Jump to content

F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll


USARStarkey
 Share

F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll  

1878 members have voted

  1. 1. F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll

    • YES. THE MIG-21 NEEDS ITS RIVAL
      971
    • YES. Because I just want the Phantom
      718
    • No, I don't like cool planes
      78
    • No, I love the myriad of lame trainers and far flung planes with no historical opposition.
      116


Recommended Posts

- You need a license to build them (IP) and / or "military" clearance.

- Get the appropriate data

- Get a ED contract to build them

 

You cant "Claim" them meanwhile not full all of them request (and surely other point missing).

 

The first part has the point more "trouble". In the past, some 3rd parties has "deny" the F-4 develop (VEAO drop them by no UK license) and none other 3rd party has confirm them (The F-4 has not a "easy" project).

 

yes i i am aware. you have only told me what myself and quite a bit of many others already know. This does not make developing modules impossible( merely red tape/ procedures) this same process has applied to any of the current modules that are already existing in DCS. however its unlikely the F4 would require clearance from the military ( Licensing from Boeing, Since McDonnell Douglas is now defuct), since the F4 is already a declassified aircraft ( as far as US versions go), and AS far as F4 modules, a certain developer for FSX has already made fully fidelity versions ( both navy and AF).

 

Complexity is not a reason to not attempt to create an aircraft, by that logic LN should not have taken on F14 or ED the F18 and simply stuck to the most simple, or aged AC they could get thier hands on.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 618
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yes i i am aware. you have only told me what myself and quite a bit of many others already know. This does not make developing modules impossible( merely red tape/ procedures) this same process has applied to any of the current modules that are already existing in DCS. however its unlikely the F4 would require clearance from the military ( Licensing from Boeing, Since McDonnell Douglas is now defuct), since the F4 is already a declassified aircraft ( as far as US versions go), and AS far as F4 modules, a certain developer for FSX has already made fully fidelity versions ( both navy and AF).

 

Complexity is not a reason to not attempt to create an aircraft, by that logic LN should not have taken on F14 or ED the F18 and simply stuck to the most simple, or aged AC they could get thier hands on.

 

You continue require IP license, remember the VEAO A-4, and the problems to get a license to the same "defunct" company of the F-4, McDonnell Douglas (A division of Boeing). Cancelled by "prohibitive" IP cost.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214751&postcount=223

Hi Guys,

 

Unfortunately I have some not so good news on this project.

 

As a responsible developer one of our golden rules is that we will not develop a module without an agreement or waiver from an aircraft manufacturer, its common knowledge that this was one of the main hold ups with development of the Hawk.

 

As such we have been in talks with McDonnell Douglas (A division of Boeing) regarding obtaining agreements for the A-4C and the A-4M Skyhawks.

 

Sadly the terms offered to us in exchange for the licence are not economically viable for the project to continue. Therefore we have to stop works on the Skyhawk and park the project indefinitely.

 

Obviously this is a disappointing development not least for the DCS community but the members from the VEAO development team who have put blood sweat and tears into the project.

 

I want to publically thank the members of the Skyhawk development team for their hard work and commitment to this project.

 

But one thing in life is for sure, as one door closes another one opens.

 

Obviously due to the sensitive nature of commercial discussions such as this there is only limited amount of information that we can divulge in public but true to the nature of the relationship Chris and I work hard to maintain with you all we wanted to bring you this news as soon as we were able.

 

On behalf of everyone at VEAO we thank you for your understanding regarding this announcement.

 

Pman

 

VEAO Consumer Products Manager.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214825&postcount=234

Its a little more complicated than that.

 

We could do an FC3 level aircraft without too many problems as long as we called it DCS: A-4C or the like with no clickable pit or ASM systems. That would then count as an artistic impression of the aircraft and would not infringe on current IP laws.

 

As soon as you start replicating systems such as engine behavior and management, radars, fuel systems etc etc then thats an entirely different ball game. That is then a replication of someones work and does need IP approval.

