Jump to content

Heatblur, is there something you'd like to tell us? Like....you're doing a Longbow Apache? :)


Recommended Posts

Only saying this because the DCS World, 2021 and Beyond premier video highlighted the Longbow's silhouette at the end with the fiery sparks that made me think of previous Heatblur videos.
Plus, it's a multicrew platform and you guys have your multicrew down pretty solid, so....

 

Any news to share?


Edited by Halcyon
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Halcyon changed the title to Heatblur, is there something you'd like to tell us? Like....you're doing a Longbow Apache? :)

The eagerly awaited aircraft was always going to be an ED module.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

If HB took over an eagerly awaited, previously announced project I'd rather it be the F-4, so they could provide a proper Navy Phantom.

 

Apache was as un-mind-melting as I could have possibly imagined. Something 4+ engined, maybe a bomber like the B-52 would have probably been more of a shock or surprise.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Proper Phantom was the one Belsimtek was doing, and ED sacrificed for the quasi-baked Meh-16. It will be such a shame when we eventually get an F-4, but a naval one instead of that...

  • Like 1

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 post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 3:31 PM, WinterH said:

Proper Phantom was the one Belsimtek was doing, and ED sacrificed for the quasi-baked Meh-16. It will be such a shame when we eventually get an F-4, but a naval one instead of that...

 

I'm sorry you need 10kft of runway. Yes, the E was significant not disputing that. But only having a late AF variant of a Navy jet that made a huge impact in aviation would be a crime.

 

The Phantom was a Navy jet first. ED can do the E all they want, I trust HB to do a Navy Phantom justice. Until we actually get some real Vietnam maps and modules the B doesn't make as much sense to me, but a J, N, or S would be neat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The Phantom was a Navy jet first. ED can do the E all they want, I trust HB to do a Navy Phantom justice. Until we actually get some real Vietnam maps and modules the B doesn't make as much sense to me, but a J, N, or S would be neat.

 

Yeah, they would be a great fit for their Forrestal class. The N was less capable, I guess, so if they're making it, better to stick to J or S, IMHO.

  • Like 1

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

I'm sorry you need 10kft of runway. Yes, the E was significant not disputing that. But only having a late AF variant of a Navy jet that made a huge impact in aviation would be a crime.

 

The Phantom was a Navy jet first. ED can do the E all they want, I trust HB to do a Navy Phantom justice. Until we actually get some real Vietnam maps and modules the B doesn't make as much sense to me, but a J, N, or S would be neat.

Pure BS. F-4E is what F-4 meant for majority of the world. Also seen most of the conflict through years. Also the most properly multirole with a good bit of guided air to ground weaponry, early targeting pods, Shrikes, and an actual gun.

Sure yeah, getting the Naval F-4 too would be cool. But if it is the only variant, they may as well not do it at all as far as I'm concerned. Which, probably will be what end up happening, thanks to people who has been drumming this drivel for years.

  • Like 1

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 post
Share on other sites

About time the Apache got some DCS level loving!! I know it's been done to death with the Gunship series, etc. But that is well out of date!! Can't wait to get hold of this

Fractal Define R4 Case | Core i7-9700K @ Stock | 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi | Gigabyte GTX1080 G1 Gaming 8GB | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD (OS) | 1TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (DCS) | 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD (Steam library) | 1TB WD Caviar Black HDD WD1002FAEX | Corsair 750W PSU | Corsair H60 Hydro Series CPU Cooler | TrackIR 5 | Oculus rift S | TM HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals | Win 10 Home 64-bit | Asus PG348Q 34" 3440x1440 Monitor | Bose Companion 3 2.1 Sound

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/20/2020 at 2:24 AM, WinterH said:

Pure BS. F-4E is what F-4 meant for majority of the world. Also seen most of the conflict through years. Also the most properly multirole with a good bit of guided air to ground weaponry, early targeting pods, Shrikes, and an actual gun.

Sure yeah, getting the Naval F-4 too would be cool. But if it is the only variant, they may as well not do it at all as far as I'm concerned. Which, probably will be what end up happening, thanks to people who has been drumming this drivel for years.

Hate to be that guy my friend but the F-4 was originally designed for the Navy. It was first delivered to the Navy in 1960 and the Air Force got it 3 years later. The Marines flew it in 1962. I'd love to have F-4E but with no Vietnam map, I have to agree with @LanceCriminal86

  • Like 1

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want us to have BOTH, the exported and USAF used E models, AND a Navy version or two. My point was that ED had already done tons on the E, let them get off their asses and finish it instead of the random modules they keep offering. The E being developed I think was a Gulf War era, so not really right for Vietnam anyways. Again there's the push for only the latest/greatest "most capable" variants that sometimes are harder to document, but at least an E of some kind could still stand in for USAF, Japan, Greece, Turkey, and Israel, plus Iran and the Germans if we forgive that they had their own variants like Japan. Again, some pretending has to happen because a single snapshot jet, like the F-16C and F-18C model can't accurately represent the whole line of "E" model Phantoms. But, it's better than nothing, like the A/B Tomcats with the D being absent. I'm fine with it.

