Paint Schemes MilViz F-4 Phantom
- Thread starter stovall
- Start date
Understand Kat
I bought the F4E beta ... and will no doubt buy the S when it becomes available. I am a little disappointed the J is taking so long to come along in the beta because I've seen how good it looks in the paint kit (and its no doubt even better now)... The short nosed Phantoms always had more appeal to me than the E... although I have to say it is growing on me. See if you can talk the Boss into expediting the inclusion of it into the Beta... I know I daren't ask
Matt
I bought the F4E beta ... and will no doubt buy the S when it becomes available. I am a little disappointed the J is taking so long to come along in the beta because I've seen how good it looks in the paint kit (and its no doubt even better now)... The short nosed Phantoms always had more appeal to me than the E... although I have to say it is growing on me. See if you can talk the Boss into expediting the inclusion of it into the Beta... I know I daren't ask
Matt
Hi,
I've talked to Colin about this and he said: "We'll finish the E, do the S and then, if we feel it's warranted, do the D. The J external will not be in the next build because that's going out, with luck, on the weekend. I'll see what I can do about getting it in for the build after that. No promises..."
I hope this answers your questions and concerns.
One thing I might add is that the Navy versions were not exported to the same extent and therefore, though you personally might feel that they would do better, we're not so sure about that.
Time will tell.
Thank you for your attention.
Kat.
I've talked to Colin about this and he said: "We'll finish the E, do the S and then, if we feel it's warranted, do the D. The J external will not be in the next build because that's going out, with luck, on the weekend. I'll see what I can do about getting it in for the build after that. No promises..."
I hope this answers your questions and concerns.
One thing I might add is that the Navy versions were not exported to the same extent and therefore, though you personally might feel that they would do better, we're not so sure about that.
Time will tell.
Thank you for your attention.
Kat.
delta_lima
Charter Member 2015
Relieved there is a naval big-nosed Phantom in the mix.
That said, I'd say indexing expected unit sales based solely upon how widely exported the real world model is simplistic and naïve. The following that American naval aircraft have in flight sims, for who knows what reason, a following far out of proportion to national boundaries. May sound a bit ethno-centric, and I'm a fiercely patriotic ex-Canadian Forces man - so this is not merely some Yankee waving the stars and stripes (no disrespect to my US friends).
It's a fact that post-war naval aviation is a very interesting sim experience, and the US's naval air arm was clearly the major global player during this period, and that's where a good percentage of the naval air interest lies, and with it, the repaint interest. The facts are borne out when looking at how Virtavia's A-4, Razbam's A-7s have been repainted - to say nothing of the repaint focus for the original Alphasim FS9 payware F-4.
Looking at it a different way, and focusing away from the naval variants - compare the C9 and the aforementioned Alphasim F-4s. Clearly, the C9 was more finely modeled, better textured, and just an all-round nicer model than the AS F-4. Yet I guarantee the latter outsold the C9 by at least 4:1. Why? the breadth of models, and the repaint potential that tapped into some pretty committed sim preferences.
I know - modeling, XML coding is complex - I get that. That said, I'll bet you'll get more bang for buck with more models than just a couple with full TacPac. TacPac'ers are gonna hate me, but that's ok. Even, as is planned, if the VCs are shared between the models, MV has an opportunity to do in 2014 with the Phantom what AS did in 2005 with their Phantom. Forgoing the C/D and RF models will leave money on the table far out of proportion to the modeling effort for those exterior models.
Glad the S appears to be in the mix. Even then, I'll only consider buying once it's fully available - none of this "buy now, maybe get it later" nonsense. The decision to buy unreservedly is a matter of at least some of those additional models. If my buyer's regret over the MV F-86 is anything to go by, (assuaged only by Gradyhappy's Fury repaints ) I'll proceed with caution. A Fury, or a D or K would have guaranteed it'd get flown 10 times more than it does, notwithstanding how lovely a model it is ... see a pattern, btw??)
Meanwhile, while MV wrings its hands over the obvious, I'm enjoying the current Iris, AS, and C9 models. Big bonus: it's good motorcycling weather ...
dl
That said, I'd say indexing expected unit sales based solely upon how widely exported the real world model is simplistic and naïve. The following that American naval aircraft have in flight sims, for who knows what reason, a following far out of proportion to national boundaries. May sound a bit ethno-centric, and I'm a fiercely patriotic ex-Canadian Forces man - so this is not merely some Yankee waving the stars and stripes (no disrespect to my US friends).
It's a fact that post-war naval aviation is a very interesting sim experience, and the US's naval air arm was clearly the major global player during this period, and that's where a good percentage of the naval air interest lies, and with it, the repaint interest. The facts are borne out when looking at how Virtavia's A-4, Razbam's A-7s have been repainted - to say nothing of the repaint focus for the original Alphasim FS9 payware F-4.