 

So without the agreement from McDonnell Douglas we could never do a ASM for the Skyhawk and doing an FC level module is not what VEAO is about

 

Military Spec, thats our standard and it doesnt drop for anything or anyone

 

Pman

 

a certain developer for FSX has already made fully fidelity versions ( both navy and AF).

 

If you talk about "Milviz F-4", etc..... sorry but I test them and no realistic AFM or ASM on that plane at same level of DCS: W. FSX aircraft's (except some exception) has none realistic on combat aircraft's.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue require IP license, remember the VEAO A-4, and the problems to get a license to the same "defunct" company of the F-4, McDonnell Douglas (A division of Boeing). Cancelled by "prohibitive" IP cost.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214751&postcount=223

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214825&postcount=234

 

 

 

 

If you talk about "Milviz F-4", etc..... sorry but I test them and no realistic AFM or ASM on that plane at same level of DCS: W. FSX aircraft's (except some exception) has none realistic on combat aircraft's.

 

because engine limitations of a older, and civilian orented flight sim, not due to lack of documentation. please dont use fallacy for the argument.

 

What could be a "prohibitive" liscense cost for 1 developer may not be for another. ( clearly not for Milviz). veo A4 has no relevance, since that is different airframe and a different manufacturer.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because engine limitations of a older, and civilian orented flight sim, not due to lack of documentation. please dont use fallacy for the argument.

 

What could be a "prohibitive" IP cost for 1 developer may not be for another. veo A4 has no relevance, since that is entirely different airframe and a different manufacturer.

 

The F-4 was property by McDonnell Douglas, the same of A-4 (When Douglas join McDonnell), you require talk with the actual owned rights (Boeing or others) to simulate proper ASM.

 

Different manufacturer or not, you require the IP, required by ED to get a 3rd party module license, and of course a official announce by a 3rd party and ED. We can open one hundred post require a F-4, but meanwhile ED or a 3rd party not confirm them, only can wait.

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're right.

 

A T-37 for instance is so much more sexier or an "iconic" aircraft like a Learjet.

Oh, the great missions which could be done in DCS with a Learjet.

And why not a Starlifter. It would be so fun to pilot a Starlifter.

Why a Starfighter when a dev team could model for us a Starlifter?

Of course, any light unarmed chopper is welcome.

 

QmkI4mH.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-4 was property by McDonnell Douglas, the same of A-4 (When Douglas join McDonnell), you require talk with the actual owned rights (Boeing or others) to simulate proper ASM.

 

Different manufacturer or not, you require the IP, required by ED to get a 3rd party module license, and of course a official announce by a 3rd party and ED. We can open one hundred post require a F-4, but meanwhile ED or a 3rd party not confirm them, only can wait.

 

Yes , McDonnell joined Douglas, however It waas a merger. The A4 was designed and put into production before the merger, and as a division of the company they may have had different legal policies applying to thier respective aircraft. That being said it was still more of a price point issue (rather than a flat out denial or refusal for the company to cooperate) for VEAO being a newcoming to the DCS 3rd party development with smaller pockets. McDonnell Douglas outside of the F4, also owned the F15 Eagle design and the F18 Hornet before Boeing bought them. F15 is in DCS as a FC3 aircraft ( and a full fidelity version is in the roadmaps), whilst the ED has the License to develop the F18 obviously since its well into WIP stage, so i guess a bigger team Like ED has been able to afford these licenses.

 

As such the F4 it is also also realistically possible to have license purchased as indicated by another developer forFSX (milviz) which did so.

 

Again this is a moot point to repeat. we get it. This process and steps have applied to all modules that currently exist. No one on here is saying the F4 is confirmed, but that its a desired aircraft ( well what do you expect from a poll), and one that is reasonable to have within the DCS environment, and able to be developed.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again this is a moot point to repeat. we get it. This process and steps have applied to all modules that currently exist. No one on here is saying the F4 is confirmed, but that its a desired aircraft ( well what do you expect from a poll), and one that is reasonable to have within the DCS environment, and able to be developed.

 

I personally think that the F-4 Phantom will very likely be part of DCS world in the future - more a matter of "when" than "if".

 

Different 3rd parties likely have different constraints in terms of what they can develop - varying by locale, size, nature of other contracts/relationships, business model, and aversion to risk. No guarantees of course, but if an high-quality FSX version exists then it probably is feasible.

