DC Phantom page up at JustFlight

[keithb77]

Can't but it yet but can't be long...
https://www.justflight.com/product/d...j-fgr2-phantom

[YoYo]

Can't but it yet but can't be long...
https://www.justflight.com/product/d...j-fgr2-phantom

I hope the Phantom shape will be fixed finally before the release. It looks .... not like Phantom, sorry. Even B or E version. Im writing about the nose.
Phantom (short nose and long nose) has very distinctive radome dome and different angles. Here we have something that was not in the real Phantom design. I don't know why this was missed and still showing the wrong 3D model in this VERY characteristic part. It completely discourages me .
Good shape we had for P3D of SWS F-4 and Milviz and incoming DCS F-4E. We have "issue" on Good morning here, they should remove these screenshots, every aviation fan can see that something is wrong here.











As you can see, we have completely different angles on the nose of E, and in the model the nose drops immediately, when in E we have a straight angle for a moment, and in version D we even have a slight bulge. The plane is so familiar that I noticed it in the first second.
Btw. If it's WIP, why put WIP photos on the product page?

The Phantom has a really distinctive nose, in the D version with a certain hump even:

[GO_Navy]

I hope the Phantom shape will be fixed finally before the release. It looks .... not like Phantom, sorry. Even B or E version. Im writing about the nose.
Phantom (short nose and long nose) has very distinctive radome dome and different angles. Here we have something that was not in the real Phantom design. I don't know why this was missed and still showing the wrong 3D model in this VERY characteristic part. It completely discourages me .
Good shape we had for P3D of SWS F-4 and Milviz and incoming DCS F-4E. We have "issue" on Good morning here, they should remove these screenshots, every aviation fan can see that something is wrong here.











As you can see, we have completely different angles on the nose of E, and in the model the nose drops immediately, when in E we have a straight angle for a moment, and in version D we even have a slight bulge. The plane is so familiar that I noticed it in the first second.
Btw. If it's WIP, why put WIP photos on the product page?

The Phantom has a really distinctive nose, in the D version with a certain hump even:

While I agree with your sentiment and concern, I don't think many simmers will care or even be aware of that detail. From what I have observed, DCD (like most other developers) buys models from one of many 3d model websites and tweaks a few things here and there with the visual model and then the hard part of making it fly well in the sim. It took a long time but now their aircraft are pretty good (even upon release) - and they get even better over time. I remember when the F-15 was released and it was just a horrible flight model; now it's much improved since they have a decent team in place.

I am not expecting DCD to be anywhere close to DCS but then again, most people don't. Games (including DCS) are for entertainment, not to make anyone a pilot; much less a fighter pilot (though laughably a lot act like they are).

[DennyA]

No, what I see is that whoever took those screen shots didn't set the zoom level to 80-90%, which eliminates the edge-of-screen distortion. I see this all the time when I forget to adjust the zoom before doing screenshots because I have an ultrawidescreen monitor that makes the situation even worse. Stand down. :-)

[YoYo]

No, what I see is that whoever took those screen shots didn't set the zoom level to 80-90%, which eliminates the edge-of-screen distortion. I see this all the time when I forget to adjust the zoom before doing screenshots because I have an ultrawidescreen monitor that makes the situation even worse. Stand down. :-)

Not this I suppose.I know LOD case in MSFS but it isnt the reason here. I analized many screenies, with zoom in too, here is like the shape looks like.

[Dimus]

I usually avoid to criticize developer's work as I realize the effort that it takes, but as a long time F-4 fan I have to agree with Yo-Yo on this one. The shape of the nose is very wrong on this one. Dean however is a dev that listens so I believe that he will try to correct it.

[keithb77]

As I fly 99% in the cockpit I don't worry too much much about such things...and though I don't expect the cockpit to quite match the Milviz F4, nor the challenge of flying it to match reality or the Milviz ADVanced model, I'm pretty sure it will be the best F4 we get for MSFS.

[DC1973]

I checked this after Yo-Yo kept repeat-posting the same complaints on my Facebook page - the F-4E nose, when compared in autho-graphic mode in the modeling software against an accurate orthographic drawing, is within a whisker of perfect. The F-4J nose was indeed too rounded and has been sharpened since. However, as others here rightly point out, these products do not seek that level of accuracy as the target market simply either would not care or would not notice the difference. I build such products so that people can have multiple variants of Phantom for the price of one - this requires certain sacrifices in detail in order to keep the price down. I leave millimetre-perfect detail to other developers, who often never finish their projects due to trying to include too much.

I no longer engage in debates with simmers about accuracy when it comes to such tiny features. Often, such details come later in updates and improvements ( as mentioned above ) but I won't be chasing rainbows trying to include every single Phantom-variant-specific feature just to satisfy 1% of the audience. I think the success of my products as they are speaks for itself far more than anything I could say here, and I already know that increasing "accuracy" for accuracy's sake doesn't enhance sales at all, no matter what the 1% think.

[Bushpounder]

Agree 100% with you, Dave. 99% of buyers really don't care about a whisker or two. Screens and settings can also change what is actually there as well. Keep on your path!

