WISHLIST: Allow the F-4E Phantom II to take off from aircraft carriers

[Jackjack171]

32 minutes ago, r4y30n said:

I can wait for the real navy bird and it’s a waste of time for HB to hack it into this one.

Indeed! Just let the "E" be!

[gnomechild]

1 hour ago, r4y30n said:

I can wait for the real navy bird and it’s a waste of time for HB to hack it into this one.

I would agree if this required any real effort but it is quite literally three lines in a text file. 

If Heatblur is opposed to it because it's silly and dumb that's totally fair but doing this would require effectively no effort. 

3 hours ago, Victory205 said:

This would ruin my immersion.

Not doing it would ruin mine. Checkmate 

[diego999]

Maybe add a checkbox in the special options? With a disclaimer the feature isn't realistic? So we can activate it and enjoy carrier operations. If you don't want it don't use it, mission makers and servers admins could force it off.

Everybody wins.

[Kalasnkova74]

6 hours ago, gnomechild said:

I would agree if this required any real effort but it is quite literally three lines in a text file. 

If Heatblur is opposed to it because it's silly and dumb that's totally fair but doing this would require effectively no effort. 

Not doing it would ruin mine. Checkmate 

It may be “three lines in a text file”, but that change still needs HB to validate and quality check before publishing in an update . That all requires time & money to complete; IMO, HB has better uses for those resources right now. Perhaps when the DMAS block F-4E is out and the bugs are sorted they can build, test and publish carrier capability. 
 

Far as “silly and dumb” goes this is a video game- not a documentary 

[Q3ark]

6 hours ago, gnomechild said:

I would agree if this required any real effort but it is quite literally three lines in a text file.

If it’s that easy then do it yourself, it’s only three lines in a text file after all.

[Victory205]

10 hours ago, gnomechild said:

I would agree if this required any real effort but it is quite literally three lines in a text file. 

If Heatblur is opposed to it because it's silly and dumb that's totally fair but doing this would require effectively no effort. 

Not doing it would ruin mine. Checkmate 

That would only be “check”.

If Heatblur make the F-4E carrier compatible, then it would reduce the incentive to make a proper Naval F-4B, J, N, K or the FAA F-4K. The Naval versions have different radars, cockpit layouts, and flight models due to BLC and depending upon version selected, slats. It’s a considerable resource investment.

Checkmate, would be an inability to recoup that investment because despite what people say, because when it comes time to pony up, far fewer customers would be willing pay because they already flying an F-4E off of the ship. The risk of producing Naval Phantom module is greater than a producing a different aircraft that would have a better return on investment. Nothing nefarious, it’s simple economics.. 

My opinion only, take it for what it’s worth. I have zero influence on Heatblur’s business plan.

[gnomechild]

4 hours ago, Q3ark said:

If it’s that easy then do it yourself, it’s only three lines in a text file after all.

So, I just realized this would require keybinds and stuff for the catapult hookup. So, that's probably already more effort than its worth.

 

33 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

If Heatblur make the F-4E carrier compatible, then it would reduce the incentive to make a proper Naval F-4B, J, N, K or the FAA F-4K. The Naval versions have different radars, cockpit layouts, and flight models due to BLC and depending upon version selected, slats. It’s a considerable resource investment.

I personally find this very hard to believe. For one, the F-4E wouldn't really be carrier capable and people would probably get over the novelty of collapsing their gear on a carrier deck after 1-2 flights. For another, the only people who would bother doing this or even notice you could would be idiots like me who are so impatient for a Navy Phantom that they can't wait the ~5 years to get one in DCS. HB could even disable it once we had a real one.

That said, after looking into it more this request requires a bit of actual development to make work which in my opinion makes this entire request a waste of time and not worth doing. I was really only wanting it as a mod option since right now the F-4E CTDs when you modify the lua to place it on a carrier. Either way these are good points so thanks for taking the time to reply

[Victory205]

You are not an idiot. 

