https://www.justflight.com/product/dc-designs-f4e-f4j-fgr2-phantom

$38 usd

 

 

 

Interesting regarding the texturing, which AvAngel is an expert on, but I wasn't too keen on the rest of the review.

VR Flight Sim Guy nearly always comes across a bit over enthusiastic, but he showed more external shots (including the vapours trails, wing condensation etc.) and paid more attention to the sounds, which are a big part of the immersion on this jet.

I will get it direct as I think it looks better with the weapons loaded.  I wonder if the Spey engines sound much different on the RAF model?

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by bobcat999

Won't buy it, looks bad.  Exterior texturing is especially bad for $38.  I stopped buying DC/SC airplanes after the abysmal F-16.   I sent them a laundry list of things that needed to be fixed on the F-16.  I have 6 years as a maintenance tech on a F-16 in the USAF so, I know a lot about the jet, I have even flown it twice.  But all that happened when I sent them an e-mail was 3 or 4 major issues got fixed, textures were sharpened a bit, that's all To this day, none of the start sequence is correct, none of the buttons that could actually do something with simple programming do what they are supposed to.  They made all of the functions based on OSBs around the MFD, which is lazy.  There was no reason they could not make an SMS page based on the load out that you put into the weight and balance page. There is no reason they couldn't have used a more realistic TAC map. They could have made the HARMS use the synthetic vision, something.  But they didn't custom program anything at all.  The HUD dosen't look anything like the real F-16, The OSB options don't do anything they should.  The only answers I got were about Limitations, simple design, stock F/A-18 blah, blah, blah, we are getting good reviews so were not going to do all these unnecesary "fixes".  The frst e-mail response seemed positive, but after 2 years none of the simple things that could make the plane great have been implemented.   Another example: The exterior lighting is really wonky and awful looking.  How hard is that to fix?  Not hard, but they still have never fixed it.

DC Designs is known for their rather simple systems and that's on purpose, so I do understand that.
As I wrote before, he needs to step up the quality of the model and textures.
If an aircraft is relatively low on systems, other things get important and that will be model and texturing.
Carenado is a good example of relatively simple but descent systems but good models and texturing.
I wrote three (now four) sentences about modelling and texturing so there's my reason why I will not buy any DC Designs aircraft. 🙂
 

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by bvdboomen

On 7/25/2023 at 7:06 PM, aniiran said:

Won't buy it, looks bad.  Exterior texturing is especially bad for $38.  I stopped buying DC/SC airplanes after the abysmal F-16.   I sent them a laundry list of things that needed to be fixed on the F-16.  I have 6 years as a maintenance tech on a F-16 in the USAF so, I know a lot about the jet, I have even flown it twice.  But all that happened when I sent them an e-mail was 3 or 4 major issues got fixed, textures were sharpened a bit, that's all To this day, none of the start sequence is correct, none of the buttons that could actually do something with simple programming do what they are supposed to.  They made all of the functions based on OSBs around the MFD, which is lazy.  There was no reason they could not make an SMS page based on the load out that you put into the weight and balance page. There is no reason they couldn't have used a more realistic TAC map. They could have made the HARMS use the synthetic vision, something.  But they didn't custom program anything at all.  The HUD dosen't look anything like the real F-16, The OSB options don't do anything they should.  The only answers I got were about Limitations, simple design, stock F/A-18 blah, blah, blah, we are getting good reviews so were not going to do all these unnecesary "fixes".  The frst e-mail response seemed positive, but after 2 years none of the simple things that could make the plane great have been implemented.   Another example: The exterior lighting is really wonky and awful looking.  How hard is that to fix?  Not hard, but they still have never fixed it.

I agree with all of this concerning the original release of the F-16 and the first few patches but the updates since have been great with a special mention to the version before this latest version.  You are totally correct about the avionics and the finer details that have been omitted but this is a 'lite' aircraft and actually good for that standard.  The flight model and feel is great and the cockpit looks very nice in VR.  It's basic but seems to work well.  What tends to happen is if a developer's initial effort misses the mark people don't give the later updates a chance (frozen evaluation).  It's almost like each patch needs a review of it's own.  Some products we do this with where as others we don't.  By the very nature of Flight Simulator you can't fully model a fighter in the detail we all would like so I see the developer's point here. All it's systems concerning HUD, switches, functionality (Falcon 4.0) take a back seat because it can't all come together in a decent combat environment.  Options like DCS is where you'll find that.  In FS looks, feel, and speed is all we can ask for.  That's not to say don't do exceptionally well in those areas as that has to overcompensate for the lack of other things.   