Don BP

[GO_Navy]

Agree 100% with you, Dave. 99% of buyers really don't care about a whisker or two. Screens and settings can also change what is actually there as well. Keep on your path!

Don BP

Who is Dave?

[stovall]

I thank Dean for all the wonderful aircraft you have provided to us. I started with Dean's Jetstar and have every aircraft he has produced. Many of the aircraft I have purchased have been flown and now sit in the hanger. None of Dean's productions are in my aircraft museum. I fly all regularly. No doubt the Phantom will be added to my collection. Thanks to Dean for all he does. Very much appreciated. Bring on the F-4, my carriers await.

[MrZippy]

Who is Dave?

Dave? Dave's not here! (Cheech and Chong) : Bet he meant Dean!

[heywooood]

I thought at first he was being funny - no one will notice such small details too minor to fix..then demonstrating the opposite by changing just one little letter in the developers name to make a point.

I see both sides of this argument. Being a scale modeler I notice details like this all the time. The Phantom is probably one of the top 5 most iconic jet fighter aircraft ever made. Getting all of the KEY aspects of its design RIGHT
is, to people like me, VITAL...not minor. But we are in the minority of sim customers - even if every scale modeler of aircraft was an MSFS participant. Still a small percentage of the total user base..maybe.

For the developer, making affordable content generally means spending less time on each project as a measure of controlling costs most efficiently. Paying attention to past sales as an indicator of relative success would be a logical way to assess whether the level of effort toward accuracy was acceptable.

I have come to understand the way DC operates and while I understand the approach, I personally would do it differently. Not to take anything away from their overall methods and practices. DC is a solid 3rd party developer and their products are properly updated to keep pace with the MSFS adjustments, and come to perform very well in the sim.

I imagine that, in time, there will be more than enough F-4 Phantoms of every iteration possible, created for MSFS - some will likely cost a bit more than this one and hopefully that added cost will be reflected in the final product.

[DennyA]

Having spent a mere 90 minutes in the back seat flying in an actual fighter jet, I find it really amusing which aspects of simulation trigger strong reactions. Flight simulation is about feeling like you're doing the real thing. Compared to reality, no matter how pixel-perfect the model is, any sim is only going to be 5% of the real-life experience.

But I have to say, I'm super-excited to be at the stage where things like Dean's planes are so freaking awesome overall that we can rathole on things like radome curvature and DC-3 landing gear linkages. Because that means so much is right that those of us with huge libraries of aviation books and magazines have to look at really small details to find out what diverges from 100% accuracy and flex our knowledge on forums.

Because I was around in the days when this was the coolest, most badass Phantom experience you could get on a personal computer. RIP, General Yeager.

[YoYo]

I checked this after Yo-Yo kept repeat-posting the same complaints on my Facebook page - the F-4E nose, when compared in autho-graphic mode in the modeling software against an accurate orthographic drawing, is within a whisker of perfect. The F-4J nose was indeed too rounded and has been sharpened since. However, as others here rightly point out, these products do not seek that level of accuracy as the target market simply either would not care or would not notice the difference. I build such products so that people can have multiple variants of Phantom for the price of one - this requires certain sacrifices in detail in order to keep the price down. I leave millimetre-perfect detail to other developers, who often never finish their projects due to trying to include too much.

I no longer engage in debates with simmers about accuracy when it comes to such tiny features. Often, such details come later in updates and improvements ( as mentioned above ) but I won't be chasing rainbows trying to include every single Phantom-variant-specific feature just to satisfy 1% of the audience. I think the success of my products as they are speaks for itself far more than anything I could say here, and I already know that increasing "accuracy" for accuracy's sake doesn't enhance sales at all, no matter what the 1% think.

Of course I understand. Not everyone pays attention to details. I am also a modeler and certainly a purist in some ways. However, I think it's always worth pointing out to the creator if something's not right. Suppose someone were to paint a beautiful Mona Lisa, but if he gives her brown hair instead of black, should we not say so? Even if it's 1 or 10% of people who see it ? It's not a criticism, it's just a hint, that's all. Whether someone will do something about it and with such information, I don't know, it all depends on the willingness and the target group, as you wrote yourself. Maybe I'm just not in the target group. The rest will definitely be happy with it, I wish it, but when I see this Phantom's beak it just hurts my eyes. Here is another model to compare (by Omegavision) and I think that the differences on the nose angles and sections are quite visible (the whole shape in the fron part). The Phantom is an iconic machine for me, and I'd love to fly it in MSFS, but it reminds me a bit of those "Bf-109s" from Battle of Britain movie, which were a Spanish modification (Buchon). Probably for many people it's still a Bf-109. Btw. Do not be angry. I will not write more about it, regards .

[Javis]

Dave? Dave's not here! (Cheech and Chong)

Yeah, he got up in smoke ! (that's a loooong time ago ! ;-)

[Bushpounder]

Dave? Dave's not here! (Cheech and Chong) : Bet he meant Dean!

I did!! LOL! I meant Dean! I used to fly with a guy named Dave Crawford. I see one, I write the other!

