The F-5E, being a contemporary of the F-4E, would be the closest Air Force platform to compare it to in DCS. For me, spending a lot of time getting good at manual depression bombing in the Tiger II made bombing in the Phantom is a lot easier. You get out of it what you put into it and as they say, practice makes perfect. Heatblur did knock it out of the park with the Phantom and I am looking forward to their Navy Phantoms as well.
Yeah, i have a bunch of time in the F-5 and the F-4 is a massive step up in terms of capability and especially engine power, just lacks a little in the horizantal turn.
You had said it earlier that most DCS pilots get it backwards going from more modern aircraft like the F-18/F-16 and then go to the F-4. To put this into perspective the F-16 was introduced 18 years after the F-4, 18 years before the F-4 was introduced the P-47 was introduced. So comparing the F-4 to the F-16 is not unlike comparing the P-47 to the F-4. Personally my favorite airplanes to fly in DCS are the airplanes of this era as they are more about flying and less about button pushing.
Yeah it makes me appreciate the f14 alot more. Last night i hopped on a cold war server that had the f14a as the most modern blue force plane. After trying to learn the f4 and hopping back into an F14 made it feel like a superplane.
A little insight on the aerodynamic problem solving of the designers of the F-4. McDonnell placed the engines low to make it easy to just drop them out the bottom during replacement The elevons needed to be placed above that, to keep them out of the engine exhaust At high AoA the main wing wake would interfere with the elevons and make them less effective With the large anhedral (down sweep) the outboard part of the elevons are below the wing wake at high AoA --> better control anhedral makes an aircraft less stable in roll, the solution is to compensate by main wing dihedral, about 3° should do it The fuselage and wing box was already designed, rather than redo that, the engineers gave the outboard panels (would fold up for carrier parking) 12° The humpback canopy came after the first test flights, to improve visibility
Ah interesting. This reminds me of Porsche trying to build a modern, balanced race car around a rear engine design which exists just for the sake of tradition.
Well said and agreed. I think this applies to all the multicrew fighters in DCS. You need two people to get the most out of the experience. Thanks Iain for sharing the great perspective.
A very good first impressions. I have to agree it probably needs two humans to get the most out of it. However it offers an awful lot for single player as well. I am very enjoying learning the F-4E, more so than any other DCS module I gave experienced to date actually.
Agreed. It is a great experience in single player. But I think to get the FULL value of what Heatblur has done it's going to require two players and it's going to be a pretty unique experience I think. I'm looking forward to doing some videos on THAT!
I've seen a lot of these first impressions videos and I think this was the most thoughtful looks that takes into consideration all the soft variables that go into making a module
Thanks. I appreciate it. I do love the F4, but I also worry that some commentators, and players, may approach with expectations that may be challenging. So far, it seems to be very well accepted. I hope that continues.
@@Sidekick65 we have a saying in my virtual squadron that the more "real" they make a module the more it going to suck. What we mean is not that it will suck as a module in dcs but that the systems on board are going to be more finicky and challenging to use because real life has more variables that go into whether or not the system functions with the intended results. I think HB has done a fantastic job recreating this model of the f4 like you say and that means it comes with its quirks. Hopefully people don't expect it to dominate in cold war pvp then they will like it... I think I just reiterated what you already said in the video hahaha
Completely fair review. I couldn't agree more, especially about the human WSO. Jester 2.0 is great (MUCH better than 1.0), but having an actual human in the seat is a whole different level. Thanks!
I always wanted it, and I got it. This module you must fly it, and pay attention to flying it, I like it. what i don't like it (due to lack of familiarization to the instruments), is I have my head down and learning as I fly it into the ground, lol. I do look forward to flying this - a lot. I feel this is a master piece of a simulated aircraft.
Enjoy your videos. Think the same can be stated for most modern jets...how many F-16 blocks have been put in service not to mention all foreign variants. I think Heatblur made a smart choice with the F-4E. Developers should allow the player/purchaser as much configuration options as possible. I'll load configure the aircraft to mimic the period of use as close as possible...options are good.