That being said the latest version of the F-16 feels underpowered along with the new roll rate that feels off (those that don't have the previous version are stuck).  I reverted back to the 'engine.cfg' and 'aircraft.cfg' files of the previous version as the F-16 has a high thrust to weight ratio and can get it's energy back fairly quickly after a turn compared to the F/A-18.  The latest version can no longer do this.  The snap roll DC originally implemented was balanced well, not anymore (I hate when developers keep tweaking and end up ruining what was fine originally).  My observations is based on real world pilots who have podcasts like 'The Fight Pilot Podcast' and 'C.W. Lemoine', I've never flown a real F-16.  Based on the aforementioned real pilot interviews of flight in the F-16 the DC version is satisfying.  I originally never saw the need of Fighters in FS as it didn't make since without the combat world (DCS) but flying over the real world training areas of Nevada with bases like Area 51, Indian Springs, Tonopah, Fallon, and carrier landings off the Florida Keys changed my mind.  Flying Warbirds out of Fantasy of Flight in Central Florida is satisfying as well (in VR of course)...🍺

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by Dillon

21 hours ago, Dillon said:

What tends to happen is if a developer's initial effort misses the mark people don't give the later updates a chance (frozen evaluation).  It's almost like each patch needs a review of it's own.

This is also being fed by the lack of updated pictures on the product pages.

On 7/25/2023 at 4:31 PM, bobcat999 said:

Interesting regarding the texturing, which AvAngel is an expert on, but I wasn't too keen on the rest of the review.

Is AvAngel an expert on textures through her occupation, or was your observation tongue in cheek?😀

 

19 minutes ago, Treetops45 said:

Is AvAngel an expert on textures through her occupation, or was your observation tongue in cheek?😀

No, she is a texture artist.  If you listen to the end part of the review about the textures you will hear what she has to say, and I agree with it. 

Somehow the texturing on the F-4 doesn't look as good as it could.  It doesn't look lifelike.  She explains why.

I just think she needs to cover the reviews with a bit more latitude sometimes. 
If you compare it to the VR flight sim guy review, where he covers the more 'exciting' stuff like the excellent sounds and external effects etc. you will see why I say that.

Edited July 28, 20232 yr by bobcat999

What happens with the long expected update for the Concorde from this Developer ??

cheers 😉

2 hours ago, pmplayer said:

What happens with the long expected update for the Concorde from this Developer ??

cheers 😉

I think SC/DC are two brothers.  Two individuals.  To the best of my knowledge, they ARE the development team.  If that's true, I'm sure they're busier than a one-legged man in a kicking contest with updates and development.

16 minutes ago, Mace said:

I think SC/DC are two brothers.  Two individuals.  To the best of my knowledge, they ARE the development team.  If that's true, I'm sure they're busier than a one-legged man in a kicking contest with updates and development.

That's shure the true but why they do not first updates for already release Projekts instead of putting forward new Projekts..??

cheers 😉

12 minutes ago, pmplayer said:

That's shure the true but why they do not first updates for already release Projekts instead of putting forward new Projekts..??

cheers 😉

I suppose that they have a detestable habit. They eat three times a day.

2 hours ago, pmplayer said:

That's shure the true but why they do not first updates for already release Projekts instead of putting forward new Projekts..??

cheers 😉

As Dominique suggested above, they need to generate new income once in a while, and constantly just working on updates to their back catalogue won't achieve that.
They said they were looking to get a texture artist in (maybe they should talk to AvAngel ) and gradually improve the older releases technically, when they can. 
We will see if they stick to their word, and that may determine how many people will continue to buy their products.

I Don't have a problem with them though, as they are honest about the price point / capability of their aircraft.  A lot of people enjoy them. 
I bought their Tomcat early on just to have a blast and it is alright, and it has had a few updates.  I don't think you can ever expect perfect aircraft or deep systems from them.

Edited July 28, 20232 yr by bobcat999

I feel the same way, I like DC/SC Designs.  If want more I can go to DCS or P3D for Concorde.  Or for a super-deep-dive maybe Viper sim,