Change.org Petition for F-4E and Forum Poll

Maybe personal preference. That seems to be the case for most of these new aircraft coming to DCS these days.

Only saying old generation aircraft because that is what most of these aircraft are. The WWII-era planes, trainers from Czechoslovakian and Spain times, Korean War, and even Vietnam. Not only until now have we started to push out the modern aircraft like the Hornet, Gazelle, Mirage, Harrier, and (arguably) others like the Tomcat.

We still see a mix of these two, from modern to old like the I-16, and MiG-19. But there is definitely a notable shift from old times to wanting all the modern air combat. ]

+1 on the topic

The F-16 is just a Hornet copy without carrier capability. MFDs, a modern radar, TGP, same armament, same experience. The Phantom on the other hand would be a pretty different experience with all its cool analog cold war tech that you can dig into. So hell yeah, I would prefer the Phantom over the Viper any day!

Company has a right to choose what aircraft the create and put on the back burner. I might want to F-4 too but honestly its up to ED and Belsimtek what they believe will give them funds.

Also lets try to keep this thread clean of arguments of which aircraft is better and keep it polite. This thread can get out of hand with everyone saying why they think or believe ED is doing this and so on.

Like I said I love the F-4 but honestly don't care what comes as long as the game continues development

F4 is last for me.

Im all about the AH1, attack heli love is needed <3

But realistically F16 will be the breadwinner..

F4 can see the light later after a proper map

Pfft who cares of maps. Besides, the module is a late version from 80s, and a USAF version. So current maps are as good as any.

F-16 first... everything else last!

Eagle Dynamics is an International business with a conglomerate of Influences from The Fighter Collection.

Their Business Strategy is their own with this particular piece of the market being fairly small in comparison.

To suggest or even imply that we should somehow canvass view, influence or bully Devs and EDs Business Strategy into meeting our 'deamnds', is not only laughable, it's downright insulting.

If I haven't read it myself, I would have called bull on the idea.

Definitively Mi24 and AH1 before ANYTHING ELSE!! :) I'll buy at least a couple of licences for each of them ED! Keep up the good work! :thumbup:

I would like to see the helicopters first. F-16C will earn a lot of money so I am sure it will be released before the helicopters.

Even though I am a lot more interested in flying the Phantom than either the Hornet or Fighting Falcon, I understand the reasons behind pushing out the F-16 as next module.

It's a simple matter of economics, and return on investment when it comes to the technology needed behind the scenes to make the F-16/18 possible.

If that helps stabilise ED's financial situation and provides for more quality in DCS in the long run, I'll put aside my personal preference.

Maybe personal preference. That seems to be the case for most of these new aircraft coming to DCS these days.

 

Only saying old generation aircraft because that is what most of these aircraft are. The WWII-era planes, trainers from Czechoslovakian and Spain times, Korean War, and even Vietnam. Not only until now have we started to push out the modern aircraft like the Hornet, Gazelle, Mirage, Harrier, and (arguably) others like the Tomcat.

 

We still see a mix of these two, from modern to old like the I-16, and MiG-19. But there is definitely a notable shift from old times to wanting all the modern air combat. ]

Flanker: modern

Lock On: modern

Ka-50: modern

A-10C: modern

then came WW2 stuff. And then the other eras.

The roots of DCS are modern air combat (as it was the catch line from lock on, and is now the title of its successor).

It is nice to see that this is a high priority era again and i appreciate that much.

Booooooooo for making senseless polls. There is more involved in the decision than what random forum members have access to or want. I know it's 2018 and everybody thinks they should take to instagram for viral opinion campaigns, but it's really best to sit down and let these people do their jobs. A forum opinion poll isn't going to change the course of development.

These other modules already have considerable resources thrown into them. Stopping projects that have already been in dev for years is stupid, whether it's what the community wants or not.

I think the reality of it is they will finish the F/A-18, the Yak-52 and make many more announcements before we get the F-16, etc. even to early release, by then the F-4 might be a higher priority or be completely cancel. Right now I think we can only count on the F/A-18, the yak-52 and the F-14, anything else will be some time.

What I wish would happen:

Stop all other projects and make the F-16 next. After all single seat aircraft plan (guessing) P-47, F-4U, Mig-19/23, F-1, A-4, F-8, etc. After, dual seat aircraft like Helicopters and after that F-14, then F-15E and finally, when all else is done, the F-4, if nothing else come up. But in order to use multi seat aircraft you have to fly with some one, you can only load one cockpit or the other and each cockpit is sold separately.

or

We can all just wait and see what happens, if you like a module buy it, if not don't. Simple

To be honest, none of those aircraft are bad choices. Looking at what both ED/BST and the third parties are brewing, I'm so glad we're out of the "everybody is making trainers" era ;).