 

And F-4 J/S combo akin to how the F-14A/B are being presented would give you Vietnam and onwards through to 1987 covered pretty well, as long as you can stomach pretending they're B/N models for squadrons that exclusively used those. Or, I suppose the B/N option instead. The N/S had usage overlap with the Tomcats on smaller carriers like Midway and also with the Reserves until VF-201, 202, 301, and 302 got Tomcats around 86-87 and were the last users of the F-4S. And VF-151 and 161 operated N/S off Midway until they went to Hornets well into the Tomcat era.

 

But, as usual, the "only the latest and greatest" crowd that focus on MP servers who care more about capabilities and PVP than the experience of flying a jet tailored to specific combat eras or wars seems to be the prevailing voice here and on Reddit. I don't care for MP so I'd rather have modules that fit into known, documented combat or scenarios that could have gone hot, and I want them to have a lot of character. Land based jets, with a few exceptions, just don't do it for me.


Edited by LanceCriminal86
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@LanceCriminal86 I love the Phantom. I was infatuated with the F-4J/S for sometime. We could use those on the Forrestal class. Not to mention another sim but that "popular civil sim" with the F-4 and Midway had my attention for a while, until DCS! Phantoms of any kind are welcome for me, but I'd rather the carrier variants. With the Marians map, simulating some old WESTPAC's would be fun!

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I still want us to have BOTH, the exported and USAF used E models, AND a Navy version or two. My point was that ED had already done tons on the E, let them get off their asses and finish it instead of the random modules they keep offering. The E being developed I think was a Gulf War era, so not really right for Vietnam anyways. Again there's the push for only the latest/greatest "most capable" variants that sometimes are harder to document, but at least an E of some kind could still stand in for USAF, Japan, Greece, Turkey, and Israel, plus Iran and the Germans if we forgive that they had their own variants like Japan. Again, some pretending has to happen because a single snapshot jet, like the F-16C and F-18C model can't accurately represent the whole line of "E" model Phantoms. But, it's better than nothing, like the A/B Tomcats with the D being absent. I'm fine with it.

 

And F-4 J/S combo akin to how the F-14A/B are being presented would give you Vietnam and onwards through to 1987 covered pretty well, as long as you can stomach pretending they're B/N models for squadrons that exclusively used those. Or, I suppose the B/N option instead. The N/S had usage overlap with the Tomcats on smaller carriers like Midway and also with the Reserves until VF-201, 202, 301, and 302 got Tomcats around 86-87 and were the last users of the F-4S. And VF-151 and 161 operated N/S off Midway until they went to Hornets well into the Tomcat era.

 

But, as usual, the "only the latest and greatest" crowd that focus on MP servers who care more about capabilities and PVP than the experience of flying a jet tailored to specific combat eras or wars seems to be the prevailing voice here and on Reddit. I don't care for MP so I'd rather have modules that fit into known, documented combat or scenarios that could have gone hot, and I want them to have a lot of character. Land based jets, with a few exceptions, just don't do it for me.

 

 

Absolutely this.

 

Personally, I'd love as many Phantom variants as possible; with the E Block 53 and S or J being absolute must haves (centred around the mid-to-late 70s, which should include AGM-65 capability, as well as Pave Knife and Pave Spike TGPs with LTDs).

 

The F-4E is the most produced version and I imagine is a good stand-in for the other nations operating the F-4E as well as the F-4EJ and F-4F (though ideally having dedicated variants would be the preference, especially where differences are minor).

 

The naval S or J are simply the better looking Phantoms, and are more at home on Heatblur's Forrestal.

 

All in all more mid-to-late Cold War aircraft (of basically any kind) are sorely needed in my opinion.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, F-4N or S gives the possibility of modeling VTAS potentially, the precursor to the JHMCS. I believe VF-154 and some other squadrons used it for a while, though the common complaint was that the helmets were too bulky under G loads and I don't think the missiles were quite up to the task yet.

 

The sad reality is that ED will probably scrap what was done on the E and say it wasn't up to par with current production levels or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2021 at 3:24 AM, Jackjack171 said:

Hate to be that guy my friend but the F-4 was originally designed for the Navy. It was first delivered to the Navy in 1960 and the Air Force got it 3 years later. The Marines flew it in 1962. I'd love to have F-4E but with no Vietnam map, I have to agree with @LanceCriminal86

Yes, perfectly aware of that, and does not change my position in the least. My point is that F-4E still overtook naval F-4 in amonut of action it saw through decades, and all over the world, as well as in its "multiroleness".