Great review and love your voice, been enjoying the phantom since day one (even while terribly sick) and its been a experience unlike no other module. It really has shown me personally that there really is a difference between a flight model that is good or adequate for what its trying to do and one that is THE best in the sim ATM. Now understandably some modules are just suffering from not getting the love or attention they have needed over the years but this module really is just great, from the ordinance to the flying and damage modeling, jester is SOOO much better compared to the F14, the Jester Context button has changed the way I will forever use Jester. Great video and keep up the amazing content!
What a great review. I am tempted, but the whole multi-crew thing probably won't work for me, since my internet isn't the greatest.... Will still get it and use Jester, just because, though. (Really, I am waiting for the A-7, single seat attack, my cup of tea. Although, if HB could make a 105-D with this much attention to detail, WOW!)
Nice job. Like someone else commented here, I spent some time in the F-5 assuming the whole bomb dropping thing would be similar. The flying part too, mostly. As for mulit-crew/MP: MP is hit-or-miss for me (and it's just not my 'jam' for a few reasons). One being I can only play when I can play. So far Jester has been good, and an improvement over Jester V1.0. Less nonsense/more business-like, locks things up for me to shoot (usually); makes callouts that are mostly useful; etc. Admittedly my relationship with Jester is still in its early days. And yes, this models an aircraft you actually have to fly - the whole time (AFCS helps in certain instances). It's not point-and-shoot. I foresaw many people ending up disappointed stemming from the time required to control the Phantom in a coordinated way. Compared to the fly-by-wire, computerized, fighters that followed this is more about flying the machine (so you can actually hit something on the ground) and less about operating the software. Welcome to the past! They did a wonderful job!
Yup. I hear ya. Gotta say that Multiplayer us not really my jam either, but I have met a couple if very patient new friends through DCS who are willing to adapt to my schedule and do have to say that flying "multi-crew" with a buddy as "nosegunner" is a thoroughly enjoyable experience. And one that HB has very faithfully modeled. I think its worth at least giving it a try - if only to get your full money's worth. One man's opinion. If you ever want to fund a crew mate feel free to drop by my Discord.
I love the F-4E and found it very easy to learn but hard to master. But I am coming from the F1CE/EE and F-14A/B. My one wish they add the bombing calculator to the Mirage F1.
For those first couple seconds I thought I was about to hear some strange rendition of Footloose..I was a little disappointed to not see my Zunis, were they not used on the E model?
Glad you enjoyed the music. I really don't know about the Zuni's. I 'm pretty sure they are a Navy thing - and this is the Air Force model - so maybe that's it.
Could you do a video about early-mid cold war era doctrine? How the century series (F-100, F-105 (both in the works), F-102 and the Thud) and the F4 would had been used in europe had the cold war gone hot? It would be cool, and based on your videos you are the only person who can do it correctly lol. I love your videos.
I had to kind of laugh today. I watched an hour and a half video of two guys trying to "fake it till they make it" in a Phantom, one of which, who was in the back seat, was a REAL civilian pilot. Neither had read the manual (they said as much), or even watched a RUclips video (it seemed to me, anyway). The episode should have been called "Laural And Hardy Go Supersonic". I was almost YELLING at the computer screen watching these guys stumble bumble and fumble their way though. I had been studying for MONTHS every scrap of video and piece of information I could find on this thing ( there are lots of good genuine article USAF and USN videos on the Periscope channel), then did the training missions (for what they're worth) to get a hint of how to do things. Bottom line. This module is absolutely EXQUISITE in it's modeling. And yes, to get the most out of it you DO need two people, but Jester is good enough.....barely. And I'm loving every minute of it. But if you're flying a modern electronic jet, get your game face on and study before you go airborne in the Phantom. Because this monster will humiliate you in a HURRY.
This will sounds dumb, looking at this scene 6:29 I wondered if the sim models the jamming pod side lobes and the drop off in effectiveness or is it more like a bubble around the aircraft?
The issue (note: I don't have the F-4 but do have the F14 among others) is that it's very difficult to "learn" to be a good RIO because the game doesn't have simple ways to teach you this, due to how dependent you are on the front seat doing a lot of things as well. In the F14, Iceman is plain "useless" as a teaching tool, as you can't even give him two instructions to carry in parallel (climb and turn for e.g.), so you need to kinda learn both all the time, which is hard, because well, learning the front seat also means dealing with "jester" for the most part.