Just about ALL of these comments are based on the gut reaction that ED is abandoning the F-4 to milk the F-16 cash cow...which could well be the case.

Perhaps it's not a money issue...perhaps it's just a matter of which one is closer to being ready...

Many people have pointed out that the F-16 shares MANY features with aircraft already in the game. What does the F-4 share?

I am the manager of a company and I want to build two cars...one I have most of the parts for...the other I Don't have the parts for...as a businessman I am going to build the car I have parts for first. Even if the car I need parts for might be more popular. Doesn't mean I never build the other car...but To hold up the production of one over the other based on emotion is silly.

Personally, I'm not so sure about that. I can understand the helicopters and I don't have a problem with them coming first (seeing as they have been promised for so long), but I'm not so sure that there really is greater demand for the F-16. The F-16 is certainly an absolutely iconic aircraft, but in terms of capability, it doesn't really do anything that other aircraft in or planned for DCS don't already do.

I totally agree with you. At the moment, first results on your pool are showing that a lot of people are waiting for the next "real" combat helicopter" !

Personnaly I am waiting for the Mi-24 Hind or even the AH-1 since a very very long time, a lot of announcements (even by Wags) were reported on the forum but since now we didn't see anything, not even a screenshot !!

I really understand the disappointment of the community on the possible F-4 delay. With the new F-18 I don't see the real interest on a possible F-16, even if the F-16 is an iconic airplane loved by a large community.

It's nearly impossible to please everyone but for sure, the next modules that I wan to buy are the Mi-24 Hind, the AH-1 and the F-4.

Eagle Dynamics is an International business with a conglomerate of Influences from The Fighter Collection.

 

Their Business Strategy is their own with this particular piece of the market being fairly small in comparison.

 

To suggest or even imply that we should somehow canvass view, influence or bully Devs and EDs Business Strategy into meeting our 'deamnds', is not only laughable, it's downright insulting.

 

If I haven't read it myself, I would have called bull on the idea.

I can only speak for myself, not for the OP, but I don't want to tell ED what to do. I just want to show my support for the F-4 and that there are customers who would love to pay money for the F-4, but it is of course EDs own decision what they make of this. I'm just giving them customer feedback, that's it.

and provides for more quality in DCS in the long run, I'll put aside my personal preference.

Spoken as a true lady :thumbup: Well me too, comes to that. S!

Ignoring those who have chosen to make personal attacks against mine or others' character for just a bit... a bit further rationalization from me

Regarding the poll: the question and the poll topic is specifically regarding the F-4. The concern was not who wants which module first, it was more if you wanted F-4 to be put back into active development and if so, where. As for the poll's intent, it was to gauge and give a tangible figure on public interest. I failed to account for the internet's tendency to run away with stuff, and I have elaborated on this point in the first post. Please re-read before leveling any more accusations of malicious intent, thank you very much.

Regarding my own personal desire to see the F-4 prioritized ahead of the F-16:

The F-16 represents the same generation and type of aircraft as the F/A-18 and F-15E. From a tactical standpoint, it offers the same swathe of capabilities and ordnance options as a land-based F/A-18, and from a variety standpoint, the two are interchangeable save for the F/A-18 able to be based on water. Same gun with similar ammo loads, same number of ordnance and fuel hardpoints, same air-air options, almost same air-ground options, similar radar capabilities, features, and performance, both have HMDs, both have datalink and situational awareness display options, etc etc. From an individual aircraft and pilot-end standpoint, they are completely different in just about every way and I don't think a single part is interchangeable, but from a tactical standpoint, they offer the same suite of capabilities and for the most part the same experience wrapped up in a different airframe. The human-machine interface is broadly similar, which discounting a somewhat different theory of operation would likely lead to a fairly same-feeling experience

Contrast that to the F-4E, which is a whole generation earlier, is two-seat and requires both crew, and has a vastly different human-machine interface. While its capabilities from a tactical standpoint are lesser than the modern jets (duh), and there isn't anything it can do that the F/A-18 can't, the actual experience of operating it is fundamentally different thanks to the much less advanced HMI and necessity of two crew, while still providing all of the essential capabilities of an advanced multirole fighter in a much earlier timeframe. This is further reinforced by the fact that many multiplayer servers and groups deliberately limit the ordnance or airframe options in order to provide more balanced or thematic gameplay instead of seeing one side's top-shelf plane run away with it, or 3rd gen jets getting repeatedly roflstomped by 4th gen jets. The F-4 has no such concerns of being limited from its maximum potential in air-air and not much in air-ground, either.