[UN9249]

I'am trying to make it as mod. But have constantly CTD, when try to hook up. 

[Stratos]

Yes please! Hope you guys can give it a go!

[kaboki]

No, dont do it…

[Stratos]

On 6/10/2024 at 11:45 PM, Zabuzard said:

Thanks for the suggestions in this thread. We will talk about it and see if there is something we can and want to do about it.
Its right though that our schedule is very packed.
 

Hi! Any update on this?

[felixx75]

Heatblur could add such a feature after they are done with the "E" and the other following modules (Eurofighter & A-6) and if they have nothing else more important to do...

[Stratos]

Said the Heatblur CEO... 

[Lt_Jaeger]

But before they make sure you could start, the F-4 should be able to land with the correct parameter. 

 

That said, it's fun for a try or two and definitely helped in getting a better feel for the bird, but I just wait for the Navy version and while doing this I just use it as intended. 

 

The joke wears off pretty fast. Oh, and yes, I would prefer a Navy version over the Air Force. 

[Stackup]

On 9/20/2024 at 7:44 AM, felixx75 said:

Heatblur could add such a feature after they are done with the "E" and the other following modules (Eurofighter & A-6) and if they have nothing else more important to do...

They could.  But after the Eurofighter and A-6 releases, the next DCS module on their roadmap is the naval F-4.  So it would be even more pointless to make the E carrier capable at that time.

[UN9249]

1 час назад, Stackup сказал:

They could.  But after the Eurofighter and A-6 releases, the next DCS module on their roadmap is the naval F-4.  So it would be even more pointless to make the E carrier capable at that time.

Ah...yeah. wait years just to take off/land from/on carrier. 

[Zabuzard]

Ah...yeah. wait years just to take off/land from/on carrier. 

Im sorry to stress this, but the F-4E is not a carrier compatible plane. Yes, it has a tailhook. And we simulated it fully, you can land with it on a carrier just like you could IRL with a -E in theory, with all the consequences this has.

We understand people want to cosplay as Navy Phantom while waiting for the actual module that will come at some point in the future. We have heard the question and are possibly considering doing something about it. You have to understand though that time and resources are unfortunately very limited and our schedules are packed. I would love to be able to tell you "yes, cool idea, its in the next update", but this unfortunately just doesnt work. The request is a low prio item for us and its unfortunately also not a quick and easy thing to add.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I thought DCS aimed to be the most realistic consumer-level military flight sim possible?

If this gets added as a mod, so be it. But dedicating time and effort into this request as the official developer, while already packed with work (and behind self-imposed schedule on a lot of promised features), is in my humble opinion not the right thing to do.

There’s something to be said for giving the customers what they want, but please be reasonable…

[UN9249]

13 часов назад, Zabuzard сказал:

Im sorry to stress this, but the F-4E is not a carrier compatible plane. Yes, it has a tailhook. And we simulated it fully, you can land with it on a carrier just like you could IRL with a -E in theory, with all the consequences this has.

We understand people want to cosplay as Navy Phantom while waiting for the actual module that will come at some point in the future. We have heard the question and are possibly considering doing something about it. You have to understand though that time and resources are unfortunately very limited and our schedules are packed. I would love to be able to tell you "yes, cool idea, its in the next update", but this unfortunately just doesnt work. The request is a low prio item for us and its unfortunately also not a quick and easy thing to add.
 

Good morning. I was in no way trying to demand any kind of speed up on this request. I commented on someone who simply rejected the idea, for some reason I don't know why. As much as I love realism, I would like to have this option until we have a deck-based phantom. Then we can turn it off, that's all. Heatblur sets new standards in quality in dcs, and everyone understands it. I have barely flown anything other than the phantom since it came out, and it is my favorite module at the moment. Please do not lower your standards because of requests like this.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

4 hours ago, UN9249 said:

Please do not lower your standards because of requests like this.