The F4 was one of the aircraft that outlined pilot task saturation as an increasing problem for fighters. The ergonomics did not help either. You have to hand it to those guys that could fight this thing and land it on those smaller carriers. The on speed AOA is not a good place in the flight regime, slow down too much and you start to sink like a rock. This thing is like an old muscle car. Analog with no computer chip to prevent you from doing stupid things. Abundance of power but zero brain.
I believe you are way, waaaaaaay overstating the challenges and two seat aspect in this one. And the challenges themselves are neither unique, nor novel for anyone who's flown anything older than 80s in DCS, which one would think is the main audience for this module anyway. I love your content, but frankly found this first impressions to be rather puzzling this time 🙂
I'm sure the F-4E is great but ED is a fucking joke, and buying these modules is just rewarding them for putting out broken patches, missing features, and shitting on their paying customers. Don't pay to be insulted. Oh and driving off community and paid developers. That too. Stop rewarding their shitty behavior.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The F-5E, being a contemporary of the F-4E, would be the closest Air Force platform to compare it to in DCS. For me, spending a lot of time getting good at manual depression bombing in the Tiger II made bombing in the Phantom is a lot easier. You get out of it what you put into it and as they say, practice makes perfect. Heatblur did knock it out of the park with the Phantom and I am looking forward to their Navy Phantoms as well.
Yeah, i have a bunch of time in the F-5 and the F-4 is a massive step up in terms of capability and especially engine power, just lacks a little in the horizantal turn.
You had said it earlier that most DCS pilots get it backwards going from more modern aircraft like the F-18/F-16 and then go to the F-4. To put this into perspective the F-16 was introduced 18 years after the F-4, 18 years before the F-4 was introduced the P-47 was introduced. So comparing the F-4 to the F-16 is not unlike comparing the P-47 to the F-4. Personally my favorite airplanes to fly in DCS are the airplanes of this era as they are more about flying and less about button pushing.
Totally agree. Great analogy. The thing I love about DCS us that you travel through all those decades while sitting at your desk!
Yeah it makes me appreciate the f14 alot more. Last night i hopped on a cold war server that had the f14a as the most modern blue force plane. After trying to learn the f4 and hopping back into an F14 made it feel like a superplane.
Unexpected joy of mine with regards to flyability is how quickly the J79's spool!
It's so quick it felt to me like a bug hah
@@robespierre7927 It very well could be, but until further notice I'm very happy with how simple formation flying is 😆
A little insight on the aerodynamic problem solving of the designers of the F-4.
McDonnell placed the engines low to make it easy to just drop them out the bottom during replacement
The elevons needed to be placed above that, to keep them out of the engine exhaust
At high AoA the main wing wake would interfere with the elevons and make them less effective
With the large anhedral (down sweep) the outboard part of the elevons are below the wing wake at high AoA --> better control
anhedral makes an aircraft less stable in roll, the solution is to compensate by main wing dihedral, about 3° should do it
The fuselage and wing box was already designed, rather than redo that, the engineers gave the outboard panels (would fold up for carrier parking) 12°
The humpback canopy came after the first test flights, to improve visibility
Great input. Thanks!
Little gem of information here! Nice
Ah interesting. This reminds me of Porsche trying to build a modern, balanced race car around a rear engine design which exists just for the sake of tradition.
Well said and agreed. I think this applies to all the multicrew fighters in DCS. You need two people to get the most out of the experience. Thanks Iain for sharing the great perspective.
A very good first impressions. I have to agree it probably needs two humans to get the most out of it. However it offers an awful lot for single player as well. I am very enjoying learning the F-4E, more so than any other DCS module I gave experienced to date actually.
Agreed. It is a great experience in single player. But I think to get the FULL value of what Heatblur has done it's going to require two players and it's going to be a pretty unique experience I think. I'm looking forward to doing some videos on THAT!
Now that the F-4 is released. Do the Shrikes and other weapons work better for the A4-E Skyhawk?
I love everything about this jet. Only trouble I have is getting it back on the ground the way the Air Force intended lol
DCS needs the "Thud" to go along with this F-4 and a Vietnam map.
I've seen a lot of these first impressions videos and I think this was the most thoughtful looks that takes into consideration all the soft variables that go into making a module
Thanks. I appreciate it. I do love the F4, but I also worry that some commentators, and players, may approach with expectations that may be challenging. So far, it seems to be very well accepted. I hope that continues.