Looking at it a different way, and focusing away from the naval variants - compare the C9 and the aforementioned Alphasim F-4s. Clearly, the C9 was more finely modeled, better textured, and just an all-round nicer model than the AS F-4. Yet I guarantee the latter outsold the C9 by at least 4:1. Why? the breadth of models, and the repaint potential that tapped into some pretty committed sim preferences.
I know - modeling, XML coding is complex - I get that. That said, I'll bet you'll get more bang for buck with more models than just a couple with full TacPac. TacPac'ers are gonna hate me, but that's ok. Even, as is planned, if the VCs are shared between the models, MV has an opportunity to do in 2014 with the Phantom what AS did in 2005 with their Phantom. Forgoing the C/D and RF models will leave money on the table far out of proportion to the modeling effort for those exterior models.
Glad the S appears to be in the mix. Even then, I'll only consider buying once it's fully available - none of this "buy now, maybe get it later" nonsense. The decision to buy unreservedly is a matter of at least some of those additional models. If my buyer's regret over the MV F-86 is anything to go by, (assuaged only by Gradyhappy's Fury repaints ) I'll proceed with caution. A Fury, or a D or K would have guaranteed it'd get flown 10 times more than it does, notwithstanding how lovely a model it is ... see a pattern, btw??)
Meanwhile, while MV wrings its hands over the obvious, I'm enjoying the current Iris, AS, and C9 models. Big bonus: it's good motorcycling weather ...
dl
grog swiller
Members +
Wow Delta Lima, those are some pretty strong comments considering that none of the USN variants were supposed to be built. One of them is even going to have the correct VC, which, for a good long time Milviz said would have the E VC because of the cost and time issues. I'd say we are fortunate to have a USN variant with the appropriate VC, at all.
If you're just going to continue to 'enjoy' the other USN models until Milviz makes what you demand, I have to say "what? are you kidding?" . The Alphasim and Iris F-4 VC's are a bad cartoon as compared to the Milviz F-4 VC.
If you're just going to continue to 'enjoy' the other USN models until Milviz makes what you demand, I have to say "what? are you kidding?" . The Alphasim and Iris F-4 VC's are a bad cartoon as compared to the Milviz F-4 VC.
SH427
Members +
You know, the thought crossed my mind that one of the minor physical differences betwixt the navy phantom model and the army early big nose f-4s is the pylons. There's probably more but honestly I'd cheat a little and paint a navy phantom as an early army model....
Edit: and by army I mean air force, obviously. I spend way too much time in the vintage department
Edit: and by army I mean air force, obviously. I spend way too much time in the vintage department
delta_lima
Charter Member 2015
Just for clarification ...
1. I'm not "demanding" anything from MV.
2. What I am doing is make a case for why a broader model set makes business sense. That recommended broader model set includes models (C,D, RF) which largely are of no personal interest to me - yet will contribute to MV proportionately more than the modeling effort it will take (see point 4). So MV stands to gain, not me.
3. Myself and others have already both proposed and expressed satisfaction with the idea of "other models" apart from the E sharing VCs - we're already in agreement on that. If there happens to be a naval-specific VC - bonus - and kudos to MV.
4. If apparently MV considers said exterior models "a non-issue" - which I take to mean, "reasonably easy to model compared to the complexity of doing each model's unique VC" - which is fair, and completely understandable compromise - then we're all essentially on the same page.
I run a consulting product development & marketing practice where all day long I help clients wrestle with which products to invest in order to achieve the most financial return in their respective market. I wish the majority of those cases were as low-risk, straight forward, and with as much to gain as what MV faces here. Speaking completely sincerely, I believe they're sitting on a potential gold mine of FS addon revenue, which they fully deserve.
That's all I'll say on the business matter of all this - again, best of luck Kolin, Kat, et al. Looking forward to what comes out the other end ...
dl
1. I'm not "demanding" anything from MV.
2. What I am doing is make a case for why a broader model set makes business sense. That recommended broader model set includes models (C,D, RF) which largely are of no personal interest to me - yet will contribute to MV proportionately more than the modeling effort it will take (see point 4). So MV stands to gain, not me.
3. Myself and others have already both proposed and expressed satisfaction with the idea of "other models" apart from the E sharing VCs - we're already in agreement on that. If there happens to be a naval-specific VC - bonus - and kudos to MV.
4. If apparently MV considers said exterior models "a non-issue" - which I take to mean, "reasonably easy to model compared to the complexity of doing each model's unique VC" - which is fair, and completely understandable compromise - then we're all essentially on the same page.
I run a consulting product development & marketing practice where all day long I help clients wrestle with which products to invest in order to achieve the most financial return in their respective market. I wish the majority of those cases were as low-risk, straight forward, and with as much to gain as what MV faces here. Speaking completely sincerely, I believe they're sitting on a potential gold mine of FS addon revenue, which they fully deserve.