Well, honouring this request is the very definition of lowering HB standards

The tail hook is not designed for it, the landing gear is not designed for it. The type of tyres is wrong for this purpose and have the wrong pressure, the aircraft’s structure is not designed for it, …

 

So at the very least allowing the F-4E to safely operate from a carrier reduces the damage model to arcade level. What will be the consequences of that for everyone else?

 

*edit*
Also, how do you expect the Supercarrier LSO AI to deal with an F-4E in the groove? Not even the F-14 is properly supported…

Edited September 22, 2024 by Raven (Elysian Angel)

[Stratos]

18 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

Im sorry to stress this, but the F-4E is not a carrier compatible plane. Yes, it has a tailhook. And we simulated it fully, you can land with it on a carrier just like you could IRL with a -E in theory, with all the consequences this has.

We understand people want to cosplay as Navy Phantom while waiting for the actual module that will come at some point in the future. We have heard the question and are possibly considering doing something about it. You have to understand though that time and resources are unfortunately very limited and our schedules are packed. I would love to be able to tell you "yes, cool idea, its in the next update", but this unfortunately just doesnt work. The request is a low prio item for us and its unfortunately also not a quick and easy thing to add.
 

Thanks for answering and considering it. Is nice to see even the creators of the plane haven't abandoned the idea.

[Stackup]

10 hours ago, UN9249 said:

I commented on someone who simply rejected the idea, for some reason I don't know why.

And I was responding to someone saying that HB could work on it after the Eurofighter and A-6 are released.  The next module in line after the A-6 is the carrier capable F-4.  So of course I outright reject the idea that HB should waste time making the F-4E carrier capable during the time they should be focusing on the actual carrier-based F-4 they would be working on at that time.  I'd rather have a proper naval F-4 and time spent modifying the F-4E to be fictional is time they could have spent working through their roadmap towards the actual naval module.

Like Zabuzard and others have said, the F-4E is not a carrier capable plane and DCS is not intended to be a fantasy sim.  It's aiming to be as realistic as possible and a carrier capable F-4E is not realistic in the slightest, given the missing equipment, altered landing gear and tires, different approach/landing profile, etc.  As such, I would much rather HB focus on their other unfinished projects such as the A-6 AI, F-14A early, DMAS F-4E, the three other Forrestal carriers, basically everything still on their public roadmap before they waste time on a fantasy feature. 

I have no problem if someone wants to mod the F-4E to be carrier capable themselves, but to ask the devs to add fictional features when they already to plan to make a proper naval version is utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

[Kalasnkova74]

42 minutes ago, Stackup said:

And I was responding to someone saying that HB could work on it after the Eurofighter and A-6 are released.  The next module in line after the A-6 is the carrier capable F-4.  So of course I outright reject the idea that HB should waste time making the F-4E carrier capable during the time they should be focusing on the actual carrier-based F-4 they would be working on at that time.  I'd rather have a proper naval F-4 and time spent modifying the F-4E to be fictional is time they could have spent working through their roadmap towards the actual naval module.

 

That’s a rational sentiment, but the fact is given HBs commitments it’ll realistically be years before the Naval F-4 is ready for release.
 

It’s a bad deal for the Navy fans to see us land based Phantom Phans have all the fun, and if a harmless mod/script can enable carrier landing of the F-4E until that variant is released, so much the better. HB probably doesn’t have capacity for that, but modders do.

[felixx75]

24 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

That’s a rational sentiment, but the fact is given HBs commitments it’ll realistically be years before the Naval F-4 is ready for release.
 

It’s a bad deal for the Navy fans to see us land based Phantom Phans have all the fun, and if a harmless mod/script can enable carrier landing of the F-4E until that variant is released, so much the better. HB probably doesn’t have capacity for that, but modders do.

I think absolutely nobody has anything against this being implemented by modders, but HB should use their resources for more important things first, and there are more than enough of them.

Edited September 22, 2024 by felixx75