@@Sidekick65 we have a saying in my virtual squadron that the more "real" they make a module the more it going to suck. What we mean is not that it will suck as a module in dcs but that the systems on board are going to be more finicky and challenging to use because real life has more variables that go into whether or not the system functions with the intended results. I think HB has done a fantastic job recreating this model of the f4 like you say and that means it comes with its quirks. Hopefully people don't expect it to dominate in cold war pvp then they will like it... I think I just reiterated what you already said in the video hahaha
After watching your context rich warthog / Cold War and Skyhawk videos, I knew this was gonna be one of the best reviews on this plane! Thanks
Yes it does fly easier than I thought it would also. And the Jester navigation, reroute, diverting to closest airport is fantastic!!!
great summary. Thanks.
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
Completely fair review. I couldn't agree more, especially about the human WSO. Jester 2.0 is great (MUCH better than 1.0), but having an actual human in the seat is a whole different level.
Thanks!
Good and honest review. Thank you, Sir.
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
Thanks for the observations bud
Thanks. Glad it was helpful.
I always wanted it, and I got it. This module you must fly it, and pay attention to flying it, I like it. what i don't like it (due to lack of familiarization to the instruments), is I have my head down and learning as I fly it into the ground, lol. I do look forward to flying this - a lot. I feel this is a master piece of a simulated aircraft.
What wonderful cinematics showcasing the beautiful F-4E! How about another video on making videos like this???!!!
Enjoy your videos. Think the same can be stated for most modern jets...how many F-16 blocks have been put in service not to mention all foreign variants. I think Heatblur made a smart choice with the F-4E. Developers should allow the player/purchaser as much configuration options as possible. I'll load configure the aircraft to mimic the period of use as close as possible...options are good.
Another great vid mate. Thanks.
Glad you liked it!
Always appreciate your careful approach to the topics you present!
Well thought out review. Thank you!
Most welcome.
Great review and love your voice, been enjoying the phantom since day one (even while terribly sick) and its been a experience unlike no other module. It really has shown me personally that there really is a difference between a flight model that is good or adequate for what its trying to do and one that is THE best in the sim ATM. Now understandably some modules are just suffering from not getting the love or attention they have needed over the years but this module really is just great, from the ordinance to the flying and damage modeling, jester is SOOO much better compared to the F14, the Jester Context button has changed the way I will forever use Jester. Great video and keep up the amazing content!
What a great review. I am tempted, but the whole multi-crew thing probably won't work for me, since my internet isn't the greatest.... Will still get it and use Jester, just because, though.
(Really, I am waiting for the A-7, single seat attack, my cup of tea. Although, if HB could make a 105-D with this much attention to detail, WOW!)
Its not like it's not a great module in Single Player. I just think the "two-crew" experience will really be something unique.
Nice job. Like someone else commented here, I spent some time in the F-5 assuming the whole bomb dropping thing would be similar. The flying part too, mostly.
As for mulit-crew/MP: MP is hit-or-miss for me (and it's just not my 'jam' for a few reasons). One being I can only play when I can play.
So far Jester has been good, and an improvement over Jester V1.0. Less nonsense/more business-like, locks things up for me to shoot (usually); makes callouts that are mostly useful; etc.
Admittedly my relationship with Jester is still in its early days.
And yes, this models an aircraft you actually have to fly - the whole time (AFCS helps in certain instances). It's not point-and-shoot.
I foresaw many people ending up disappointed stemming from the time required to control the Phantom in a coordinated way. Compared to the fly-by-wire, computerized, fighters that followed this is more about flying the machine (so you can actually hit something on the ground) and less about operating the software.
Welcome to the past! They did a wonderful job!
Yup. I hear ya. Gotta say that Multiplayer us not really my jam either, but I have met a couple if very patient new friends through DCS who are willing to adapt to my schedule and do have to say that flying "multi-crew" with a buddy as "nosegunner" is a thoroughly enjoyable experience. And one that HB has very faithfully modeled. I think its worth at least giving it a try - if only to get your full money's worth. One man's opinion. If you ever want to fund a crew mate feel free to drop by my Discord.