Taking a step back in tone, and trying to argue in a more constructive way... Yes, I too would absolutely love to get both a late-ish F-4E (but still an F-4E, not necessarily a Kurnass, Terminator, ICE, Peace Ikarus, EJ-Kai etc), as well as a good Naval F-4, preferrably also of similar vintage though, as I really believe 80's is a sweet spot for DCS so a J or S would be cool. There are many aircraft I strongly believe that we should have multiple versions of in DCS, but it is more exception than the rule, and if we only get one, I still maintain a mid-late 80s F-4E should take precedence. Again, maintaining that IF we can only get ONE.

But from what we all say, it is actually clear that we all more or less agree that both F-4E and F-4J/S are needed. Thing is, former Belsimtek's F-4E is, apparently dead for all intents and purposes. It isn't a given that ED will work on it again, and latest words from an ED representative on it was something like "it will be done someday, probably by a 3rd party, variant not clear", which seem like "yeah that BST F-4E went dodo's way" in plain speak sadly.

 

Edit: I would be perfectly fine with F-4E and a naval F-4 being both separate payware products, as they are fairly different.


Edited by WinterH
  • Like 1

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 post
Share on other sites

Hell I'd take M3/Leatherneck doing an F-4S, if Heatblur decides to move forwards with the A-6 Intruder. I made my statements under the impression ED was going to chest paddle the E at some point but it seems they've completely lost their way with the Viper, Apache, Hind, and Mosquito all taking up their energies. The time to do a Phantom was now as Japan is retiring theirs, that was the perfect window for references and sound samples.

 

ED possibly backing out of the Phantom changes things. I'm thankful for the Tomcat and forthcoming Crusader, and maybe Intruder. We do need some contemporary AF Cold Warriors, but really we need some REDFOR before those guys riot. If they're going to try to push the Phantom to a 3rd party I'd expect Leatherneck to do a B/J/N/S, because they seem to currently stick with Navy and Marine aircraft. Perhaps a new 3rd party could be convinced to start and take over the project, or maybe ED will resume it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ED pretty much left the F-4 on indefinite hold for them, But also left it free for OTHER third party developers if interested to develop the module.

 

Considering the fame of the F-4 series. I too would like to see it in DCS, primarily the F-4E that saw PLENTY of combat, and as for Naval fun with all that carrier landings.

 

We could see the F-4J or F-4B. UK did use F-4J modded a bit for their use, and may have been used to some extent in the Falkland wars and we are going to have Falkland map.

 

However, ED did state no developers had planned for Vietnam map, at least to their current knowledge. Even still, Two F-4 variants would sure be fun. On the Naval side, The J version. We could use the J version for hypothetical Cold war fiction scenario or even Falklands...maybe. Yeah, I am wishing for F-4E and the F-4J.

 

If developed, Pretty sure it would sell like HOT cakes...with such great combat track record and that multi role ability during THOSE times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jojyrocks said:

 

We could see the F-4J or F-4B. UK did use F-4J modded a bit for their use, and may have been used to some extent in the Falkland wars and we are going to have Falkland map.

 

RAF F4s were deployed after the conflict at Stanley in late 1982 but these were Spey engined FGR2s and although based on the J they were "modded" a little more than a bit (different engines, intakes, rear fuse, flaps, slats, ECMs, performance characteristics). Some FGR2s were on readiness at Ascension Island  for Air Defence of that base during the conflict (but never called upon and about 4000 miles North of Razbams map area anyway.)  

 

The 15 pure-ish F4Js (upgraded to virtually F4S standards) that the RAF purchased in the mid 80s to fill a gap in the UK's air defence left by the Falklands bound FRG2s were only ever based in the UK I think. 

 

The phantom covers such a wide section of air warfare and time periods I guess it it depends on how hypothetical you are willing to be and where your interest lies as to what variant you would settle for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 4:33 AM, WinterH said:

Yes, perfectly aware of that, and does not change my position in the least. My point is that F-4E still overtook naval F-4 in amonut of action it saw through decades, and all over the world, as well as in its "multiroleness".

Taking a step back in tone, and trying to argue in a more constructive way... Yes, I too would absolutely love to get both a late-ish F-4E (but still an F-4E, not necessarily a Kurnass, Terminator, ICE, Peace Ikarus, EJ-Kai etc), as well as a good Naval F-4, preferrably also of similar vintage though, as I really believe 80's is a sweet spot for DCS so a J or S would be cool. There are many aircraft I strongly believe that we should have multiple versions of in DCS, but it is more exception than the rule, and if we only get one, I still maintain a mid-late 80s F-4E should take precedence. Again, maintaining that IF we can only get ONE.

But from what we all say, it is actually clear that we all more or less agree that both F-4E and F-4J/S are needed. Thing is, former Belsimtek's F-4E is, apparently dead for all intents and purposes. It isn't a given that ED will work on it again, and latest words from an ED representative on it was something like "it will be done someday, probably by a 3rd party, variant not clear", which seem like "yeah that BST F-4E went dodo's way" in plain speak sadly.

 

Edit: I would be perfectly fine with F-4E and a naval F-4 being both separate payware products, as they are fairly different.

 

Very well said! The 80's does seem like a sweet spot for DCS.

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...