Furthermore, ED does seem to like their aircraft contrasts, and the F-4E is the perfect counterpart to the MiG-23MLA with regards to air-air, and while the MiG-23 has less tools (and hardpoints) to play with than the F-4 for air-ground, it still has a very respectable toolbox nonetheless. The F-16, meanwhile, has no such eastern bloc competitor in the modern, full-fidelity lineup (excluding the low-fidelity 1st gen MiG-29 module) and unless the Russian or Chinese governments decide to start handing out MiG-29M or J-10A info like candy, we won't see one. You could argue that a comparison can be made between the F/A-18 and F-16, but it's not the same thing as a complete worldview shift like we get with the East/West contrast.

Of course, development concerns do mean that the F-16 will be able to be developed more easily utilizing technology leveraged from the F/A-18, but to halt F-4 development completely? That's where I personally am disappointed. Helicopters are a totally different animal to jets, and to halt development on the F-4 completely in favor of a plane where background systems will have already been developed? (sidenote: no the planes do not share the same hardware but almost all of said hardware operates on the same principles; the core tech is mostly the same) this also comes with the concern of doing the F-16 too quickly and too soon after the F/A-18 and in the same timeframe as the F-15E; the concern with that is that it could lead to lost sales for the F-15E and F-16, whereas the F-4 plays to a different niche and would lack such concerns.

Finally, related to the thread itself: I would really appreciate it if people did not make personal attacks and throw around accusations. We are all here because of DCS and I feel comfortable in making the assumption that we all want what is best for it. I feel comfortable in assuming that almost every participant in this thread is human and has feelings and emotions like everyone else. Such toxic behavior only begets further toxicity and inhibits constructive discussion. Reverse our positions and see how you would react to your own words. Would you say that to the other person in real life? If so, do you expect it to end in anything other than a fistfight? Moderate yourself and contribute to the discussion, not the bullshit

TLDR:

-F/A-18 and F-16 are tactically similar and have similar human-machine interface, runs risk of feeling samey from pilot's perspective

-F-4 has totally different, less advanced but equally if not more involved HMI, and requires two crew

-F-4 is less susceptible to having max potential gimped by mission-maker balancing tricks

-F-4 has a good Eastern bloc contrast aircraft already in the works in the MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM, whereas the F-16 does not have an eastern-bloc contrast in high-fidelity and likely won't for foreseeable future

-F-16 will have more core tech to rely on from the F/A-18 to speed up development whereas the F-4 has much less so

-Concerns of lost sales due to possibility releasing in a crowded market for 4th gen multiroles whereas F-4 has much more open market space

-Don't be toxic, there is a person on the other side of the screen and it is kind of insulting for accusations of malicious intent to be leveled when the intent was not malicious in the first place

Edit: If there is someone in-the-know with regards to this particular decision viewing this thread and it is permitted to do so, it would be appreciated, at least by me, if some insight on what the actual rationale was behind the decision could be shared instead of people trying to figure it out ourselves with zero basis to go off of (guilty as charged)

Hmm difficult one.

I'm a huge fan of the F-16, for the F-4 I'm more into the naval J and K models as well as the RAF M version. I'm a huge fan of the Mi-24 but at the same time we need a rough equivalent to the Ka-50 for BLUFOR.

The issue is something like an F-16 would take an age - look how much time the Hornet has taken and i's only in early access and still not feature complete, it's getting there though. I'm willing to bet an F-16 with it's fancy avionics would take a very long time.

The F-4 being a more simpler aircraft (relatively speaking) would I'm guessing be done faster, just going from complexity alone.

The Mil Mi-24P is again not as complex as the F-16 and is more of a variety still, being an attack helicopter with transport capability - something new.

The AH-1W is not a fan of mine, but it is something more equivalent to the Ka-50 than the Gazelle for BLUFOR.

Personally I'm happy to let ED do what they want with regard to the aircraft - I'll probably end up buying it anyway, even if I'm not a fan. And demanding them mess up their plans will only cause needless delays. I wasn't a fan of the Viggen or the MiG-15Bis but then I bought the modules and now absolutely love them, especially the Viggen, it's my new favourite.

So whatever they release yet, I'll buy it in due course.

Edit: hvymtal practically nailed it for me, though I'm pretty open to what they do.

Well, it looks like ED made the right choice. Lets see if the poll changes.

Hmm difficult one.

The F-4 being a more simpler aircraft (relatively speaking) would I'm guessing be done faster, just going from complexity alone.