 

Since there are few full modern-ish modules in DCS, there are many, many iconic aircraft that remain undeveloped. At this point, the decision is based on the personal interest of a capable developer.

 

I do have to disagree on the variant though. :)

If it were to happen, the variant would probably be chosen based on what information could be found for each version. And actually found, not which should have available information.

 

That said, I think it is best when the developer chooses the scenario or campaign(s) first, then the aircraft version and map that allows them to create their vision. Even better when a version allows for a wide-variety of scenarios. Case in point: the F/A-18C. With the Hornet one can create campaigns for both the USN and USMC, along with RCAF and other export customers. These different campaigns would offer a different operational experience and missions despite the same basic aircraft.

 

The Phantom offers a similar opportunity, but perhaps even broader all within one map. The USAF, USN, and USMC all operated a nearly identical version of the Phantom during the early phases of Vietnam - the F-4B and F-4C. Also, one map could support unique operations from all three services:

 

Vietnam_Map.jpg

 

It would be a big map (~550 km x 550 km), but probably doable in a few years (SoH high detail area is 390 km x 390 km). This one map could support USAF F-4Cs out of Udorn AFB (marker on the map), USMC F-4Bs out of Da Nang, and USN F-4Bs from Yankee station. Not to mention the map would beautifully support a F-105D module (how can you say no!). :)

The F-4B/C module with the above map probably offers the most "bang for your buck" for missions and paves the way for things like a F-105D, F-8E, A-4C/E, early A-7s, A-1 Skyraider, the list goes on.

 

The F-4E would be awesome and work in several different scenarios, but the above would create more within one map and open the door for much more. :)

 

Just my 2 cents,

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would REALLY love to have a DCS F-4 Phantom. One of my favourite airplanes ever and I as mentioned here would fit really nice to our DCS Operations.

I just hope one day this dream becomes reality.

 

This video for the Phantom lovers

 

https://vimeo.com/199142621

 

One of the best Phantom videos I have seen.


Edited by Furia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if only milviz put their f-4 into dcs :(

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64D

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 2x 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I'd pay anything for this map. Perfect for the F5, the MIG-21, the Huey, an eventual F4, and maybe even for the MIG-15 and the Sabre.

 

After the F4U and the F-14 the Phantom II is No.3 on my wishlist. Such an iconic aircraft, loved by so many! Not to mention it would fit the current planeset perfectly. IT could be used as a land based fighter, a carrier based fighter, or carry out bombing missions. Very versatile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we ever get a DCS: F-4, and it's not the F-4E, it would be possibly the greatest missed opportunity and disappointment in DCS history.

 

F-4E is THE F-4, period :p.

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving up carrier ops and good looks is a though choice, but in this case I too have to side with the F-4E. It just has a such a fantastic variety of mission types.

 

The Phantom would truly be a gameplay powerhouse. There are so much things to do, but everything with a 60s stick-and-rudder twist. SEAD, but you have to put yourself in harm's way first. Tons of bombs, but you have to master depressable pipper manual bombing. Guided bombs, but you have to guide them by hand. BVR intercepts, but you have to work the radar. Dogfights, but you have to know your strengths and weaknesses. It basically combines the hands-on fun of the F-5E with an incredible diversity of mission types.

 

Anyone that has played my Desert Tiger 76 campaign, could you guess which aircraft I really wanted to fly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-Nick

 

yes so do i think it will be part of the game in the future. That was part of my point., i was just countering SD's bleak points., the process does not make it impossible to add aircraft. \

 

whilst it would ideal to get multiple versions fro both Navy and land based AF versions from a within a single pack from a developer., I wouldn't hold my breath because it may be some extra work involved, but we will just have to wait and see.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if only milviz put their f-4 into dcs :(

 

sadly i dont think they will based on what i read.

 

Both FSX fliers and even dcs users wanted milviz in the past to opt for a 3rd party license but..... this was a statement given from milviz ( shared on these forums)

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167570

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

F-4E or bust, but G as an addition would be nice too.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...