That's all I'll say on the business matter of all this - again, best of luck Kolin, Kat, et al. Looking forward to what comes out the other end ...
dl
grog swiller
Members +
Ok, maybe 'demanding' was too strong of a word. You're holding out until they make the variant you want, is what I could have said...which is absolutely your prerogative to do.
A far as you telling them what is good business sense, I believe they've already stated they don't have the money, coders, and time to make all the variants. Doing all that ISN'T good business sense from the Dev's point of view. The F-4E, just by itself, has been in development for almost two years, and is still not done (most likely due to recreating the vast complexity of systems people demand), and (I would suspect) they went for the open beta to get at least some portion of cash flow going.
It's no secret you don't get rich building models for this game/sim, and even when you take the models to new levels of realism, Devs still take a furious outlash from many because it's not exactly like the real plane. I think doing a redux of the Alphasim F-4 series at the level FS has gotten too, is just not feasible. Especially when so many simmers want it for cheap cheap cheap, and they want it like the real thing.
A far as you telling them what is good business sense, I believe they've already stated they don't have the money, coders, and time to make all the variants. Doing all that ISN'T good business sense from the Dev's point of view. The F-4E, just by itself, has been in development for almost two years, and is still not done (most likely due to recreating the vast complexity of systems people demand), and (I would suspect) they went for the open beta to get at least some portion of cash flow going.
It's no secret you don't get rich building models for this game/sim, and even when you take the models to new levels of realism, Devs still take a furious outlash from many because it's not exactly like the real plane. I think doing a redux of the Alphasim F-4 series at the level FS has gotten too, is just not feasible. Especially when so many simmers want it for cheap cheap cheap, and they want it like the real thing.
wombat666
Administrator
Just to clarify the nuts and bolts of this discussion, remember, if a product is available that you must have, buy it, if not, don't.
Personally (Just me, myself!) I think the comparison between the Cloud 9 and Alphasim releases makes an excellent point, once again (IMNSHO) the sight of Cloud F4E Tombs painted in USN colors is laughable given the apparent wishes for 'accuracy', but when it comes down to it, this is not 'Real Life', it is a 'Simulation' (or as many regard it, a 'Game').
Personally (Just me, myself!) I think the comparison between the Cloud 9 and Alphasim releases makes an excellent point, once again (IMNSHO) the sight of Cloud F4E Tombs painted in USN colors is laughable given the apparent wishes for 'accuracy', but when it comes down to it, this is not 'Real Life', it is a 'Simulation' (or as many regard it, a 'Game').
grog swiller
Members +
You are welcome, Kat, but I would just like to get my hands on a finished F-4 of outstanding quality. You guys have said since the first announcement that you're doing an F-4E representative of the late 1960's early 1970's period. Which is fine, although my pref would be 1990's early 2000, lol. My preference is immaterial, though, I just would like an awesome F-4 to tinker with in FS, sooner than later.
I think you guys have been caught up in trying to please the "I want" crowd, and have diverted your resources away from what you initially said you were going to build. So, the end result is we are all going to get something later rather than sooner. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have every variant, and I do understand you are trying to please potential customers. But, you guys have spread out thin resources away from the E model.
You are in between a rock and a hard place, unfortunately. You guys build outstanding models, but you can only build so many specific types at the current FS demand for realism. It seems there is a cadre of people here at SOH that think every model built should come with exactly what they want in it, but that's ridiculous since if you read what they want, all the wants are mostly different. It's not possible to please them all.
I think you guys have been caught up in trying to please the "I want" crowd, and have diverted your resources away from what you initially said you were going to build. So, the end result is we are all going to get something later rather than sooner. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have every variant, and I do understand you are trying to please potential customers. But, you guys have spread out thin resources away from the E model.
You are in between a rock and a hard place, unfortunately. You guys build outstanding models, but you can only build so many specific types at the current FS demand for realism. It seems there is a cadre of people here at SOH that think every model built should come with exactly what they want in it, but that's ridiculous since if you read what they want, all the wants are mostly different. It's not possible to please them all.
Fortunately, the people who do the models (and the paint) are not the same people who do the coding and programming of the aircraft.
So, for us to add a D model nose and burner petals is fairly simple.
The main problem I foresee is convincing Bernt to do the FDE for a model that has no VC (other than the aliased F-4E VC).
Oh well.
Kat.
So, for us to add a D model nose and burner petals is fairly simple.
The main problem I foresee is convincing Bernt to do the FDE for a model that has no VC (other than the aliased F-4E VC).
Oh well.
Kat.
airattackimages
Charter Member
Just chiming in to say I too am only interested in the Navy Phantom. Not to contribute to bad blood, just making it known that there are some of us out there. The USAF Phantoms never appealed to me all that much.
odourboy
SOH-CM-2020
I'll chime in to say, I fully understand and shared your sentiment. But opted to purchase the F-4E beta anyway and have to say that even in it's current state, it is an extremely satisfying flying experience that's only going to improve.