I love the F-4E and found it very easy to learn but hard to master. But I am coming from the F1CE/EE and F-14A/B.
My one wish they add the bombing calculator to the Mirage F1.
For those first couple seconds I thought I was about to hear some strange rendition of Footloose..I was a little disappointed to not see my Zunis, were they not used on the E model?
Glad you enjoyed the music. I really don't know about the Zuni's. I 'm pretty sure they are a Navy thing - and this is the Air Force model - so maybe that's it.
@@Sidekick65 ahh I don't think I knew that. Looking forward to your future F-4 videos and missions!
Could you do a video about early-mid cold war era doctrine? How the century series (F-100, F-105 (both in the works), F-102 and the Thud) and the F4 would had been used in europe had the cold war gone hot? It would be cool, and based on your videos you are the only person who can do it correctly lol.
I love your videos.
Its ion my list. First I have to figure it out. It's not easy to find reliable research material on the topic
I had to kind of laugh today. I watched an hour and a half video of two guys trying to "fake it till they make it" in a Phantom, one of which, who was in the back seat, was a REAL civilian pilot. Neither had read the manual (they said as much), or even watched a RUclips video (it seemed to me, anyway). The episode should have been called "Laural And Hardy Go Supersonic". I was almost YELLING at the computer screen watching these guys stumble bumble and fumble their way though. I had been studying for MONTHS every scrap of video and piece of information I could find on this thing ( there are lots of good genuine article USAF and USN videos on the Periscope channel), then did the training missions (for what they're worth) to get a hint of how to do things. Bottom line. This module is absolutely EXQUISITE in it's modeling. And yes, to get the most out of it you DO need two people, but Jester is good enough.....barely. And I'm loving every minute of it. But if you're flying a modern electronic jet, get your game face on and study before you go airborne in the Phantom. Because this monster will humiliate you in a HURRY.
This will sounds dumb, looking at this scene 6:29 I wondered if the sim models the jamming pod side lobes and the drop off in effectiveness or is it more like a bubble around the aircraft?
Thank you Iain.
Very welcome
Plentiful, cheap to maintain and effective. Sold worldwide and in use (albeit by fewer countries), today.
The issue (note: I don't have the F-4 but do have the F14 among others) is that it's very difficult to "learn" to be a good RIO because the game doesn't have simple ways to teach you this, due to how dependent you are on the front seat doing a lot of things as well. In the F14, Iceman is plain "useless" as a teaching tool, as you can't even give him two instructions to carry in parallel (climb and turn for e.g.), so you need to kinda learn both all the time, which is hard, because well, learning the front seat also means dealing with "jester" for the most part.
Does anyone know what the Navy’s term for the back seater was in the F-4. Was it RIO like it was for the F-14?
I know the IAF called the position "Navigator"
Four months on - have you found your way to multicrew Phantomification?
Not really. Occasionally but not consistently. Mostly because I have not tried very hard. RL and other projects keep getting in the way.
i would say the f15e is comparable to a modern f4e in role aside from its lack of wild weasel capability
The only thing that disappointed me about this module is the current state of its radar in MP and the fact that it cant run Zunis :(
I kind of look at the F4 like I look at the viggen. You fly it for the love of the plane not because it's the best at anything.
Its the best at being the F-4! That's enough. :-)
F-105 and vietnam map dreams 😅
The F4 was one of the aircraft that outlined pilot task saturation as an increasing problem for fighters. The ergonomics did not help either. You have to hand it to those guys that could fight this thing and land it on those smaller carriers. The on speed AOA is not a good place in the flight regime, slow down too much and you start to sink like a rock. This thing is like an old muscle car. Analog with no computer chip to prevent you from doing stupid things. Abundance of power but zero brain.
I believe you are way, waaaaaaay overstating the challenges and two seat aspect in this one. And the challenges themselves are neither unique, nor novel for anyone who's flown anything older than 80s in DCS, which one would think is the main audience for this module anyway. I love your content, but frankly found this first impressions to be rather puzzling this time 🙂
Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback.
I'm sure the F-4E is great but ED is a fucking joke, and buying these modules is just rewarding them for putting out broken patches, missing features, and shitting on their paying customers. Don't pay to be insulted.
Oh and driving off community and paid developers. That too. Stop rewarding their shitty behavior.