data on the F-14B/U or even the D" is a big IF and as we've all seen with the recent pandemic, things can change overnight. Changes in financial situations, new management with new priorities or even a company folding are not out of the realm of possibilities. Point is, there can potentially be a lot of "show stoppers" between NOW and THEN. To assert there will DEFINITELY be a naval version at this point in time is speculative.

 

This is a much more realistic assessment of the situation.

 

 

By that logic a meteor might strike, or there might be a war, or, or or.... and there might no be any DCS to worry about at all. 

 

A more sensible approach would be to go by the history of the developer in question, and what they deliver, and how they deliver it. Perhaps? 

With respect I agree with Pappy's remarks regarding your pessimism...maybe stay positive (I think they've earned this approach and then some) and see what shakes out.

Especially with an E to enjoy soon, this will make (for most of us anyway) waiting for the Naval variant (which yes barring unforeseen disasters will come) that much easier.

 

 

 

 

 

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

Its not pessimism, its realism. We're also talking about separate full fidelity modules for what is essentially (and (arguably) arguably) the same aircraft being sold independently, which is like a niche within a niche. This hasn't really happened before in DCS save for the FC3 low-fi Eagle and A-10, which is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. I honestly hope they make a naval version, but once again, there is a lot that can happen between now and then. Personally, I'm not holding my breath just yet.

How many naval variants does HB think they can sell? Why would you potentially undercut sales of the E model by suggesting that potential buyers might wait for a naval variant instead? The E was more prolific, has broader international appeal and can be used in a wider variety of historic scenarios. I completely understand why HB chose to go that route from a business standpoint. The real questions are, how different is the naval variant, how much work from the E can be reused, how cost effective is developing it verse prospective sales, how many folks will actually buy both?

I can see HB selling a lot of Es to an international audience, I can see a naval variant selling much less. Just my humble and honest opinion, I could be wrong.

 

Totally fair, again I agree. As you may realize everyone's got a threshold of what is subjectively realistic and what is unrealistically pessimistic or optimistic. It's totally okay to not agree on the same threshold. 

I'm not getting my hopes up but I think it's far likelier than what I would consider unlikely. No biggie.

[exhausted]

You guys expect way too much if you are counting on a thin air promise that 'it's being planned'. If you want vaporware, all you have to do is look around. 

[Bremspropeller]

It's not just carrier versions. Don't forget our friends in the Corps.

USMC Phantoms flew out of Da Nang and Chu Lai.

 

That naped-up Bengal Tiger's seen cleaner days.

This Falcon is ready to go to town. Dual-Zunis on the inboard Sidewinder rails can be spotted quite often on Marines jets. I've seen the dual and two quad launchers on the shoulder pylons.

Black Knight with another LAU-33 on the inboard Sidewinder rail.

 

Red Devil with LAU-33 and a pod full of BRRRRRT. Gotta be the Hughes Mk4

 

Edited January 18, 2024 by Bremspropeller

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

You guys expect way too much if you are counting on a thin air promise that 'it's being planned'. If you want vaporware, all you have to do is look around. 

I'll save this and quote you again when it's released.

 

Until then...blue skies. 

[rfxcasey]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I'll save this and quote you again when it's released.

 

Until then...blue skies. 

Seriously struck a nerve with you apparently. Seems from the responses some others generally agree with the cautious approach as well, not really sure why that trips your trigger, some folks just like to argue I guess. But best wishes.

Edited January 18, 2024 by rfxcasey

[rfxcasey]

15 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's not just carrier versions. Don't forget our friends in the Corps.

USMC Phantoms flew out of Da Nang and Chu Lai.

 

That naped-up Bengal Tiger's seen cleaner days.

This Falcon is ready to go to town. Dual-Zunis on the inboard Sidewinder rails can be spotted quite often on Marines jets. I've seen the dual and two quad launchers on the shoulder pylons.

Black Knight with another LAU-33 on the inboard Sidewinder rail.

 

Red Devil with LAU-33 and a pod full of BRRRRRT. Gotta be the Hughes Mk4

 

 

Were those land based Marine F-4s not carrier capable?

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

Were those land based Marine F-4s not carrier capable?

They were. But for quicker response times and better access to administration (7th AF based at South Vietnam coordinated overall air activity administration in the SEA theatre) USMC Marines were land-based.

Edited January 18, 2024 by Kalasnkova74

[rfxcasey]

4 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

They were. But for quicker response times and better access to administration (7th AF based at South Vietnam coordinated overall air activity administration in the SEA theatre) USMC Marines were land-based.

 

Yeah, I think Bremspropeller misunderstood what I meant when I said "naval". I wasn't talking about the Navy in particular, only carrier capable. Much as with the Vaught F-4U Corsair of which some were land based.

As per Webster's dictionary...

naval

adjective

na·val ˈnā-vəl 

 

 

Synonyms of naval

 

 

1

obsolete : of or relating to ships or shipping

 

2

a

: of or relating to a navy

b

: consisting of or involving warships

 

Edited January 18, 2024 by rfxcasey

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

Seriously struck a nerve with you apparently. Seems from the responses some others generally agree with the cautious approach as well, not really sure why that trips your trigger, some folks just like to argue I guess. But best wishes.

 

I promise you my friend...not even a tiny bit. 

Salute, and I wish you and your caution the very best.