Not simpler, just more old-school. The F-4 is by no means a simple aircraft; it is truly the first plane that is multirole in the sense we know it today, but technology of the time necessitated a two-person crew to achieve that level of capability. It also requires some new core tech that the F-16 will not need to develop bespoke thanks to the F/A-18

Unrelated: grammatical tip, either more/most or -er/-ist, not both. In the case of simple, it's -er/-ist

if some insight on what the actual rationale was behind the decision could be shared instead of people trying to figure it out ourselves with zero basis to go off of

It's not necessary to try to "figure it out on our own with zero basis", they've already stated why in the recent past, although it's easy enough to miss conversations, and there is additional info available with a bit of poking around.

They built/are building an F-16C for a military contract, similar to how the A-10C was originally made for the ANG. In addition to sharing similar tech with the released F/A-18, they have access to tech from the military version. Literally every poll ever on this forum that included the F-16, the F-16 was the most sought after aircraft, usually by a large margin.

In conclusion : F-16 is quick and easy, compared to a scratch product, and is guaranteed large volume sales. Whether anybody else likes it or agrees with it is beside the point. They've got bills to pay a big fat blank check that just needs to be filled out. They're going to do exactly the same thing anybody else with sense would do : They're going to build the F-16 first.

As for the other aircraft mentioned, the Hind has been in the works for a prolonged period, the Cobra less so from what I've seen, with the F-4 bringing up the rear in terms of time/resources invested thus far. No, there is not an official announcement stating that, but if you've been watching the forums for a while, you can readily monitor the timeline. A was mentioned before B, which was before C. As a result, you can logically conclude C is at the end of the line.

Additional factor to consider, these are all three two-man aircraft, a tech that thus far has only been successfully done once in a very limited capacity with the L-39, and to a somewhat flakey limited extent with the Gazelle. The F-14 will be the big test-bed for complex multi-crew combat aircraft. Rushing another one forward is going to involve attacking the same bugs and design hurdles multiple times at the same time. No, there is not an announcement for that. It's just logical. I know, that's unpopular when somebody wants a custom tailored, personal accounting, but there it is anyway.

Lastly, the only thing asked for more than an F-16 is probably a BluFor attack helo. The Ka-50 is exclusively a Russian prototype, but the Hind is used by a majority of countries on the planet including BluFor (thus being suitable for an extremely wide range of scenarios), and the Cobra is obviously a "true" BluFor attack helo. They're also easier to manage from the "multi-crew" standpoint, seeing as they don't have nearly the complexity of something like a radar equipped interceptor, the second guy is guiding a TOW style missile or pointing a gun. Not very complex.

-edit

Did I mention boo for using a "Change.org" petition?

What I wish would happen:

Stop all other projects and make the F-16 next. After all single seat aircraft plan (guessing) P-47, F-4U, Mig-19/23, F-1, A-4, F-8, etc. After, dual seat aircraft like Helicopters and after that F-14, then F-15E and finally, when all else is done, the F-4, if nothing else come up. But in order to use multi seat aircraft you have to fly with some one, you can only load one cockpit or the other and each cockpit is sold separately.

Some details.....

F-16, P-47, F-4 has planed by ED and BSK... and the two develop studios has actually your proper develop "plans" (working on parallel projects, as WW2 team, map team, aircraft team, core team, etc).

Others aircraft has build by other 3rd parties:

-F-4U planned by Miltech 5.

-Mig-19P/S on develop and Mig-23 planned by one of develop teams of RAZBAM (OverStratos). The other has working on complete AV-8b and initial develop stages of the F-15E module, and a Map team making the south Atlantic theatre.

- F-1 planned by Aviodev after complete de C-101

etc....

Do you think 3rd parties need cut / Shut down your proper projects to enable ED/BSK build a F-4E? If the 3rd parties make them, your future has been get out of business.

Do you think 3rd parties need cut / Shut down your proper projects to enable ED/BSK build a F-4E? If the 3rd parties make them, your future has been get out of business.

Nope, what I think will happen is:

I think the reality of it is they will finish the F/A-18, the Yak-52 and make many more announcements before we get the F-16, etc. even to early release, by then the F-4 might be a higher priority or be completely cancel. Right now I think we can only count on the F/A-18, the yak-52 and the F-14, anything else will be some time.

What I wish is

Stop all other projects and make the F-16 next. After all single seat aircraft plan (guessing) P-47, F-4U, Mig-19/23, F-1, A-4, F-8, etc. After, dual seat aircraft like Helicopters and after that F-14, then F-15E and finally, when all else is done, the F-4, if nothing else come up. But in order to use multi seat aircraft you have to fly with some one, you can only load one cockpit or the other and each cockpit is sold separately.

or

We can all just wait and see what happens, if you like a module buy it, if not don't. Simple