Don

[jmig]

Well, I am NOT one of the 1%. I also have almost 1500 hours in the C and D models. The only time I ever paid attention to the nose was when walking up to the jet.

I looked at the picture at the start of this thread and wondered what was wrong? Then I followed the link. Sorry Dean! That nose isn't on any Phantom I have ever seen. It isn't a "little" off. It is way off. Granted you may not gain more customers from correcting it, but I would think that pride alone would motivate you. You have made the F-15 and F-16 into decent MSFS models. Surely you can make the iconic Phantom look like a Phantom.

[merida72]

Sorry Mr. Dave to read what you write. If this is your approach to a product then why not put a washing machine instead of an engine? So there is 99% of customers who would buy it anyway (I go to extremes of course)... it is true that not all systems in MSFS can be implemented, as well as the flight model etc. etc., limitations at the moment of the SH, but at least the meshes can be fixed, and this in my opinion, would benefit your company. Either way, I absolutely respect your opinion.

[Spook48]

I wonder , if 99% of the audience don't care how the outside looks like , why are there so many repaints then ?
If the possibilities are there to make a model look like the real thing , Why shouldn't you ?

[DC1973]

As mentioned folks, I no longer enter debates into such things, and the reasoning for that is clear by the exchange here. The images grabbed from 3D models on Turbosquid are presented in an orthographic 3D fashion, which is mostly used in the design phase and is not true 3D ( best used for side, overhead, front and back when building models ) so they're not representative of any model's true shape. Also, some of the "evidence" used compares noses of entirely different variants with each other, hardly a great example of what they "should" be. As I already posted an image of my F-4E against a true orthographic image F-4E to show how closely the nose is shaped to the real thing, there is no further debate needed there. In addition, neither the C nor D models are featured in the package and my own screenshots featured here, while zoomed as best I can, tend to warp the nose of an aircraft slightly at most angles. I have two former F4 Phantom crews helping with the models - neither has suggested they're inaccurate in any way. That doesn't mean they aren't out - or that they can't be tweaked in the future, but I already mentioned such things. Likewise, the disingenuous comments about putting a "washing machine" instead show why I no longer bother much with social media debate about these sorts of things, people deliberately take any comment out of context in order to form an entirely irrelevant opinion. Likewise, liveries are not model shapes.As noted, my products improve over time, again already mentioned. Everything I've ever launched for flight sim kicks off with a product to please the masses, not the perfectionists in any sense at all. Refinements then follow in updates that increase detail and accuracy in ever greater measure. It's a business model that has been so successful that I have been able to effectively retire at just 50 years old ( I still work of course, as I love the work, but I no longer need to ). Internet debates tend to become endless, hence why I have gradually removed myself from most forums as there is little business requirement for it any more - the marketplace itself shows me what the audience wants, and 90% + certainly are more than happy with my products. That's how successful businesses run - you "listen" to the silent majority, not the vocal minority.

[Priller]

I've been waiting for a Phantom to be available for the new sim, but I'm afraid I have to agree with YoYo and Jmig.

In all this time, the only E model phantom with a decent nose that I've seen was the Cloud9 model in FS2004.

Priller

[keithb77]

Well it's a day 1 purchase for me, irrespective of a nose profile that might be slightly questionable
I'm happy flying for instance the Swissmilsim Venom despite that having a completely incorrect Pinocchio nose for the RAF/RNZAF repaints I've uploaded to F.to and have been downloaded by many people.

When I first started doing repaints it was just wings (visible from the cockpit) and cockpit interior, but the bug bit

[heywooood]

It’s hard to argue with Dean here. While I have a different point of view on the shape of things,
the overall product is always good.
I argued at length with DC on the Stearman and probably crossed the line of decorum a couple years f times. I expressed my opinion on both the shape and the flying qualities of the airplane to Dean and to ‘Codename Jack’ and you know what they did? They reached out to me in PM and offered to hear me out at length - possibly implementing some of the suggestions I put forward. Very gracious in light of the earlier comments I had made publicly.
I’m not saying that would happen again or often, but it did on that product that time - and they didn’t have to do that.
I know how some of you feel about this jet - same as I feel about the Stearman Kaydet.
These forums are one of the few places we aviation enthusiasts can go where we can express this enthusiasm and be properly heard - where our accumulated knowledge is appreciated, mostly.
The point is, DC Designs has done good work and listened to the community - as their previous works can attest.

[Priller]

Personally, I hardly ever criticize devs for their work, and I NEVER criticize freeware devs. But in my humble opinion, whenever money is asked for a product, then constructive criticism is justified.

I don't think the errors in the shape of the nose of that J model (and therefor the FGR.Mk.II) are that difficult to rectify, but the nose of that E model is just wrong. The fact that Dean doesn't even want to discuss it with the SOH community, is quite frankly disheartening.

I own every item in the MSFS catalogue of DC Designs and SC Designs, fly them regularly and love them, but I'm just not spending my hard earned cash on a Phantom that doesn't look like one. My bad luck? My favourite model is the E/F model...

Priller